ferguson2

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Bard 12144348 - (D) GROSSMAN 101 LEAD DAWG SPORTS, LLC ARYANPOUR, MITRA

“[A] machine is a ‘concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.’ This ‘includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result.’” In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted).

Ferguson,In re, 558 F.3d 1359, 90 USPQ2d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 2106

3742 Ex Parte Brundage et al 11824301 - (D) ASTORINO 103 CORNING INCORPORATED VAN, QUANG T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Grossman et al 10939737 - (D) JENKS 112(1)/112(2)/103 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) MAEWALL, SNIGDHA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Ales et al 11540423 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Kasahara et al 10537376 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 Ex Parte Devine 10787376 - (D) POTHIER 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP VIDWAN, JASJIT S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Donnell et al 11640562 - (D) DeFRANCO 103 RATNERPRESTIA JAYNE, DARNELL M

3641 Ex Parte Marsac 10943746 - (D) ASTORINO 112(1) 103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP CLEMENT, MICHELLERENEE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Stites et al 11846370 - (D) CALVE 103 Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. BLAU, STEPHEN LUTHER

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Jordan 10522721 - (D) FREDMAN obviousness-type double patenting ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM HO, TAN-UYEN THI

nuijten, chakrabarty, ferguson2, gottschalk, miller2, aristocrat, function media, finisar

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Lorentsen et al 10553869 - (D) PRATS 103 HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. SWOPE, SHERIDAN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Schilder 10580643 - (D) KRATZ 102 SHELL OIL COMPANY MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Chan et al 10907161 - (D) HUGHES 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP NOFAL, CHRISTOPHER P

2161 Ex Parte Elsaesser et al 11168551 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP NGUYEN, CINDY

2193 Ex Parte Eichenberger et al 10919005 - (D) HUGHES 103 IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) WANG, JUE S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Ross et al 10371338 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 37 CFR 41.40(b) 112(2) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED NGUYEN, THUONG

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Chow et al 11265918 - (D) SCHEINER 112(1)/103 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Zilbershtein et al 11482608 - (D) MOORE 103 103 AVAYA, Inc. Cochran Freund & Young GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Facemire et al 11083913 - (D) HOFF 102/103 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC DASGUPTA, SOUMYA

Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories:

i. transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se), In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2007);

ii. a naturally occurring organism, Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308;

iii. a human per se, The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011);

iv. a legal contractual agreement between two parties, see In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2009) (cert. denied);

v. a game defined as a set of rules;

vi. a computer program per se, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72;

vii. a company, Ferguson, 558 F.3d at 1366; and

viii. a mere arrangement of printed matter, In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396, 164 USPQ 46, ___ (CCPA 1969).

MPEP 2106

Nuijten, In re, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2106, 2107.01

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980) , 2103, 2105, 2106, 2107.01

Ferguson,In re, 558 F.3d 1359, 90 USPQ2d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 2106

Miller, In re, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969) 706.03(a), 2106,

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Kelly et al 10540597 - (D) ZECHER 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS CHOKSHI, PINKAL R

2443 Ex Parte Bravery et al 10555433 - (D) HUGHES 103 101/103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC SHIN, KYUNG H

2452 Ex Parte Dresden 10776689 - (D) HUGHES 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP NGUYEN, THU V

2456 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11168650 - (D) McKONE 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP CHANG, TOM Y

2456 Ex Parte Newton et al 10598988 - (D) MOORE 112(2) 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MCADAMS, BRAD

For a computer-implemented claim limitation interpreted under § 112, sixth paragraph, the corresponding structure must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or processor disclosed in the specification into the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google Inc, 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform the general purpose computer or processor to a special purpose processor programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Id. at 1338. An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary 23 (5th ed. 2002). An applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or “in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

An indefiniteness rejection under § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or processor. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38. Mere reference to a general purpose computer or processor with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or to “software” without providing detail about the means to accomplish the software function is not an adequate disclosure. Id. at 1334; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41. In addition, simply reciting the claimed function in the specification, while saying nothing about how the computer or processor ensures that those functions are performed, is not a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

If the specification explicitly discloses an algorithm, the sufficiency of the disclosure must be determined in light of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337. The specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose processor to a special purpose processor so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Id. at 1338.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Moss et al 11553671 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP BAHL, SANGEETA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Swanson et al 11527188 - (D) KILE 112(1)/112(2)/103 PRATT & WHITNEY CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS c/o CPA Global KIM, TAE JUN

3752 Ex Parte Roreger et al 10534797 - (D) DeFRANCO 103 Frommer Lawrence & Haug HWU, DAVIS D  

REEXAMINATION  
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2833 Ex parte PROTECTCONNECT, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90011275 6341981 09/553,425 ARBES 102/103 DLA PIPER LLP US WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original GILMAN, ALEXANDER
 
3686 Ex Parte CAREFUSION 303, INC. Ex Parte Schlotterbeck et al 90011697 90/009,912 7,835,927 10/331,034 FITZPATRICK 102/103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP FOSTER, JIMMY G original RANGREJ, SHEETAL

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Daneshvar 11648944 - (R) FLOYD 102/103 Yousef Daneshvar, MD. FACC HICKS, VICTORIA J
 

ferguson2, gutta, oelrich, steele, wilson,

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Malkin 10/437,078 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) CHRISTENSEN, O'CONNOR, JOHNSON, KINDNESS, PLLC EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Andrzejak et al 10/418,075 MARTIN 101/102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CASANOVA, JORGE A 

Although it is possible for claimed subject matter to be patent-ineligible even though it fits within one or more statutory categories under § 101, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009), Ex parte Gutta, 93 USPQ2d 1025, 1034 (BPAI 2009) (precedential), the Examiner has not demonstrated that claims 34-40 recite patent-ineligible subject matter. In Gutta, for example, the Board held that a claim which recites a “machine” or an “article of manufacture” under § 101 nevertheless will be deemed to recite patent-ineligible subject matter under § 101 if the claim “involves a mathematical algorithm” and if the answer to either of the following two questions is “no”:

(1) Is the claim limited to a tangible practical application, in which the mathematical algorithm is applied, that results in a real-world use (e.g., “not a mere field-of-use label having no significance”)?

(2) Is the claim limited so as to not encompass substantially all practical applications of the mathematical algorithm either “in all fields” of use of the algorithm or even in “only one field?”

Gutta, 93 USPQ2d at 1031 (footnotes omitted). Because the Examiner has not established that claims 34-40 recite patent-ineligible subject matter even though they recite a machine, we will not sustain the § 101 rejection of any of these claims. 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Malkin 11/220,672 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER KOLB, NATHANIEL J 

An inherent characteristic must be inevitable, and not merely a possibility or probability. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). 

Oelrich, In re, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Knauseder 11/229,178 FRANKLIN 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER STEPHEN, EMEM O 

Ex Parte Penny et al 10/411,056 CRAWFORD 103(a) JACK J SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER SEREBOFF, NEAL 

Ex Parte Wahlbin et al 09/969,017 CRAWFORD 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CONLEY, ROSE & TAYON, P.C. EXAMINER RINES, ROBERT D 

Where claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, a § 103 rejection of the claims must be reversed as impermissibly involving speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63 (CCPA 1962). If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, “the subject matter does not become obvious - the claim becomes indefinite.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). 

Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06 

Wilson, In re, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, (CCPA 1970).. . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Chang et al 11/083,261 McCOLLUM 103(a) ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER FAY, ZOHREH A 

"[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). "Only if the ‘results of optimizing a variable’ are ‘unexpectedly good’ can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)). "[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art." In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.05 

Geisler, In re, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.05, 2145 

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . .2131.01, 2145 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Rice et al 10/988,168 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) DUGAN & DUGAN, PC EXAMINER BIDWELL, JAMES R 

REEXAMINATION AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex Parte 5283862 et al 90/008,240 TORCZON 112(2)/112(6)/103(a) GILBRETH & ASSOCS., for the patentee AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN, LLP, for the requester EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J