bond, akzo, standard havens, festo, omega, southwall, clement

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte Bar-Ness et al 13110989 - (D) WINSOR 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP JOSEPH, JAISON

2692 Ex Parte Nakamura et al 11783063 - (D) HOMERE 103 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP MERKOULOVA, OLGA VLADIMIROVNA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Raju et al 12127600 - (D) BARRETT 103 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Mabey et al 12586472 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY BOYLE, KARA BRADY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Udell et al 12197892 - (D) SMITH 103 Mentor Graphics Corporation NGUYEN, STEVE N

2155 Ex Parte Moerchen et al 12072222 - (D) BEAMER 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION HERSHLEY, MARK E

2161 Ex Parte CHAUDHURI et al 12487434 - (D) KUMAR 102 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. LU, CHARLES EDWARD

2164 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12218627 - (D) KIMBERLY J. McGRAW 102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC ADAMS, CHARLES D

We reject Appellants argument that the Examiner must demonstrate that the identical language of claim 75 appears in the cited reference in order for the reference to anticipate. See e.g., App. Br. 26. The test of whether a reference teaches a claim limitation is not whether the exact language of the
limitation is present in the reference. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the limitation is taught or suggested by the prior art when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See e.g., In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (interpretation of references “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test); Akzo N. V. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 & n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(“An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims.”)

Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2131 , 2152.02(b) , 2183 , 2184

Akzo N.V. v. International Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2131.02

2166 Ex Parte LIPPINCOTT et al 12044775 - (D) GALLIGAN 101/103 41.50 103 WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. IBM CORP. (WIP) GMAHL, NAVNEET K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Card et al 12261662 - (D) SHIANG 102/103 Lowe Graham Jones PLLC MONTOYA, OSCHTA I

2424 Ex Parte Hill et al 11937901 - (D) COURTENAY 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES TILAHUN, ALAZAR

2438 Ex Parte Shah et al 11566125 - (D) HOMERE 103 Oblon/Broadcom Corporation JEUDY, JOSNEL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2659 Ex Parte BOO 11837244 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. ARMSTRONG, ANGELA A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Stripling et al 12648899 - (D) HOELTER 103 AT & T Legal Department - FKM GILLS, KURTIS

3624 Ex Parte Ritter et al 11735739 - (D) KIM 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. PRASAD, NANCY N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Nakamura 12374725 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BGL/Panasonic BAYOU, AMENE SETEGNE

3782 Ex Parte Harrelson 12474779 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP ELKINS, GARY E

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex parte LAWRENCE B. LOCKWOOD Ex Parte 7010508 et al 08/418,772 90012671 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Part Requestor: Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/Reexams REICHLE, KARIN M original CHUNG TRANS, XUONG MY

During reexamination before the USPTO, we decline to consider the prosecution history (as a court would in patent infringement litigation) for purposes of claim construction because reexamination is de novo examination without deference to the previous examination which determined patentability in the first instance. See 35 U.S.C. §305. Cf. with prosecution history estoppel which prevents a patentee from recapturing through the doctrine of equivalents the subject matter that the applicant
surrendered during prosecution. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722, 734 (2002). Cf. also with the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer: “[W]here the patentee has unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning to obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches and narrows the ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the surrender.” Omega Engineering, Inc., v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Claims may not be construed one way in order to obtain their allowance and in a different way against accused infringers.” Southwall Technologies, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Thus, we find statements by both Owner and the Examiner that purport to give deference to the prosecution history for purposes of claim construction during reexamination are misplaced. See, e.g., App. Br. 14–15; Final Rejection 14. However, we note that prosecution history is considered by the USPTO for the purpose of determining attempted recapture of surrendered subject matter in reissue examinations. See, e.g., In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 62 USPQ2d 1705 (2002) 1302.14 , 2173.02

Clement, In re, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 1412.02

eiselstein, festo, lockwood

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1747 Ex Parte Paul 11887719 - (D) NAGUMO 103 WOLFF & SAMSON, P.C. NGUYEN, THUKHANH T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2199 Ex Parte Hyttinen 10775545 - (D) BOUCHER 103 NOKIA CORPORATION c/o Ware, Fressola, Maguire & Barber LLP WU, QING YUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Islam et al 10798824 - (D) ZECHER 103 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.a.r.l. c/o WARE, FRESSOLA, MAGUIRE & BARBER LLP DANG, HUNG Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Rekimoto 11155487 - (D) DIXON 103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC BLAIR, KILE O

2677 Ex Parte Panesar et al 11025126 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 Intel Corporation Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC RICHER, JONI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Dresden 11877639 - (D) FETTING 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP OSMAN BILAL AHMED, AFAF

3685 Ex Parte Furlong et al 11107957 - (D) LORIN 112(1)/103 KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. RAVETTI, DANTE

We do not see in these passages any mention of “periodic access.” While the absence of these terms do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is inadequate written descriptive support (see “[T]he prior application need not describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims . .
. . ” Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038 . . . (Fed.Cir.1995)), nevertheless, “[w]hat is claimed by the patent application must be the same as what is disclosed in the specification; otherwise the patent should not issue.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 736 (2002).

Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 34 USPQ2d 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 1302.01
HARMON 5: 153, 171, 172, 280; 6: 114; 18: 39
DONNER 9: 608-11; 10: 538, 542, 543, 552-55

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 62 USPQ2d 1705 (2002) 1302.14, 2173.02
HARMON 7: 37; 8: 4, 20, 40, 168, 170, 197, 224, 229, 234-36, 239, 240, 241, 249, 257, 258, 260-62, 266-75
DONNER 3: 64, 66-91, 93-107, 109-14, 116-19, 191, 285, 289; 7: 405; 9: 216, 380, 426; 10: 289; 14: 342; 15: 1, 171-87
...
It may be obvious to provide “periodic access to the license-protected broadcast channel,” given a disclosure of repeated attempts by the ST to access license-protected content, but “[o]ne shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious. ” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (Emphasis original).

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997)  2133.03(a),  2163,  2163.02
HARMON 4: 152, 158, 194; 5: 163, 171, 173; 6: 289; 18: 48, 50
DONNER 2: 573; 7: 234, 462; 8: 1847, 1848; 9: 380, 432, 444, 614-17

lockwood, advanced display, zenon, modine, festo, lovin

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Wiley 10/622,634 PAK 103(a) Oyen Wiggs Green & Mutala EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I

1785 Ex Parte Hsia et al 11/265,031 GARRIS 102(b) PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP EXAMINER RICKMAN, HOLLY C

1785 Ex Parte Poncelet et al 10/521,898 NAGUMO 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER JOY, DAVID J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Burdick et al 10/386,097 MORGAN 102(b) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Hakala et al 10/492,045 KIM 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) ERICSSON INC. EXAMINER ZIEGLE, STEPHANIE M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Almberg 10/225,203 BAHR 103(a) Ronald L. Grudziecki BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Curtius et al 10/583,636 HANLON 101/103(a) 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3713 Ex Parte 6344791 et al 95/000,217 and 95/000,222 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA First Requester and Respondent and MICROSOFT CORPORATION Second Requester v. Patent of ANASCAPE, LTD. PATENT OWNER: LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON THIRD PARTY REQUESTERS: NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA MICHAEL J. KEENAN NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C. MICROSOFT CORPORATION KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original EXAMINER JONES, SCOTT E
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/375,657 WALSH 112(1)/103(a) Patricia A. Sweeney EXAMINER WORLEY, CATHY KINGDON

Where a textual description of an embodiment is absent, a showing that the missing description would have been obvious does not suffice. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.”).

“To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in various documents.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The standard is whether one reasonably skilled in the art would understand the application as describing with sufficient particularity the material to be incorporated. Zenon Environmental, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (applying the Advanced Display standard and concluding that the material incorporated by reference was not the detail at issue but a separate and distinct element of the invention from that argued). Every concept of the incorporated patent is not necessarily imported. See Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[I]ncorporation by reference does not convert the invention of the incorporated patent into the invention of the host patent”), overruled on other grounds by Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Chou et al 11/157,893 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER NEGRELLI, KARA B

1781 Ex Parte Bijl et al 10/343,863 FREDMAN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

We are not persuaded. Appellants have not specifically identified which limitations of claim 24 are not taught by the prior art. See In re Lovin, 2011 WL 2937946, at *6 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2011) (appellant waived arguments for separate patentability by merely pointing out claim limitations and asserting the prior art did not disclose the limitations).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Ellson et al 11/198,045 ADAMS 103(a) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU

symbol tech., beckman, festo, lockwood

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/18/2011 1618 Ex Parte Inosaka et al 11/113,969 FREDMAN 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/16/2011 1724 Ex Parte Peragine et al 10/519,691 OWENS 103(a) Charles Muserlain EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/19/2011 2173 Ex Parte Ackley 10/960,385 DILLON 102(b) DISNEY ENTERPRISES C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/18/2011 2816 Ex Parte Krug et al 11/286,562 KRIVAK 103(a) ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES LLC EXAMINER LAM, TUAN THIEU

07/19/2011 2823 Ex Parte Shiraiwa et al 11/469,164 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER NGUYEN, KHIEM D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3654 Ex Parte Fargo et al 10/564,873 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/18/2011 3742 Ex Parte Newman et al 10/842,788 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

07/18/2011 3761 Ex Parte Ellingboe et al 11/333,671 HORNER 103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3685 Ex Parte Koppen et al 10/868,299 MOHANTY 103(a) AlbertDhand LLP EXAMINER WINTER, JOHN M
REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/18/2011 3714 BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Third Party Requestor, Appellant v. IGT Patent Owner, Respondent, Appellant 95/000,277 6,431,983 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103(a) PATENT OWNER: WEAVER AUSTIN VILLENEUVE & SAMPSON LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER ROBERT L. KOVELMAN STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER MENEFEE, JAMES A original EXAMINER WHITE, CARMEN D

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/18/2011 3749 TECPHARMA LICENSING AG Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. Patent of NOVO NORDISK A/S Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95/000,288 6,547,764 SONG 103(a) cc Patent Owner: Marc A. Began, Esq. Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc. cc Third Party Requester: Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLPEXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAMTU TRAN

In particular, "a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purposed of determining obviousness under § 103." Symbol Techs. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In this regard, "[e]ven if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches." Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed.Cir.1989).

Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 19 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . . . . 804.01, 2121.01

Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 13 USPQ2d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1989). . . . . . . 2121.01
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/18/2011 1616 Ex Parte Volgas et al 09/916,611 McCOLLUM 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

07/18/2011 1628 Ex Parte Meythaler 10/885,175 FREDMAN 103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER KIM, JENNIFER M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/18/2011 1767 Ex Parte Dallavia 11/701,217 WALSH 103(a) Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

2600 Communications
07/18/2011 2624 Ex Parte Albertelli et al 11/685,338 KRIVAK 101 BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER SETH, MANAV

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3682 Ex Parte Minifie et al 11/352,895 LORIN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BOVEJA, NAMRATA

“What is claimed by the patent application must be the same as what is disclosed in the specification; otherwise the patent should not issue.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 736 (2002). Here the claimed “kit” is not the same as the co-package disclosed in the specification. At best, the disclosed co-package renders the “kit” obvious. But “[o]ne shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (Emphasis original).

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 62 USPQ2d 1705 (2002) . . 1302.14, 2173.02

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/18/2011 3742 Ex Parte Toida 10/853,116 O’NEILL 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HEINRICH, SAMUEL M
REHEARING

GRANTED AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/18/2011 2857 Ex Parte Moessner et al 11/021,591 JEFFERY 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER SUGLO, JANET L

See Supp. Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 Fed. Reg. 7,162, 7,168 (Feb. 9, 2011) (noting that Examiners should not construe means-plus-function limitations as covering pure software implementations when the supporting disclosure discusses implementing the invention via hardware and software).