vehicular, KCJ, harari, fessmann

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Adireddy et al 11528203 - (D) DILLON concurring JEFFERY 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. NGO, CHUONG A

“A drafter uses the term ‘comprising’ to mean ‘I claim at least what follows and potentially more.’”
Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int’l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2000). ...

It is well settled that the article “a” means “one or more” where, as here, the claim contains the transitional phrase, “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). But “[w]hen the claim language and specification indicate that ‘a’ means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open-ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Angell et al 12121947 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. NAJARIAN, LENA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Shintani et al 12143057 - (D) STEPHENS 103 103 HOWSON & HOWSON LLP RIVERA, WILLIAM ARAUZ

“[T]he Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature than would be the case when a product is claimed in the more conventional fashion.” In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974).

Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974) 2113

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte COLLIVER et al 12322410 - (D) ROESEL 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP MCCLAIN-COLEMAN, TYNESHA L.

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Dessau 11430145 - (D) DANG additional info DANG 102/103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Ni et al 12017545 - (D) KINDER 103 Basch & Nickerson LLP SHAW, ROBERT A

2455 Ex Parte Ni et al 12017534 - (D) KINDER 103 Basch & Nickerson LLP SHAW, ROBERT A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2671 Ex Parte Rose 11567241 - (D) FREDMAN 102 GIBB & RILEY, LLC HUNTSINGER, PETER K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Kirsch 12619008 - (D) MURPHY 103 Covidien LP FIDEI, DAVID

schreiber, altenpohl, fessmann, marosi, schumer

US 5,203,346

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte JEONG et al 12720430 - (D) JEFFERY 251/112(2) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP SEFCHECK, GREGORY B

These conversions from active steps to functional language effectively broaden the patented apparatus claims to merely require that the recited apparatus elements (e.g., “connection manager,” “classifier,” “service manager,” etc.) are capable of performing the intended function—not that they actually perform that function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the present reissue application is effectively a broadening reissue application.

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02, 2112, 2114
...

In any event, corrections to claims via reissue to avoid potential indefiniteness have been judicially sanctioned, albeit in another context, to avoid having to rely on implication or litigation. See In re Altenpohl, 500 F.2d 1151, 1156-57 (CCPA 1974) (“Lack of antecedent basis in a claim could render it invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and . . . a patentee should be allowed to correct an error or ambiguity in a claim without having to rely on implication or litigation.” (emphases added)).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Ng et al 11742563 - (D) CALVE 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MCCLAIN, GERALD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2671 Ex Parte Damera-Venkata 10698895 - (D) POTHIER 103 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY VO, QUANG N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ali et al 11437466 - (D) DIXON 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global PHILLIPS, FORREST M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Pechtold et al 10843013 - (D) HOFFMANN 102 102/103 Quinn Law Group, PLLC PETTITT, JOHN F

3777 Ex Parte BLUMHOFER et al 11548848 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 102 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP REMALY, MARK DONALD

3777 Ex Parte Benndorf et al 11724657 - (D) WALSH 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte DiLorenzo 11159842 - (D) FREDMAN 103/obviousness-type double patenting NEUROVISTA / SHAY GLENN SIMS, JASON M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1758 Ex Parte Bianchi 10806710 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1)/103 HUGH P. GORTLER MERSHON, JAYNE L

1791 Ex Parte Jani et al 11415044 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting Hoffmann & Baron LLP BEKKER, KELLY JO

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Gonzalez 11064490 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 Carlos Gonzalez TELAN, MICHAEL R

2461 Ex Parte Lauber 11757583 - (D) ZECHER 103 Cochran Freund & Young/ AVAYA, Inc. MIAN, OMER S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Dale et al 10340290 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) DANNEMAN, PAUL

3656 Ex Parte Gaechter 10524298 - (D) GREENHUT 103 EGBERT LAW OFFICES PILKINGTON, JAMES

The USPTO bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a prima facie case of obviousness in a product-by-process situation because of its peculiar nature. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974) 2113

Marosi, In re, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 706.02(m), 2111.01, 2113, 2173.05(b)

3671 Ex Parte Suggate 10519546 - (D) CAPP 103 Rankin, Hill & Clark LLP HARTMANN, GARY S

3682 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11712276 - (D) KIM 102/103 YAHOO! OVERTURE BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE MYHRE, JAMES W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Morgenstern et al 10585162 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC PRAGER, JESSE M

