swartz, enzo2, fisher, fouche, newman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Trimberger 12501445 - (D) PESLAK 112(1) 41.50 112(1)/101 Stephen Trimberger BERGIN, JAMES S

In order for the specification to be enabling, it “must adequately disclose the claimed invention so as to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention at the time the application was filed without undue experimentation.” In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2000) citing, Enzo-Biochem, Inc. v Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The purpose of the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. §101 is to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of “real world” value. In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 for lack of utility is tantamount to a rejection under the how-to-use provision of the enablement clause of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237, 1243 (CCPA 1971) (“[I]f such compositions are in fact useless, appellant’s specification cannot have taught how to use them.”). As such, the lack of utility because of inoperativeness (a question of fact), and the absence of enablement (a question of law) are thus closely related grounds of unpatentability. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 863; see also Newman v Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

The claimed invention must have “a specific and substantial utility to satisfy § 101.” In re Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1371. The substantial utility requirement means

that an application must show that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research. Simply put, to satisfy the “substantial” utility requirement, an asserted use must show that the claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit the public. Id.

Swartz, In re, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2107.01 , 2164.07

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 52 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2164.06(b)

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2103 , 2107.01 , 2164.07

Fouche, In re, 439 F.2d 1237, 169 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1971) 608.01(p) , 716.02(b) , 2107.01 , 2164.07

Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 11 USPQ2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2107.01

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Ritter 11639004 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 KLAUS J. BACH & ASSOCIATES KIRSCH, ANDREW THOMAS

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Singer et al 12752570 - (D) KENNEDY 102/103 PPG Industries, Inc. JONES JR., ROBERT STOCKTON

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Prokupets et al 10704000 - (D) McNEILL 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Hinton et al 11752988 - (D) FRAHM 103 DAVID H. JUDSON IBM CORP. (DHJ) TORRES, MARCOS L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Telep et al 12376991 - (D) LANEY 102/103 WARN, HOFFMANN, P.C. VENKATESAN, UMASHANKAR

kao, datamize, fisher, ricoh

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Asrar et al 11028782 - (D) GRIMES 103 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP HOLT, ANDRIAE M

See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If an applicant demonstrates that an embodiment has an unexpected result and provides an adequate basis to support the conclusion that other embodiments falling within the claim will behave in the same manner, this will generally establish that the evidence is commensurate with [the] scope of the claims.”).

1657 Ex Parte Edens et al 10572811 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC SINGH, SATYENDRA K

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1736 Ex Parte Chin et al 12322567 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 The Dow Chemical Company ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY IQBAL, SYED TAHA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Muller 11318805 - (D) HOFF 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP DISTEFANO, GREGORY A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11762868 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 Merchant & Gould - Cox HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2686 Ex Parte Korkowski et al 10758330 - (D) HOFF 103 Kagan Binder, PLLC / STL BLOUIN, MARK S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Carroll 11109781 - (D) KAUFFMAN 102/103 Stephen F. McDonald SAFAVI, MICHAEL

3646 Ex Parte Balzer et al 10545360 - (D) BROWN 103 MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A

3655 Ex Parte Noll 11557710 - (D) ASTORINO 102 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC LE, DAVID D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Jiang et al 10582908 - (D) SCANLON 112(1)/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS JENNISON, BRIAN W

3767 Ex Parte Van Antwerp 10616784 - (D) MARTIN 103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Minimed OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES

3788 Ex Parte Rolfes et al 11949602 - (D) HORNER 112(1)/103 (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) FLETCHER YODER NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Morris et al 10903155 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FENNEMA, ROBERT E

" 'A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.'" Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Pinyayev et al 11592674 - (D) WALSH 102/103 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

3734 Ex Parte Lindquist et al 11775324 - (D) BONILLA 103 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EVERAGE, KEVIN D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kelley 11754082 - (D) GRIMES 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. ORWIG, KEVIN S

1619 Ex Parte Ward 10595033 - (D) PRATS 101/112(1)/112(2) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. KASSA, TIGABU

See In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[As] to the "specific" utility requirement, an application must disclose a use which is not so vague as to be meaningless.”).

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) , 2103, 2107.01

1634 Ex Parte Wang et al 11256229 - (D) GREEN 103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global SALMON, KATHERINE D

1634 Ex Parte Pont-Kingdon et al 11268433 - (D) WALSH 103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/UTAH SALMON, KATHERINE D

1635 Ex Parte Robertson et al 11083583 - (D) PRATS 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C. SHIN, DANA H

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Naoi et al 11488044 - (D) HASTINGS 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. TADAYYON ESLAMI, TABASSOM

1724 Ex Parte OKAZAKI et al 12022472 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP THOMAS, BRENT C

1736 Ex Parte Meessen 11885666 - (D) PRAISS 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BERNS, DANIEL J

1761 Ex Parte Hsu et al 12006912 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY KOPEC, MARK T

1787 Ex Parte Finley 11512022 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(2)/102/103 Kagan Binder, PLLC ROBINSON, ELIZABETH A

1791 Ex Parte Baker et al 11669736 - (D) GARRIS 112(2)/103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP DEGUIRE, KATHERINE E

"The scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention." Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention." Id. "A purely subjective construction of 'aesthetically pleasing' would not notify the public of the patentee's right to exclude since the meaning of the claim language would depend on the unpredictable vagaries of any one person's opinion of the aesthetics of interface screens." Id. "While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a claim term, to be definite, requires an objective anchor." Id.

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Niki et al 11130242 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP PIERRE LOUIS, ANDRE

2183 Ex Parte Archer et al 11459387 - (D) GIANNETTI 112(2)/103 IBM (ROC-BLF) C/O BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP GIROUX, GEORGE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Howe et al 10335735 - (D) HUGHES 102 AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A

2432 Ex Parte Drehmel et al 10892430 - (D) FRAHM 103 IBM CORPORATION LANIER, BENJAMIN E

2439 Ex Parte Bhatt et al 10988913 - (D) MOORE 112(2)/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. LE, CANH

2463 Ex Parte Pushparaj 10767392 - (D) BUI 103 Marger Johnson & McCollom, P.C. - Cisco MARCELO, MELVIN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2653 Ex Parte Knott et al 10829557 - (D) McNAMARA 103 AT&T Legal Department - JW PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL

2659 Ex Parte Peck 10722038 - (D) FRAHM 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK PLLC C/O CPA Global SHAH, PARAS D

2664 Ex Parte Kollias et al 11497107 - (D) DANG 102/103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON YE, LIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Freedman 11381583 - (D) HOFF 103 Philip D. Freedman PC KUO, WENSING W

2872 Ex Parte Li 11274241 - (D) KRIVAK 102/103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB DOAK, JENNIFER L

2887 Ex Parte Kelley et al 10905716 - (D) KOHUT 103 (IBM) WHITHAM, CURTIS, CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. MAI, THIEN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Armaly 11827284 - (D) GROSSMAN 103 BUTZEL LONG WOOD, KIMBERLY T

3634 Ex Parte Berger 10822079 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 Sanchelima and Associates, P.A. JOHNSON, BLAIR M

3646 Ex Parte Schrauwen 11792764 - (D) WEATHERLY 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD

3689 Ex Parte Chen et al 11394871 - (D) KIM 112(1)/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP MATTIA, SCOTT A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Clements 10801401 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A

voss, borkowski, arkley, fisher, aller, dreyfus, waite

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Enenkiel 11165342 - (D) DIXON 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP LIU, HEXING

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Euvino et al 11140790 - (D) KERINS 103 CPA Global CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY LEE, BENJAMIN P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Kobayashi 11622380 - (D) SAINDON 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SENNIGER POWERS LLP SHAKERI, HADI

See In re Voss, 557 F.2d 812, 816 n.11 (CCPA 1977) (“reversal is not a mandate to the PTO to issue a patent and does not preclude the PTO from reopening prosecution”) (citing In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718 (CCPA 1974) (the Board may not force the granting of patents on inventions that do not comply with the statutes)); see also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 589 (CCPA 1972) (rejecting the notion that the reversal of a rejection indicates that a patent should be granted); In re Fisher, 448 F.2d 1406, 1407 (CCPA 1971) (“we pass only on rejections actually made and do not decree the issuance of patents … the Patent Office can always reopen prosecution”).

Borkowski, In re, 505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974) 715.07

3763 Ex Parte Schneider et al 11646744 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 ST. JUDE MEDICAL, ATRIAL FIBRILLATION DIVISION Kite & Key, LLC SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Gillis et al 11592452 - (D) SAINDON 102 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BROWN, MICHAEL A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte BANOWSKI et al 11960348 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Henkel Corporation KARPINSKI, LUKE E

“[W]here the general conditions of a claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (citing In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931 (CCPA 1934); In re Waite, 168 F.2d 104 (CCPA 1948)).

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

1631 Ex Parte Homayouni et al 11215635 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE LLP LIN, JERRY

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Gauthier et al 11613625 - (D) TIMM 103 O'Shea Getz P.C. CHAN, SING P

1746 Ex Parte Gauthier et al 11330776 - (D) TIMM 103 O'Shea Getz P.C. GOFF II, JOHN L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Wigard et al 11350394 - (D) POTHIER 102 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ludwig 10676249 - (D) JEFFERY 102 Lester F. Ludwig FLETCHER, MARLON T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Hardison 10674758 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/103 WILLIAMSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, LLC FLICK, JASON E

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2748 Ex parte GRYPHON NETWORKS CORP. 90010978 6130937 08/853,563 PERRY 102/103 HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original FOSTER, ROLAND G

fisher, harwood, spada

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 11/880,603 GARRIS 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Raschke 10/246,880 ZECHER 103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER SAXENA, AKASH

2163 Ex Parte Santosuosso 11/424,268 CALDWELL 102(e) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D

2166 Ex Parte Blaicher et al 10/446,276 HOMERE 103(a) Brake Hughes Bellermann LLP c/o CPA Global EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Scaramozzino 11/000,795 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER BROWN, VERNAL U

2613 Ex Parte Steinhorst et al 10/609,332 DANG 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER CURS, NATHAN M

2617 Ex Parte Preece 10/617,074 JEFFERY 101/112(1)/112(2) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER CUMMING, WILLIAM D

To comply with the utility requirement of § 101, the claimed invention must “have a specific and substantial utility.” In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). An asserted utility is (1) specific if shows that the “claimed invention can be used to provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public,” and (2) substantial if it shows that the “claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public.” Id. “An inoperative invention . . . does not satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101 that an invention be useful.” In re Harwood, 390 F.2d 985, 989 (CCPA 1968).

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01

Harwood, In re, 390 F.2d 985, 156 USPQ 673 (CCPA 1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2107.01

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Squibbs et al 11/035,802 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KIM, TAE W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Bushey et al 11/034,509 HORNER 103(a) BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. EXAMINER O'BRIEN, JEFFREY D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Houser et al 11/291,174 GRIMES 103(a) Thompson Hine LLP EXAMINER SIMPSON, SARAH A
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2483 Ex Parte Keren et al 09/770,767 HOFF 103(a) 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER CZEKAJ, DAVID J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Matsushita et al 10/013,505 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 103(a) SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS, PLLC EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Morita et al 10/486,787 HORNER 102(e) 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery EXAMINER MANCHO, RONNIE M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Soltys 11/480,273 KAUFFMAN 102(b) 102(b) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER PIERCE, WILLIAM M

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2604 Ex Parte 5394140 et al Ex parte MOTOROLA CORPORATION, INC. 90/010,278 07/980,047 GONSALVES 103(a) 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER HORABIK, MICHAEL
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Litwin et al 11/224,188 GARRIS 102(b) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER BELL, WILLIAM P

1767 Ex Parte Shooshtari et al 11/322,985 OBERMANN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.”)

Spada, In re, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112.01

1774 Ex Parte Germaine et al 11/922,662 SMITH 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER ROBINSON, RENEE E

2421 Ex Parte Ibrahim Sezan et al 10/894,722 RUGGIERO 103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Christian 10/714,182 PER CURIAM 103(a) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P

2829 Ex Parte Farooq et al 11/308,396 WEINBERG 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C EXAMINER BROWN, VALERIE N

3622 Ex Parte Black et al 11/491,695 PETRAVICK 112(2)/103(a) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

3736 Ex Parte Heruth et al 11/081,857 ADAMS 102(e) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Leinders et al 10/133,703 BAHR 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) EXAMINER EVANISKO, GEORGE ROBERT

fisher, mostafazadeh

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Buckhaults et al 10/487,934 WALSH 101/112(1)/112(2) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER SWOPE, SHERIDAN

“It is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.” In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Gray et al 10/903,585 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) ROBERT M. MCDERMOTT, ESQ. EXAMINER WANG, LIANG CHE A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Joseph et al 09/672,523 FETTING 251 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C

The most recent version of the MPEP now has the following sentence prior to the portion cited by the Examiner.

A statement of "failure to include a claim directed to" and then presenting a newly added claim, would not be considered a sufficient "error" statement because applicant has not pointed out what the other claims lacked that the newly added claim has, or vice versa.

MPEP 1414, II, C. Thus, this portion of the MPEP puts the phrasing regarding hypothetical new claim 10, supra, in context as merely requiring that the Applicants do more than just recite the added claim numbers and contents without regard to the existing claims. Clearly the Appellants’ declaration has pointed out what the original claims lacked and the newly [added] claims have. ...

We are at a loss to see how the Examiner arrived at this finding as to an exception to the case where claiming entirely new inventions does not involve recapture. ... We find no authority in the statutes, case law, or even the MPEP for the Examiner’s finding. Instead, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that no recapture exists in such circumstance.

The Board’s reliance on this portion of the MPEP is misplaced. This portion of the MPEP deals with claims in which there is no need to apply the recapture rule in the first place. The recapture rule is triggered only where the reissue claims are broader than the patented claims because the surrendered subject matter has been re-claimed in whole or substantial part … In contrast, this portion of the MPEP addresses reissue claims directed at “additional inventions/embodiments /species not originally claimed.” Because the subject matter of these claims was “not originally claimed,” it is wholly unrelated to the subject matter that was surrendered during prosecution and the recapture rule is not even triggered. In re Mostafazadeh --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 1642830, Slip Opinion 2010-1260 (Fed Cir 5/3/2011).

3687 Ex Parte Gerzymisch et al 11/541,433 KIM 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER AN, IG TAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Mathews 10/359,878 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) Wilson Ham & Holman EXAMINER SHIN, KYUNG H

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Dugal et al 11/801,719 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CUTLIFF, YATE KAI RENE

1631 Ex Parte Ledley 10/200,978 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SKIBINSKY, ANNA

1655 Ex Parte Joseph et al 12/136,341 GRIMES 102(b) USDA-ARS-OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NATIONAL CTR FOR AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH EXAMINER HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Thiebes et al 10/847,529 GARRIS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Surles 10/157,126 DIXON 102(b)/103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER ZURITA, JAMES H

3682 Ex Parte Hammond et al 11/691,458 KIM 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Wangler et al 10/961,248 HOELTER 102(b)/103(a) John C. McMahon EXAMINER LANDRUM, EDWARD F

3773 Ex Parte de la Torre et al 11/203,267 SAINDON 103(a) THOMPSON COBURN LLP EXAMINER MASHACK, MARK F

3781 Ex Parte Gilliam et al 11/103,331 SAINDON 103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

NEW

REVERSED

3625 Ex Parte Joseph et al 09/672,523 FETTING 251 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C

3727 Ex Parte Prell et al 11/492,326 BROWN 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

2625 Ex Parte Pruden et al 10/455,097 WINSOR 103(a) HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP EXAMINER VO, QUANG N

3624 Ex Parte Sikes 11/952,490 KIM 102(b)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER JARRETT, SCOTT L

1618 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/431,353 GRIMES 103(a) INNOVAR, LLC EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3689 Ex Parte Baggett 09/877,159 FETTING FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER MOONEYHAM, JANICE A

1733 Ex Parte Jackson et al 10/671,851 GARRIS 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

2156 Ex Parte Keohane et al 11/002,546 BLANKENSHIP 102(e) IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) EXAMINER EHICHIOYA, FRED I

AFFIRMED

3625 Ex Parte Joseph et al 09/903,457 FETTING 251/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C

2441 Ex Parte Kridner 10/306,493 HUGHES 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER BATURAY, ALICIA

2121 Ex Parte Selim et al 11/790,354 POTHIER 112(2)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER GARLAND, STEVEN R

2882 Ex Parte Sukovic et al 10/914,610 BAUMEISTER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CORBETT, JOHN M

fisher, brenner, golight

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Lantz et al 10/143,822 WALSH 101/112(1) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER SAUNDERS, DAVID A

The basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point--where specific benefit exists in currently available form-- there is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 534-35 (1966).

Courts have used the labels “practical utility” and “real world” utility interchangeably in determining whether an invention offers a “substantial” utility. Indeed, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals stated that “‘[p]ractical utility’ is a shorthand way of attributing ‘real-world’ value to claimed subject matter. In other words, one skilled in the art can use a claimed discovery in a manner which provides some immediate benefit to the public.” Nelson [v. Bowler, 626 F.2d 853, 856 (CCPA 1980)](emphasis added). It thus is clear that an application must show that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research. Simply put, to satisfy the “substantial” utility requirement, an asserted use must show that that claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public.

In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “It is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.” Id. at 1378.

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 148 USPQ 689 (1966). . . . .2106, 2107.01, 2107.02 

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Nancekievill 10/939,992 THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER ALROBAYE, IDRISS N 

Ex Parte Flynn et al 10/347,481 HOMERE 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LI, AIMEE J 

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

Ex Parte Abolfathi et al 11/271,360 MOHANTY 102(e) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER MORGAN, ROBERT W 

Ex Parte Gopalan 09/888,470 LORIN 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER AKINTOLA, OLABODE 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Boehmer et al 10/866,627 HANLON 112(1) RICHMOND, HITCHCOCK, FISH & DOLLAR EXAMINER WOOD, ELIZABETH D 

REEXAMINATION 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte CONSTRUCTION MASTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 6,721,623 90/008,298 EASTHOM 103(a) IAN F. BURNS & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M

“Structural features that do not actually perform the recited function do not constitute corresponding structure and thus do not serve as claim limitations.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 355 F.3d 1327, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc., 268 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). 

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182

fisher,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Nezu et al 10/762,154 WALSH 101/112(1) FISH & RICHARDSON PC

[A]n application must show that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research. Simply put, to satisfy the “substantial” utility requirement, an asserted use must show that that claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public. . . . in addition to providing a “substantial” utility, an asserted use must also show that the claimed invention can be used to provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public.

In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “It is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.” Fisher, 421 F. 3d at 1378. 

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01 

 

Ex Parte Schmid-Schonbein et al 11/850,169 PRATS 102(b)/103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Chen 11/084,571 KIMLIN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Ihde 10/714,200 PATE III 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS LLP

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Den Hartog et al GREEN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 

Ex Parte Li McCOLLUM 101/112(1) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

Section 101 requires a utility that is both substantial and specific. A substantial utility requires:

show[ing] that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research. Simply put, to satisfy the “substantial” utility requirement, an asserted use must show that that claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public.

In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A specific utility is “a use which is not so vague as to be meaningless.” Id. In other words, “in addition to providing a ‘substantial’ utility, an asserted use must also show that [the] claimed invention can be used to provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public.” Id.

[T]he PTO has the initial burden of challenging a presumptively correct assertion of utility in the disclosure. Only after the PTO provides evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably doubt the asserted utility does the burden shift to the applicant to provide rebuttal evidence sufficient to convince such a person of the invention’s asserted utility.

In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). “Enablement, or utility, is determined as of the application filing date.” Id. at 1567 n.19. However, post-filing evidence “can be used to substantiate any doubts as to the asserted utility [when it] pertains to the accuracy of a statement already in the specification.” Id. In addition, “[i]t is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.” 

In re Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1378. Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01 

Brana, In re, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01,2107.03, 2164.01(c),2107.02, 2164.02, 2164.04, 2164.07 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte McDonnell et al OWENS 102(a)/102(e)/103(a) FAY SHARPE LLP 

Ex Parte Nishizawa et al OWENS 102(e)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 

Ex Parte Rovito et al GARRIS 102(b) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. 

Ex Parte Hueffer et al OWENS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 

Ex Parte Lettmann et al PAK 103(a) Harness, Dickey and Pierce, P.L.C. 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Lewin et al HOFF 103(a) MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Zhou et al MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 

Ex Parte Eurlings et al MARTIN 102(b)/102(e) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP 

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

Ex Parte Cox et al STAICOVICI 103(a) REED SMITH LLP 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Bhatti et al PATE III 102/103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

Ex Parte Kalloo et al HORNER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE PC 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Watler et al SIU 101/102(e)/103(a) FROST BROWN TODD, LLC