applied materials, epstein

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte SODD 14532513 - (D) HEANEY 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY WHITELEY, JESSICA

Whether the standard deviation of height was known to be a result-effective variable is a question of fact. In re Applied Materials, 692 F.3d 1289, 1295—96 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Questions of fact are resolved in patent examination by the preponderance of the evidence of record. E.g., In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Epstein, In re, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 716.07 , 2128 , 2133.03(b) , 2152.02(d)

1792 Ex Parte Srsen et al 13207065 - (D) NAGUMO 103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA LEFF, STEVEN N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte SanGiovanni et al 13829668 - (D) KHAN 102/103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP BAIG, SAHAR A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Heeren 14496446 - (D) SQUIRE 102/103 ALCON PINKNEY, DA WAYNE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Gudat 11139788 - (D) ASTORINO 103 CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P. NGUYEN, MAI T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Anderson et al 13794946 - (D) OSINSKI 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke) VAZQUEZ, ANA M

3747 Ex Parte HAYAMI 12766030 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(2)/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC HAMAOUI, DAVID E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte MYERS et al 13714897 - (D) DENNETT 103 Armstrong Flooring, Inc. VAN SELL, NATHAN L

1793 Ex Parte Rapp et al 11577281 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP MCCLAIN-COLEMAN, TYNESHA L.

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Urdang 13916420 - (D) KRIVAK 103 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC JEON, JAE UK

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2482 Ex Parte Shi et al 11527023 - (D) PYONIN 102/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Pestoni et al 12545578 - (D) HUGHES 101/103 Wolfe-SBMC WU, RUTAO

epstein

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Dwivedi 12256101 - (D) KRATZ Concurring NAGUMO 103 COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C. BADR, HAMID R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte Lou et al 13637452 - (D) PYONIN 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT WASHINGTON, JAMARES

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Adragna et al 12820549 - (D) WILSON 103 Slater Matsil, LLP - ST-EP TSEHAYE, ZEKRE A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Petito et al 10664486 - (D) MEYERS double patenting/103 BASCH & NICKERSON LLP EVANS, KIMBERLY L

3637 Ex Parte Jarvis 12433109 - (D) HOELTER 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD TEFERA, HIWOT E

3643 Ex Parte SMIT et al 12545189 - (D) REIMERS 103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA PARSLEY, DAVID J

3662 Ex Parte Yu et al 12986632 - (D) MOORE 102/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL HAN, CHARLES J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Gallois-Bernos et al 13495049 - (D) LEBOVITZ double patenting/103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON RICCI, CRAIG D

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Angelides et al 13574807 - (D) KRATZ 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY NASSIRI MOTLAGH, ANITA

1734 Ex Parte Angelides et al 13698377 - (D) KRATZ 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY NASSIRI MOTLAGH, ANITA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2145 Ex Parte Mahr et al 12637230 - (D) NAPPI 103 SAP SE STITT, ERIK V

2145 Ex Parte McCurdy et al 12237252 - (D) PINKERTON 103 DLA PIPER LLP (US) NGUYEN, TUAN S

2177 Ex Parte Abou-Hallawa et al 12025709 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 LEE & HAYES, PLLC HUYNH, THU V

Further, Appellants argue the Examiner’s collection of screenshots is “insufficient as a matter of law to establish that [the software it is regarding] was known or used by others in this country prior to’ ‘the relevant date of the application.’” App. Br. 5—6 (quoting Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Ill F. Supp. 2d 964, 975 (E.D. Mich. 2003)).

We disagree with Appellants. Unlike Hilgraeve which applied the Federal Rules of Evidence in evaluating whether prior art satisfied the “clear and convincing evidence” standard for invalidity in district-court litigation, an Examiner’s rejection is subject to a “preponderance of the evidence” standard and the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply. In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As noted above, the Examiner found the Microsoft Word 2002 product included features that teach or suggest certain claim limitations, and the Examiner inferred based on the nature of the features and the product’s copyright date that the features are part of the prior art. See Ans. 14; see also Epstein, 32 F.3d at 1567.3

3In his concurring opinion in Epstein, Judge Plager reasoned that it is not the PTO’s responsibility to “know all there is to know about everything” and “[i]t is not unreasonable to expect the applicant to know more about the prior work in the relevant art than the PTO examiner.” Epstein, 32 F.3d at 1570 (Plager, J. and Cowen, Sr.J., concurring). That reasoning seems particularly apt here, as the real party in interest, Microsoft Corporation (App. Br. 3), is also the source of the prior art Microsoft Word 2002 product. Appellants are reminded that “[ejach individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 (2012).

Epstein, In re, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 716.07 , 2128 , 2133.03(b) , 2152.02(d)

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte BRIGHT et al 13489010 - (D) PINKERTON 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY AZONGHA, SARDIS F

2643 Ex Parte Andrews et al 13358403 - (D) STRAUSS 103 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP P TAYLOR, NATHAN SCOTT

2689 Ex Parte Protopapas 14045024 - (D) SHAW 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL CASILLASHERNANDEZ, OMAR

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Diehl et al 12748332 - (D) OSINSKI 103 Matheson Keys Daffer & Kordzik PLLC FLUHART, STACEY A

3659 Ex Parte McCune et al 13486810 - (D) GREENHUT 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY KNIGHT, DEREK DOUGLAS

3694 Ex Parte Samandar et al 13164555 - (D) LORIN 101/103 FENWICK & WEST LLP GREGG, MARY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Van Dijk 13056161 - (D) OSINSKI 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY KING, BRIAN M

3747 Ex Parte Azevedo et al 13370645 - (D) CAPP 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
MCMAHON, MARGUERITE J

3753 Ex Parte Thomas 13172078 - (D) GUIJT 102 Reinhart (Schneider only) ARUNDALE, ROBERT K

epstein, IPXL, rishoi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Ho et al 09960244 - (D) SCHEINER 102 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. LANKFORD JR, LEON B

1651 Ex Parte Ho et al 11054824 - (D) SCHEINER 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. LANKFORD JR, LEON B

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Smith 11216957 - (D) GARRIS 103 ECOLAB USA INC. CHAN, HENG M

1727 Ex Parte Kim et al 11746900 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 GROSSMAN, TUCKER, PERREAULT & PFLEGER, PLLC HARRIS, GARY D

1734 Ex Parte Budinski 12015929 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 BrooksGroup FORREST, MICHAEL

1747 Ex Parte Johns et al 11465694 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 Georgia-Pacific LLC NGUYEN, THUKHANH T

Anticipation is a factual inquiry that we resolve by the preponderance of the evidence of record. E.g., In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Epstein, In re, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 716.07, 2128, 2133.03(b)

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Afrashteh et al 11407035 - (D) ZECHER 101/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101/103 SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION SHEDRICK, CHARLES TERRELL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Tao et al 11641334 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES, LLC HOANG, ANN THI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte D’ANDREA et al 10447245 - (D) KIM 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Chalekian 11592691 - (D) FREDMAN 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EASTWOOD, DAVID C

3731 Ex Parte Chalekian 11592365 - (D) FREDMAN 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EASTWOOD, DAVID C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Anderson et al 12028988 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Haney et al 11702349 - (D) MARTIN 112(2)/103 103 J. RAY MCDERMOTT, S.A. OLSON, LARS A

3643 Ex Parte Stratton 11680543 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 102/103 ITALIA IP VALENTI, ANDREA M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Thomas et al 10479770 - (D) ADAMS 102 Yankwich & Associates BASKAR, PADMAVATHI

1651 Ex Parte Ho et al 10251685 - (D) SCHEINER 102 obviousness-type double patenting STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. LANKFORD JR, LEON B

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte McGlynn et al 11500053 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 Emcore Corporation Casey Toohey BERNIER, LINDSEY A

1763 Ex Parte Sodergard et al 11936170 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON MESH, GENNADIY

1772 Ex Parte Butler et al 11326633 - (D) TIMM 112(1)/103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC DANG, THUAN D

The arguments give rise to an issue of claim interpretation. Namely, to which one of the statutory classes of invention are the claims directed?  The claims are “system” claims, but in order to be patentable the subject matter of a claim must fit into one and only one of the statutory claims of invention enunciated in 35 U.S.C. § 101, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims cannot be directed to combinations of those classes of invention. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims to a combination of statutory claims of invention are not permitted and are indefinite).

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(p)

Moreover, the recitation of a material intended to be worked upon by a claimed apparatus does not differentiate the claimed apparatus structure from the structure of a prior art apparatus. In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 345 (CCPA 1952).