3769 Ex Parte Odrich et al 10600027 - (D) PRATS 103 AMO / Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP SHAY, DAVID M

3788 Ex Parte Benson et al 11796384 - (D) PLENZLER 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CHU, KING M

3788 Ex Parte Busch et al 12092646 - (D) KAUFFMAN obviousness-type double patenting 102/103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA

The body of each claim describes a structurally complete invention, and if the preamble were deleted, the structure of the claimed invention would be unchanged. See Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (If the body of the claim “sets out the complete invention,” the preamble is not ordinarily treated as limiting the scope of the claim.).

kerkhoven, yates, fessmann

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Helfman et al 11/037,977 McCOLLUM 103(a) RENNER KENNER GREIVE BOBAK TAYLOR & WEBER EXAMINER BARHAM, BETHANY P

1621 Ex Parte Karvinen et al 11/908,780 WALSH 103(a) Novak Druce + Quigg LLP EXAMINER WITHERSPOON, SIKARL A

Although Reinius did not describe using a catalyst complex based on a ligand mixture, the Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to combine the individual ligands taught by Reinius et al in an[] effort to obtain a new ligand mixture that would be effective in increasing the selectivity to branched aldehyde products. In re Ker[k]hoven, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA, 1980).”
...

Finally, Appellants contend that factual differences make Kerkhoven inappposite, and “the legal conclusion as to patentability of the claimed process is more properly guided according to the circumstances outlined in In re Yates, 211 USPQ 1149, 1151 [663 F.2d 1054] (CCPA 1981) than Ker[k]hoven.”
...

The rejection also relies on the general rule of the Kerkhoven case, “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980). Appellants argue that Kerkhoven is inapposite, and “[h]ere, there is no combination of two compositions, but rather the creation of a catalytic complex from individual reactants (i.e., a rhodium complexed with two (or more) ligand reactants).” (App. Br. 5.)
...

Under these circumstances, we agree with Appellants that the Yates case provides useful guidance. In Yates, claims to a catalytic process had been rejected for obviousness based on idea that controlling the degree of conversion to optimize an acid-aldehyde ratio would have been obvious. In re Yates, 663 F.2d 1054, 1056 (CCPA 1981). The court agreed that the rejection had “the appearance of being founded on both logic and sound scientific principle.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Notwithstanding that appearance, the court explained that “obviousness cannot be established without considering the record as a whole,” and reversed after considering Yates’ data that controlling the degree of conversion was not recognized to be a result-effective variable. Id.
Kerkhoven, In re, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980). . . . . . . . . . 2144.06

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Nishino et al 11/473,334 TIMM 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER LEE, CYNTHIA K

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Serban 10/553,657 HOMERE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER STONE, ROBERT M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte ROYYURU 11/874,584 PETRAVICK 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Keller 11/401,986 BAHR 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Wood et al 10/674,174 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER SANDY, ROBERT JOHN

The burden of proof on the PTO in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims is less than when a product is claimed in the more conventional fashion. In re Fessman, 489 F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974).

Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Ullestad et al 10/836,589 WALSH 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER EISENBERG, REBECCA E
REEXAMINATION

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3991 Ex Parte 6607695 et al Ex parte Veltek Associates, Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/009,290 ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: BLANK ROME LLP EXAMINER JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Hovey et al 11/093,149 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2115 Ex Parte Neuman et al 10/326,863 SMITH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CONNOLLY, MARK A

2179 Ex Parte Craig et al 11/489,337 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HASSAN, RASHEDUL

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Martin et al 12/011,276 POTHIER 103(a) James Ray & Associates Intellectual Property, LLC EXAMINER DOAN, KIET M

2622 Ex Parte Pilu 10/877,676 MacDONALD 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MISLEH, JUSTIN P

2624 Ex Parte Paxton et al 10/933,002 DILLON 103(a) Stephen B. Salai, Esq. Harter Secrest & Emery LLP EXAMINER ENTEZARI, MICHELLE M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Kobetsky et al 11/067,965 SPAHN 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3764 Ex Parte Hasse et al 10/902,820 WALSH concurring and dissenting FREDMAN 102(e)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

3765 Ex Parte CHO 11/614,685 PER CURIAM 103(a) FELLERS SNIDER BLANKENSHIP BAILEY & TIPPENS EXAMINER CLINE, SALLY COLSON
REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Casion 11/304,026 DANG 102(b) HODGSON RUSS LLP EXAMINER RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD N