andersen2, etter, aspex

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2197 Ex Parte Maybee et al 12136053 - (D) DIXON 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION BODDEN, EVRAL E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Hu et al 14688387 - (D) CASHION 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/MICRON WARD, ERIC A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Curtiss et al 13775507 - (D) CHUNG 103 103 Baker Botts L.L.P./Facebook Inc. CHEUNG, HUBERT G

2165 Ex Parte Neff et al 14109856 - (D) DIXON 103 103 Quarles & Brady LLP (Pearson Edu) SYED, FARHAN M

2175 Ex Parte Nicholson et al 13039365 - (D) CHUNG 103 103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC DISTEFANO, GREGORY A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Snyder et al 13725137 - (D) KNIGHT 102 102/103 O'Shea Getz P.C. BURKE, THOMAS P

In this regard, it should be kept in mind that although patent drawings are not meant to be blueprints (see In re Andersen, 743 F.2d 1578, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("[p]atent drawings are not working drawings.") (Citation omitted), overruled on other grounds, In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858-59 (Fed. Cir. 1985)), when a specification does not sufficiently address the claim language at issue, drawings may be used to aid in construction (see, e.g., Aspex Eyewear. Inc. v. Marchan Eyewear. Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2258 , 2279 , 2286 , 2642 , 2686.04

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Swanson et al 14079215 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. LOVE, TREVOR M

1644 Ex Parte IMHOF et al 13622727 - (D) SCHNEIDER 112(1)/103 Parker Highlander PLLC HADDAD, MAHER M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte YIN et al 13681768 - (D) HANLON 103 41.50 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP BENNETT, CHARLEE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2131 Ex Parte ARNDT et al 13670009 - (D) BUSCH 103 41.50 103 Russell Ng PLLC (IBM AUS) VILLANUEVA, LEANDRO R

2161 Ex Parte Peiris et al 14925800 - (D) NAPPI 102 Baker Botts L.L.P./Facebook Inc. NGUYEN, CAM LINH T

2164 Ex Parte Musgrove et al 11343084 - (D) SHAW 103 Nixon Peabody LLP STEVENS, ROBERT

2182 Ex Parte Foo 14177980 - (D) BEAMER 103 Imagination Technologies c/o Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP PAN, DANIEL H

2197 Ex Parte Falk et al 13739125 - (D) FRAHM 112(2)/103 Kenneth F. Kozik RUTTEN, JAMES D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Rivera et al 14054204 - (D) DELMENDO 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH SUN, PINPING

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte KITCHENSIDE et al 13932800 - (D) CALVE 101/103 WestemGeco L.L.C. ARMSTRONG, JONATHAN D

3652 Ex Parte Jones et al 13877900 - (D) ASTORINO 112(2)/102/103 Maine Cernota & Rardin KEENAN, JAMES W

3662 Ex Parte Rindt et al 14604119 - (D) WOOD 101 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP ISMAIL, MAHMOUD S

3683 Ex Parte RICHTER 13961614 - (D) FETTING 101 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle YOUNG, ASHLEY YA-SHEH

3683 Ex Parte Satyavolu et al 12533447 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 LATHROP GAGE LLP PEACHER, LORENA R

3689 Ex Parte GETTINGS et al 14263668 - (D) FETTING 103 101 Aurora Consulting LLC WEISENFELD, ARYAN E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Amaitis 14058450 - (D) FETTING 101/OTDP CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. COBURN, CORBETT B

3732 Ex Parte Andersen 11865867 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1) 103 Workman Nydegger MORAN, EDWARD JOHN

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex parte HEAR WEAR TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Ex Parte 7139404 et al 14338195 90013552 - (D) COCKS 103 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP Third Party Requester: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CRAVER,CHARLES original ENSEY, BRIAN

ratti, mouttet, etter

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Nakazawa 11587022 - (D) GRIMES 103 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP FAY, ZOHREH A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Fröjdh et al 13502242 - (D) McCARTNEY 102 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC DANG, HUNG Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Johnson et al 13111500 - (D) CRAIG 102/103 YEE & ASSOCIATES P.C. BOUSONO, ORLANDO

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3649 Ex Parte Lumley et al 12550383 - (D) MacDONALD 103 HP Inc, BROWN, SHEREE N

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Bhandarkar et al 11014149 - (D) STEPHENS 102 102/103 Salesforce.com/Haynes Beffel & Wolfeld LLP LE, HUNG D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Tevanian et al 11753128 - (D) WORTH 103 101 Law Office of J. Nicholas Gross, Prof. Corp. STERRETT, JONATHAN G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Marks et al 12275126 - (D) CAL VE 103 103 INSKEEP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP, INC RODJOM, KATHERINE MARIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte Stan et al 12123864 - (D) COLAIANNI 103/double patenting SolAero Technologies Corp. CHERN, CHRISTINA