1786 Ex Parte Boerner et al 10579413 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS YANG, JAY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Bodin et al 10733937 - (D) CALDWELL 103 IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC FABER, DAVID

2181 Ex Parte Reynolds et al 11732280 - (D) WEINBERG 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY VIDWAN, JASJIT S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2659 Ex Parte Bodin et al 11266559 - (D) JEFFERY 101/102 The Brevetto Law Group, PLLC GUERRA-ERAZO, EDGAR X

2663 Ex Parte Kretz 11763469 - (D) GONSALVES 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP MISLEH, JUSTIN P

2663 Ex Parte Henninger et al 11295090 - (D) DANG 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP TREHAN, AKSHAY

2668 Ex Parte LI et al 10709833 - (D) WARD 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC. WOLDEMARIAM, AKLILU K

2675 Ex Parte Ruhe et al 10624305 - (D) WARD 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, ALLEN H

2681 Ex Parte Batra et al 11423414 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 Zilka-Kotab, PC TANG, SON M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Ping et al 10046497 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 MOSAID TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED MAI, ANH D

2875 Ex Parte OWEN et al 11553193 - (D) EVANS 102/103 Dickinson Wright PLLC CARTER, WILLIAM JOSEPH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Weik 11228395 - (D) BROWNE 112(2)/103 Michael J. Foycik, Jr. JOHNSON, BLAIR M

3689 Ex Parte Melchior et al 09981626 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 Morris & Kamlay LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Barak et al 11303790 - (D) KAMHOLZ 102/103 Gesmer Updegrove LLP MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Triantafyllou Oste et al 10416231 - (R) COLAIANNI DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP BEKKER, KELLY JO

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2634 Ex Parte Carlson 09882100 - (D) DILLON STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. BOCURE, TESFALDET

skvorecz, techradium, merck2, lamberti, epstein

custom search

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Iimuro 11390471 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Tokyo Electron U.S. Holdings, Inc. KACKAR, RAM N

1723 Ex Parte Ransquin et al 10510183 - (D) METZ 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC MOWLA, GOLAM

1773 Ex Parte Betancourt et al 10324386 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 BECKMAN COULTER, INC. LUDLOW, JAN M

See eg In re SKVORECZ 580 F.3d 1262, 1268-1269 (2009) (Lacking explicit antecedent basis does not render a claim indefinite if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim when viewed in the context of the Specification.) 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Lee 11284591 - (D) ZECHER 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Ben Gill-Ho Lee PENG, HUAWEN A

2168 Ex Parte Javalkar 11669655 - (D) CALDWELL 103 Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC GORTAYO, DANGELINO N

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Waight et al 09811702 - (D) DANG 103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC SHANG, ANNAN Q

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Clusserath 11050484 - (D) McCARTHY 103 NILS H. LJUNGMAN & ASSOCIATES PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

3732 Ex Parte Lui et al 10593701 - (D) BAHR 103 Law Offices of Albert Wai-Kit Chan MAI, HAO D

3745 Ex Parte Alexander et al 11150864 - (D) SPAHN 103 MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC KERSHTEYN, IGOR

3761 Ex Parte Khan et al 10812380 - (D) McCARTHY 103 Nazir A Khan MD DEAK, LESLIE R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Ewert et al 10800471 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 103 CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY MCAVOY, ELLEN M

1782 Ex Parte Blythe et al 11528830 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 103 PACTIV CORPORATION c/o NIXON PEABODY LLP SMITH, CHAIM A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Conti et al 10174258 - (D) POTHIER 103 103 VEDDER PRICE P.C. FABER, DAVID

Notably, Wikipedia disclaims the validity of the website’s content and is unreliable. See Techradium, Inc. v. Blackboard Connect, Inc., 2009 WL 1152985, *4 n.5 (E.D. Tex. 2009).

2191 Ex Parte Asare et al 10725728 - (D) CALDWELL 103 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP BROPHY, MATTHEW J

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Shintani et al 10811036 - (D) DROESCH 102 102/103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC LONSBERRY, HUNTER B

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Hafezi et al 11373635 - (D) SMITH 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX VAN, LUAN V

This argument is also unavailing because the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling in an obviousness determination, since all disclosures of the prior art must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)).

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

Lamberti, In re, 545 F.2d 747, 192 USPQ 278 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.01

1728 Ex Parte Fukunaga et al 11206851 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 TAIYO CORPORATION MERSHON, JAYNE L

1765 Ex Parte Gevaert et al 11051992 - (D) KATZ 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. SERGENT, RABON A

1774 Ex Parte Ogrizek et al 11990537 - (D) BEST 102 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION COOLEY, CHARLES E

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Clauson 10444630 - (D) MacDONALD 102 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

Non-prior art publications can be used as evidence of sale before the critical date. Cf. In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Abstracts which were not themselves prior art publications were properly relied as providing evidence that the software products referenced therein were “first installed” or “released” more than one year prior to applicant’s filing date.)

Epstein, In re, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . 716.07, 2128, 2133.03(b)

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Zimmerman et al 09967867 - (D) DANG 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SHEPARD, JUSTIN E

2442 Ex Parte Hesmer et al 10213858 - (D) BLANKENSHIP 102 MARCIA L. DOUBET LAW FIRM NGUYEN, MINH CHAU

2469 Ex Parte Grosbach et al 10675677 - (D) KRIVAK 102/103 IBM CORPORATION MOORE, IAN N

2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Dinu et al 11210973 - (D) DANG 102/103 MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOBSON, DANIEL G

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Finke et al 11175018 - (D) WEINBERG 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. GILMAN, ALEXANDER

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Yetukuri et al 11538942 - (D) ASTORINO 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION MCPARTLIN, SARAH BURNHAM

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Anderl et al 11240443 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) BLATT, ERIC D

3761 Ex Parte Chakravarty et al 10952014 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP CHAPMAN, GINGER T

antonie, kyocera, epstein, eli lilly

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Maschmeyer et al 10/490,028 GREEN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER OH, TAYLOR V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Loose et al 09/821,195 O’NEILL 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER
MOSSER, ROBERT E

For an obviousness rejection to be maintained, the combination of elements selected from each reference in combination must represent the claimed invention as a whole. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 619 (CCPA 1977) (“Just as we look to a chemical and its properties when we examine the obviousness of a composition of matter claim, it is this invention as a whole, and not some part of it, which must be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.”) (emphasis original).

Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .2141.02, 2144.05

3753 Ex Parte Hoshi et al 09/893,522 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C

3766 Ex Parte Harris et al 10/958,210 O’NEILL 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. EXAMINER BERTRAM, ERIC D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kitsukawa 09/802,635 KOHUT 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER LONSBERRY, HUNTER B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Koerner et al 10/777,257 LEBOVITZ 112(1)/102(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, NIHIR B

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/165,386 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW EXAMINER GOFMAN, ALEX N

2179 Ex Parte Lauterbach et al 10/676,364 COURTENAY 102(b) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

Cf. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. International Trade Com'n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1351 (Fed Cir. 2008) (“The record evidence suggests that the GSM standard is not a single reference. The different specifications that comprise the GSM standard were authored by different subsets of authors at different times. Indeed, the GSM standard includes hundreds of individual specifications drafted by approximately ten different subgroups, each with its own title and separate page numbering. Each specification, though part of the greater GSM standard, stands as a separate document in its own right. Even Qualcomm's witness-admittedly one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about the operation of GSM-testified that she had not read the entire standard and did not know of any person who had read the entire standard. Open Session Tr. 1712, Mar. 15, 2006. Under these circumstances, the GSM standard is actually several prior art references with separate dates of creation, rather than a single prior art reference.”).

...

The Examiner also cites In re Epstein, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994). (See Ans. 11). In Epstein, our reviewing court determined that the Board did not err in determining that various third-party software products were “in public use or on sale” more than one year before Applicant’s filing date based upon abstracts which indicated when the products were “first installed” or “released” more than one year prior to Applicant’s filing date.

...

Under this approach to establishing anticipation, the multiple references are not separate anticipatory references; rather, it is the single device that anticipates a claim if the multiple references (or other evidence) establish that the single device had all the claimed features and was in public use or was offered for sale “more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.” (Id.).

Epstein, In re, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . 716.07, 2128, 2133.03(b)
2185 Ex Parte Farrell 11/218,994 HOMERE 103(a) FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) EXAMINER DINH, NGOC V

2187 Ex Parte Cochran et al 10/798,962 HUGHES 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BRADLEY, MATTHEW A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Fang 09/962,861 NAPPI 102(e) KACVINSKY DAISAK PLLC C/O CPA Global EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M

2451 Ex Parte He 10/222,059 NAPPI 103(a) Anderson Gorecki & Manaras, LLP Attn: John C. Gorecki EXAMINER MADAMBA, GLENFORD J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Cheung et al 12/000,644 CALVE 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Bergersen 10/449,312 McCARTHY 102(b)/non-statutory double patenting PATENTS+TMS, P.C. EXAMINER LEWIS, RALPH A

From a general perspective, the Examiner’s duty in rejecting a claim for obviousness-type double patenting is the same as a Court’s duty when holding a claim invalid on the same ground:

Generally, an obviousness-type double patenting analysis entails two steps. First, as a matter of law, a court construes the claim in the earlier patent and the claim in the later patent and determines the differences. Second, the court determines whether the differences in subject matter between the two claims render the claims patentably distinct. A later claim that is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim in a commonly owned patent is invalid for obvious-type double patenting. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal citations and footnote omitted).

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . .804, 2144.08, 2165, 2165.01

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2192 Ex Parte Asare et al 10/726,192 BARRY 102(b)/101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER DAO, THUY CHAN