dunn, freeman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte CRINE et al 12638527 - (R) ADAMS 103 Clark+Elbing LLP/Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. DESAI, ANAND U

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Jackson 14798841 - (D) EVANS 112(1)/112(2)/103 Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (ImgTec) VICARY, KEITH E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Kawato 12445187 - (D) HASTINGS 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC OSENBAUGH-STEWAR, ELIZA W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Walther et al 13961631 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 102/103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC YIP, WINNIE S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1673 Ex Parte Gödl et al 12442288 - (D) SMITH 103 CHALKER FLORES, LLP OLSON, ERIC

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Bloembergen et al 12630526 - (D) ROSS 102 103 BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP STEWART, KIMBERLY ANN

1767 Ex Parte Jakubek et al 13409074 - (D) WILSON 103 HP Inc. KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C

1776 Ex Parte FUKUDA et al 14672257 - (D) RANGE 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON SHUMATE, ANTHONY R

See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 439 (CCPA 1965) (“The cause and effect sought to be proven is lost here in the welter of unfixed variables.”). 

See In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973) (in order for a showing of unexpected results to be probative evidence of nonobviousness, an applicant must establish (1) that there is a difference between the results obtained through the claimed invention and the prior art and (2) that the results obtained would not have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention).

Dunn, In re, 349 F.2d 433, 146 USPQ 479 (CCPA 1965) 804.02

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Anderson 13963590 - (D) CUTITTA 103 Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP (Emerson) KABIR, SAAD M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte CHOI et al 14169740 - (D) EVANS 103 OTDP THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. BRITTINGHAM, NATHANIEL P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3649 Ex Parte Hjelmvik 12377749 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 101/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON BORISSOV, IGORN

3681 Ex Parte KNORR 14134294 - (D) EVANS 101 OLIFF PLC LI, SUN M

freeman, medtronic

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Chatterjee 11466239 - (D) HUDALLA 103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC SANDIFER, MATTHEW D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Testrake et al 11486763 - (D) MOHANTY 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

3741 Ex Parte Chen et al 11741385 - (D) MOHANTY 103 LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR) BOSWELL, BETH V

3742 Ex Parte Kusaka et al 12161746 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 RATNERPRESTIA DANG, KET D
REVERSED 2193 Ex Parte Chatterjee 11466239 - (D) HUDALLA 103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC SANDIFER, MATTHEW D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Love et al 11194224 - (D) DIXON 103 103 GOOGLE C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP ADDY, ANTHONY S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2865 Ex Parte Moore 12577389 - (D) WILSON 103 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC HENSON, MISCHITA L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Anderson 11588679 - (D) KINDER 103 103 Michael A. Mochinski LIM, SENG HENG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte MENDOZA et al 12647971 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. TONGUE, LAKIA J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Wohlfromm et al 12373439 - (D) WILSON 103/ obviousness-type double patenting NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP ZHU, WEIPING

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2132 Ex Parte Kandasamy et al 12031778 - (D) KINDER 101 102 IBM Corp. (AUS/RCR) c/o Rolnik Law Firm, P.C. OTTO, ALAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte TOCK et al 12572656 - (D) STEPHENS 103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP HIGA, BRENDAN Y

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Wassingbo et al 12106418 - (D) FRAHM 103 WARREN A. SKLAR (SOER) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP ZHOU, HONG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Nohilly 11502339 - (D) WIEKER 103 BODNER & O''ROURKE, LLP FISHBACK, ASHLEY LAUREN

3741 Ex Parte Venkataraman et al 12219534 - (D) HILL 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. GOYAL, ARUN

3744 Ex Parte Li et al 10875173 - (D) BARRETT 102 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC PETTITT, JOHN F

3781 Ex Parte Maia 12457795 - (D) BAYAT 103 ROSENBERG, KLEIN & LEE CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS INC., Requester and Appellant, v. Patent of ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7954538 et al 12/931,644 95001829 - (D) ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/103/314 The Jackson Patent Group, LLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: UNGERMAN IP, PLLC JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE original YOON, KEVIN E

1735 BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS INC., Requester and Appellant, v. Patent of ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7,882,886 et al 12/080,482 95001830 - (D) ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/103/314 The Jackson Patent Group, LLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: UNGERMAN IP, PLLC JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE original YOON, KEVIN E

The test for when a claim is broader in scope than the original claims is “if it contains within its scope any conceivable apparatus or process which would not have infringed the original patent.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this regard, a “claim that is broader in any respect is considered to be broader than the original claims even though it may be narrower in other respects.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Guidant Corp., 465 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

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

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 SAP AMERICA, INC. Requester v. WELLOGIX TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC Patent Owner Ex Parte 7669133 et al 10/125,120 95001397 - (D) SIU 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP DESAI, RACHNA SINGH original RIES, LAURIE ANNE

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

hauserman, arvin, freeman, de blauwe, baxter travenol, grasselli2, clemens, freeman, klosak, dillon, mayne, schulze, greenfield, woodruff

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/21/2011 1655 Ex Parte Yang 10/505,015 ADAMS 103(a) WANG & HO EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

2600 Communications
07/22/2011 2624 Ex Parte Fushiki et al 11/041,033 KOHUT 102(b)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER WANG, CLAIRE X
REEXAMINATION EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/22/2011 3765 Ex parte CHRISTOPER SEAN VAN WINKLE and DAVID COX Appellants 90/009,210 7,076,806 SONG 102(b)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC Third Party Requester: VENABLE LLP EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER PATEL, TAJASH D

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/22/2011 1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/089,525 NAGUMO 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M

07/21/2011 1747 Ex Parte Yokota et al 10/277,646 GUEST 103(a) BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDINGS, INC. EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

The word “substantially” has been construed many times by our reviewing court. While the term “substantially” certainly broadens the term it modifies to some degree, it “cannot be allowed to negate the meaning of the word it modifies.” In re Hauserman, Inc., 892 F.2d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Arvin Industries, Inc. v. Berns Air King Corp., 525 F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1975)).
07/22/2011 1731 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/820,972 OWENS 103(a) K&L GATES LLP EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

That argument is not persuasive because, first, evidence must not merely show an unexpected property but, rather, must show an unexpected difference in a property between the claimed invention and the prior art. See In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973). Second, the Appellants have not provided a side-by-side comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims, and explained why the results would have been unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Freeman, 474 F.2d at 1324; In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).

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

De Blauwe, In re, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . 716.01(c), 2145

Grasselli, In re, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2112, 2145

Clemens, In re, 622 F.2d 1029, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . 716.02(d), 2145

07/21/2011 1796 Ex Parte Dreier et al 11/032,434 ROBERTSON 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

A showing of unexpected results may be sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). Such a showing must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965). The evidence must also be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978). Further, the Federal Circuit has held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is a claimed range; the applicant must show that the range is critical through unexpected results. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted).

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09, 2145

Schulze, In re, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965) . . . .716.01(c), 2145, 2164.06(c)

Greenfield, In re, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . 2144.05

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/21/2011 2162 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11/058,972 THOMAS 103(a) Baker Botts L.L.P EXAMINER BULLOCK, JOSHUA

07/22/2011 2164 Ex Parte Avinash et al 11/016,081 MORGAN 103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

07/21/2011 2181 Ex Parte Azadet et al 10/880,331 GONSALVES 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
07/21/2011 2456 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/672,601 DANG 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T

2600 Communications
07/21/2011 2617 Ex Parte Filipovic et al 10/412,928 RUGGIERO 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

gurley, para-ordnance, harza, freeman,

REVERSED 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Koh et al 09/802,857 THOMAS 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER YIGDALL, MICHAEL J 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Guglielmotti et al 10/560,836 WALSH 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI Ex Parte Shy 11/123,360 WALSH 103(a) STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP 

See Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553; see also, Para-Ordnance Manufacturing v. SGS Importers International Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed Cir. 1995) (a warning against use of an element, rather than omission of mention of the element, is required to find teaching away). 

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Forman et al 10/835,684 HOMERE 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D 

Ex Parte Nutter et al 10/145,374 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DALE B. HALLING EXAMINER LE, MIRANDA 

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

Ex Parte Sharp 09/765,985 LORIN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER MITTAL, KRISHAN K 

Cf. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 774 (CCPA 1960) ("It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced".) 

Harza, In re, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04 

REEXAMINATION 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC. 90/008,132 6,624,096 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: HAMMER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MICHAEL F. SNYDER VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L 

Collateral estoppel (also called issue preclusion) “precludes relitigation in a second suit of issues actually litigated and determined in the first suit.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994). This doctrine applies only if: “(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” Id. 

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