1756 Ex Parte Ramm 12428699 - (D) SMITH 103 Pearne & Gordon LLP ABRAHAM, IBRAHIME A

1768 Ex Parte Zhou et al 11698518 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 HP Inc. FINK, BRIEANN R

1778 Ex Parte Murthy et al 12957240 - (D) ROSS 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PERRIN, CLARE M

Combinations of prior art that change the "basic principles under which the [prior art] was designed to operate" may weigh against a conclusion of obviousness. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959). However, "[i]t is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (further citations omitted).

Ratti, In re, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) 2143.01

Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2258 , 2279 , 2286 , 2642 , 2686.04

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11592786 - (D) DANG 103 Dilworth IP - SAP SCHALLHORN, TYLER J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Bishop et al 13276833 - (D) SMITH 102/103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, PLLC LEE, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2621 Ex Parte Lee et al 11848501 - (D) CRAIG 103 FARJ AMI & FARJAMI LLP MIDKIFF, AARON

2623 Ex Parte Zehner et al 12553120 - (D) BAIN 103 E INK CORPORATION MATHEWS, CRYSTAL

2658 Ex Parte Katpelly et al 12251835 - (D) DROESCH 103 Concert Technology Corporation COLUCCI, MICHAEL C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2886 Ex Parte Floyd et al 13047180 - (D) SAADAT 103 KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP NIXON, OMAR H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Huber et al 11618424 - (D) SMEGAL 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MA YER, LTD NGUYEN, CHUONG P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Davidson et al 12925400 - (D) WARNER 112(1) 112(1)/103 LADAS & PARRY LLP ARYANPOUR, MITRA

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 ZHEJIANG TRIMONE ELECTRIC SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. and FUJIAN HONGAN ELEC. CO., Third Party Requesters, v. LEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Patent Owner Ex Parte 7737809 et al 11/618,673 95001992 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 Carter, DeLuca, Farrell & Schmidt, LLP Leviton Manufacturing Company Incorporated (CDFS) Third Party Requester: MEI & MARK LLP TON, MY TRANG original VU, DAVID HUNG

tate access, KCJ, mccormick, patlex, etter, freeman, abbott labs2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Connell 12127099 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP AKHAVANNIK, HADI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Angell et al 11769409 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. BROWN, ALVIN L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Harris et al 10529227 - (D) TIMM 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC TURK, NEIL N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Rokui 11130171 - (D) POTHIER 103 KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. DECKER, CASSANDRA L

2493 Ex Parte Herbach et al 10699520 - (D) BOUCHER 103 Adobe / Finch & Maloney PLLC LE, CHAU D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Kerestic 12133476 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC ROSEN, ELIZABETH H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Yokota et al 11235108 - (D) ANDERSON 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP MAY, ROBERT J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Gatto et al 11616072 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. CHAMPAGNE, LUNA

The Federal Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that, as a general rule, when an indefinite article, such as “a,” is used with a term in an open-ended claim containing the transitional phrase “comprising,” the article is properly construed to mean “one or more.” See, e.g., Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“It is well settled that the term ‘a’ or ‘an’ ordinarily means ‘one or more.”’); KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

VACATED
2306 FRESENIUS USA, INC., AND FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendants-Cross Appellants. 2012-1334, -1335 5,247,434 07/688,174 DYK dissent NEWMAN declaratory judgment Fish & Richardson, P.C.; K&L Gates, LLP original KLARQUIST, SPARKMAN, CAMPBELL LEIGH & WHINSTON GORDON, PAUL P

Under the reissue statute, the PTO “had no power to revoke, cancel, or annul” a previously issued patent unless a reissue proceeding had been initiated by the patentee. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. C. Aultman & Co., 169 U.S. 606, 612 (1898); see also Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 601 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In 1980, Congress authorized ex parte reexamination to address this deficiency in the reissue statute. See Patent Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015 (1980) (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. §§ 301–307). Like reissuance, ex parte reexamination is a curative proceeding meant to correct or eliminate erroneously granted patents. See In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Congress subsequently enacted additional provisions authorizing the PTO to conduct inter partes reexaminations, and more recently, inter partes review. See Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (discussing inter partes reexamination and inter partes review); Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 6(a), 125 Stat. 284, 299–304 (2011) (to be codified at 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319).

Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 225 USPQ 243 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2211, 2611

Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2242, 2258, 2279, 2286, 2642, 2686.04

Freeman, In re, 30 F.3d 1459, 31 USPQ2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 706.03(w), 2250, 2666.01

andersen, etter, nievelt

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Nishimura et al 11398638 - (D) 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC WANG, EUGENIA

1782 Ex Parte Monk et al 11637591 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 JON M. DICKINSON, P.C. KASHNIKOW, ERIK

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Roth 11167452 - (D) JEFFERY 103 McKinney Law, PLLC GEBRESENBET, DINKU W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Miao et al 10952071 - (D) POTHIER 103 Intel Corporation Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC HAILU, KIBROM T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Lee et al 11810371 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED BURD, KEVIN MICHAEL

2686 Ex Parte Kim et al 10897015 - (D) MacDONALD 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP TRAN, THANG V

2689 Ex Parte Pieralli 11832780 - (D) McKONE 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 GE GPO- Transportation- The Small Patent Law Group SWARTHOUT, BRENT

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Brown et al 11712869 - (D) PRATS 101/112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Shirley L. Church, Esq. SMITH, RUTH S

3738 Ex Parte Chudik 11585041 - (D) GREEN 112(1)/112(2)/102 Law Offices of Gregory B. Beggs PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E

3766 Ex Parte Satin et al 11383381 - (D) GRIMES 102 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC BERTRAM, ERIC D

3767 Ex Parte Kyvik et al 11706634 - (D) GRIMES 103 ROGERS TOWERS, P.A. MEHTA, BHISMA

3767 Ex Parte Steube 11070314 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien GRAY, PHILLIP A

3769 Ex Parte Ferren et al 12005709 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE CRANDALL, LYNSEY P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2188 Ex Parte Chauvel et al 10631185 - (D) POTHIER 102 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED SAVLA, ARPAN P

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Klotzer et al 12065680 - (D) MILLS 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR

1634 Ex Parte Dapprich et al 11724043 - (D) WALSH 103 Meagher Emanuel Laks Goldberg & Bovino, LLP FORMAN, BETTY J

References need not be capable of physical combination in order to show obviousness. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc); see also, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1976) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures”); In re Andersen, 391 F.2d 953, 958 (CCPA 1968) (“There is a distinction between trying to physically combine the two separate apparatus disclosed in two prior art references on the one hand, and on the other hand trying to learn enough from the disclosures of the tw references to render obvious the claims in suit. . . . Claims may be obvious in view of a combination of references, even if the features of one reference cannot be substituted physically into the structure of the other reference.”).

Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2242, 2258, 2279, 2286, 2642, 2686.04

Nievelt, In re, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1973) 2145

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Classen 10575613 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

1715 Ex Parte Tang et al 10895739 - (D) BEST 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 PPG Industries, Inc. LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

1765 Ex Parte SUZUKI et al 12432832 - (D) SCHAFER 103/obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. SERGENT, RABON A

1785 Ex Parte Ng et al 11606584 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP RICKMAN, HOLLY C

1787 Ex Parte Remillard et al 11556243 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL ROBINSON, ELIZABETH A

1791 Ex Parte RICHARDS 12044520 - (D) KIMLIN 103 GENERAL MILLS, INC. DEGUIRE, KATHERINE E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Segler et al 10306808 - (D) HUME 102 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN AL HASHEMI, SANA A

2159 Ex Parte Gross 11643145 - (D) ANDERSON 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. CHANG, JEFFREY

2163 Ex Parte Wolczko et al 11648135 - (D) HUME 102 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK NGUYEN, KIM T

2164 Ex Parte De Mes 10809575 - (D) THOMAS 103 IBM CORPORATION MAHMOOD, REZWANUL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2687 Ex Parte Dittrich 10866106 - (D) DIXON 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC POPE, DARYL C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Sheppard et al 11185398 - (D) Per Curiam 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC ROLAND, CHRISTOPHER M

dembiczak, gartside, mouttet, etter

custom search

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Zheng et al 10667191 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Blair et al 11170676 - (D) FRAHM Dissenting KOHUT 103 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. PHAM, LINH K

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Emerson et al 11594633 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, THU HA T

2463 Ex Parte Bois et al 10366932 - (D) EVANS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MARCELO, MELVIN C

2478 Ex Parte Jai et al 10600995 - (D) GONSALVES 102/103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte van Rooyen et al 11010983 - (D) HAHN 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. AFSHAR, KAMRAN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Ito et al 11038123 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Morrison & Foerster LLP GOLUB-MILLER, MARCIA A

The presence or absence of a reason "to combine references in an obviousness determination is a pure question of fact." In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).

Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03

Although the teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) test is no longer a rigid rule post KSR, "the best defense against the subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness analysis is rigorous application of the requirement for a showing of the teaching or motivation to combine prior art references." Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999.

Dembiczak, In re, 175 F.3d 994, 50 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . .1504.06, 2144.04

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Zeller 11854230 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Zeman-Mullen & Ford, LLP RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH C

3682 Ex Parte Choi et al 10508616 - (D) TURNER 103 LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP HOAR, COLLEEN A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Patton et al 09957011 - (D) HORNER 102
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY FRIDIE JR, WILLMON
3735 Ex Parte Widenhouse et al 11798497 - (D) WALSH 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC DORNA, CARRIE R

3738 Ex Parte Biss et al 11025223 - (D) MILLS 103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP WILLSE, DAVID H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Marya et al 11769230 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 102/103 SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS BOMAR, THOMAS S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Surti 11448494 - (D) BAHR 102/103 102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

3731 Ex Parte Wasicek 10616785 - (D) WALSH 103 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC NGUYEN, VI X

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2819 CME GROUP, INC., Requester, Appellant v. REALTIME DATA LLC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95001517 - (D) 7,714,747 11/651,365 SIU 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. HUGHES, DEANDRA M original NGUYEN, LINH V

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Spisinski et al 11011268 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(2)/103 PITNEY BOWES INC. PURDY, KYLE A

1644 Ex Parte Allen 11436652 - (D) PRATS 112(1)/103 SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP DAHLE, CHUN WU

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Flocken et al 11184253 - (D) RUGGIERO 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MCCARTHY, CHRISTOPHER S

2166 Ex Parte Li et al 10643628 - (D) THOMAS 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE SAEED, USMAAN

2173 Ex Parte Dolimier et al 10264031 - (D) ARBES 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BASOM, BLAINE T

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Gaul et al 09924111 - (D) DILLON 102/103 MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY HSIUNGFEI, PENG

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Howell et al 09968746 - (D) JEFFERY 103 COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR

We see no error in this position, for “[i]t is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, --- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 2384056, at *5 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (noting that the criterion for obviousness is not whether the references can be physically combined, but whether the claimed invention is rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole)).

Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . 2242, 2258, 2279, 2286, 2642, 2686.04

2617 Ex Parte Carrion-Rodrigo 10875584 - (D) BISK 103 MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Belson et al 11193266 - (D) HAHN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY KAPLAN, HAL IRA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Adam et al 10335045 - (D) TURNER 102/103 APPLE INC./BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP BADII, BEHRANG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Boone 11047407 - (D) BAHR 103 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. SHAKERI, HADI

3732 Ex Parte Ha et al 10787804 - (D) SCHEINER 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY LEWIS, RALPH A

3737 Ex Parte Hogan et al 11588043 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1) 103 GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC  SANTOS, JOSEPH M

3738 Ex Parte Lenz 11289085 - (D) ASTORINO 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J

3762 Ex Parte Kollatschny 11338375 - (D) MILLS 103 CYBERONICS, INC. LAVERT, NICOLE F

3778 Ex Parte Edgett et al 12122880 - (D) ADAMS 103 MICHAUD-Kinney Group LLP CRAIG, PAULA L
 
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1636 Ex parte The Trustees of Columbia University 90/006,953 6,455,275 10870229 - (D) LEBOVITZ obviousness-type double patenting COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP QIAN, CELINE X

REHEARING

DENIED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Sanders et al 10776069 - (R) DANG 103 Sue Z. Shaper MORRISON, JAY A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Van Os et al 11692650 - (R) HOMERE 102 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller, PLLC WARREN, DAVID S

orthopedic, etter, rembrandt, invitrogen, ICON

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Tamura 10/540,816 GRIMES 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC EXAMINER MATTISON, LORI K

1644 Ex Parte Plouet et al 10/530,893 SCHEINER 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER HADDAD, MAHER M

1657 Ex Parte Burkinshaw et al 11/181,677 WALSH 112(1)/103(a) O'KEEFE, EGAN, PETERMAN & ENDERS LLP EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J

“There is a distinction between trying to physically combine the two separate apparatus disclosed in two prior art references on the one hand, and on the other hand trying to learn enough from the disclosures of the two references to render obvious the claims in suit. . . . Claims may be obvious in view of a combination of references, even if the features of one reference cannot be substituted physically into the structure of the other reference. Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted); see also, In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859-60 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc) (“the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole”) (citations omitted).

Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . 716.04
Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . 2242, 2258, 2279, 2286, 2642, 2686.04

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Mayer et al 11/229,840 WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1727 Ex Parte Hayashi et al 10/576,421 KRATZ 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ROE, CLAIRE LOUISE

1742 Ex Parte Meerman et al 10/500,713 KRATZ 112(1)/132 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER WOLLSCHLAGER, JEFFREY MICHAEL

1761 Ex Parte Fernholz et al 11/257,874 HANLON 103(a) ECOLAB USA INC. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1782 Ex Parte Morris 11/098,228 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WOOD, ELLEN S

1784 Ex Parte Laird et al 11/898,557 WARREN 102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER XU, LING X

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Cheshire et al 10/877,414 HUGHES 102(b) PVF -- APPLE INC. c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU N

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Sweeney et al 11/385,903 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB EXAMINER LE, KAREN L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Bodlaender 10/502,153 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Philips Electornics North America Corporation EXAMINER UHLIR, CHRISTOPHER J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Mansfield Jr. 10/501,141 CRAWFORD 103(a) NEIFELD IP LAW, PC EXAMINER STAMBER, ERIC W

3674 Ex Parte Burdick et al 11/539,216 McCARTHY 103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, VISHAL A

3689 Ex Parte Heimke et al 10/984,634 CRAWFORD 112(1)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Hoang 10/908,165 McCARTHY 102(b) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER ROST, ANDREW J

3753 Ex Parte Palin et al 11/536,696 PATE III 103(a) Carlson, Gaskey, & Olds, P.C./Sikorsky EXAMINER BASTIANELLI, JOHN

3761 Ex Parte Bobroff et al 10/798,060 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) HAEMONETICS CORPORATION EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Choo et al 11/449,745 WARREN 103(a) 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Levy 10/602,549 POTHIER 102(e) 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) DIGIMARC CORPORATION EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

However, reciting both an apparatus and the method of using the apparatus renders a claim indefinite under § 112, second paragraph. See Rembrandt Data Tech., L.P. v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

2171 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/484,646 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Kasriel et al 10/128,598 RUGGIERO 102(e) 102(e) NORTH OAKS PATENT AGENCY EXAMINER NANO, SARGON N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Alkemper et al 11/096,406 CRAWFORD 101/102(b) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER TROTTER, SCOTT S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Vattes et al 11/143,232 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2662 Ex Parte 6985494 et al J2 GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Third Party Requestor, Respondent v. BEAR CREEK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,030 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: MIELE LAW GROUP, PC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER MARCELO, MELVIN C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2818 Ex Parte 6933608 et al Ex parte KAIJO CORPORATION Appellant 90/007,861, 90/008,629 and 90/010,340 BOALICK 305/112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: SNELL & WILMER, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: SoCAL IP LAW GROUP, LLP EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER TRAN, MAI HUONG C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3657 Ex Parte 7559414 B2 et al SHIMANO INC. Requester and Respondent v. SCRAM LLC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/001,309 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) Third Party Requester: DELAND LAW OFFICE Patent Owner: SWANSON & BRATSCHUN, L.L.C. EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original EXAMINER WILLIAMS, THOMAS J

The closest support we can find for Shimano’s position is the doctrine of “prosecution disclaimer” or “prosecution history estoppel” where statements made by a Patent Owner during prosecution of the patent can limit the scope of the claim, once issued in a patent. Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories Inc., 429 F3d 1052, 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, during reexamination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation as they would be understood in the context of the specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d at 1379. The estoppel or disclaimer doctrine does not operate in the same way during reexamination proceedings.

Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories, Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 77 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2138.04
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Panchev et al 10/496,322 GREEN 112(1)/103(a) Vladimir Panchev Marieta Pancheva Adelina Suvandjieva EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V

1635 Ex Parte Roberts et al 09/972,245 SCHEINER 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Cho et al 11/077,995 KRATZ 103(a) THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP. EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1744 Ex Parte Monk et al 11/726,964 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) JON M. DICKINSON, P.C. EXAMINER LEE, EDMUND H

1765 Ex Parte Maziers 10/512,388 HANLON 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER LU, C CAIXIA

1774 Ex Parte Smith 11/495,406 SMITH 103(a) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER SORKIN, DAVID L

1786 Ex Parte Elschner et al 10/910,042 SMITH 102(b) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER THOMPSON, CAMIE S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Hoover et al 10/155,723 DROESCH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Melillo 10/836,814 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP EXAMINER SAUNDERS JR, JOSEPH

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Lee 12/000,576 COURTENAY 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER WILSON, ALLAN R

2818 Ex Parte FUKURO et al 11/533,370 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/102(b) RABIN & Berdo, PC EXAMINER TAYLOR, EARL N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Gerberding 10/063,937 McCARTHY 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

3761 Ex Parte Steger et al 11/118,893 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA