genentech, Netzer

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2153 Ex Parte Carroll 14983786 - (D) YAP 103 Christopher Carroll VO, CECILE H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2446 Ex Parte Thilderkvist et al 14061517 - (D) BUI 103 ABB - Whitmyer IP Group LLC GUZMAN, JAVIER O

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Queen et al 13832854 - (D) HANLON 102/103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP MARINI, MATTHEW G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Messerges et al 13330565 - (D) FETTING 103 Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane P.C. Google Inc. VIG, NARESH

3636 Ex Parte Miller 13218874 - (D) SHIANG 103 CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Guo et al 13095947 - (D) BROWNE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY PETERS, BRIAN O

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Eriksen et al 12951414 - (D) CUTITTA 103 112(2) SIEMENS CORPORATION AUNG, SAN M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Gupta 11742544 - (D) GUIJT 102 102 GILBRETH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. JACYNA, J CASIMER

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Davidson et al 12045630 - (D) ENGLE 103 Fletcher Yoder, P.C. NBCUniversal Media, LLC WONG, WILLIAM

 Claim 1 is a method “comprising” certain steps.  The Federal Circuit has held “the open-ended term ‘comprising’ . . . . means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”  Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997); David Netzer Consulting Eng’r LLC v. Shell Oil Co., 824 F.3d 989, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2016).  Thus, the claims as presently written do not preclude tracking and displaying additional information.

Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.03 , 2138.05 , 2163

2159 Ex Parte Hanneman et al 13473568 - (D) MORGAN 103 101 Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP/ The Boeing Company SPIELER, WILLIAM

2176 Ex Parte Jenkins et al 11873681 - (D) ANDERSON 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP SCHALLHORN, TYLER J

2185 Ex Parte Yap et al 13621994 - (D) HAGY 112(2)/103 International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C. PHAN, RAYMOND NGAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2657 Ex Parte Ajmera et al 13538988 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC JACKSON, JAKIEDA R

2657 Ex Parte Ajmera et al 13600951 - (D) DESHPANDE 112(1) 103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC JACKSON, JAKIEDA R

2685 Ex Parte Pennington et al 13552566 - (D) EVANS 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP WU, ZHEN Y

2686 Ex Parte Seban et al 12739562 - (D) YAP 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC ADNAN, MUHAMMAD

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Yan et al 13433361 - (D) HEANEY 102/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION VALENTINER, JEREMY SCOTT

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte DRESDEN 12899923 - (D) FETTING 103/double patenting LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP OSMAN BILAL AHME, AFAF

3622 Ex Parte Malden et al 12541028 - (D) CRAIG 112(1)/112(2) 101/103 HP Inc. SITTNER, MICHAEL J

3623 Ex Parte Evens et al 12720178 - (D) EVANS 101 Target Brands, Inc FEACHER, LORENA R

3624 Ex Parte Balestrieri et al 13260258 - (D) FETTING 103 101 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP (DXC) BYRD, UCHE

3625 Ex Parte Ranganath et al 13764740 - (D) EVANS 101 Facebook/Fenwick GARG, YOGESH C

3629 Ex Parte Jasthi et al 10898713 - (D) FETTING 101/103 Siemens Corporation EVANS, KIMBERLY L

3629 Ex Parte Mengerink et al 10968197 - (D) FETTING 101/103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EVANS, KIMBERLY L

3634 Ex Parte Kieffer et al 13533430 - (D) McNEILL 103 FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. CHAVCHAVADZE, COLLEEN MARGARET

3661 Ex Parte Wright et al 14251783 - (D) YAP 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford NOLAN, PETER D

3681 Ex Parte MacNeille et al 13185975 - (D) MEYERS 103 41.50 101 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL NGUYEN, THUY N

3685 Ex Parte Jakobsson et al 12955825 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(4) 101/103 PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP PVF - PARC OBEID, MAMON A

3686 Ex Parte PRASHANTH G. 12178470 - (D) FETTING 103 HONEYWELL/LKGlobal HOLCOMB, MARK

3689 Ex Parte Lundberg 13309127 - (D) JEFFERY 101/103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. MOONEYHAM, JANICE A

3694 Ex Parte Smith et al 14452419 - (D) SHAH 101 Jackson Walker LLP NGUYEN, TIEN C

3695 Ex Parte Kendrick et al 13908656 - (D) FETTING 101/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DONLON, RYAN D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Cohen et al 12651031 - (D) FLAX 112(2) 103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC (STJ) COOK, CHRISTOPHER L

3749 Ex Parte Blanchard et al 13098252 - (D) STEPINA 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY BARGERO, JOHN E

3763 Ex Parte Ginggen 12619900 - (D) BROWNE 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP GILBERT, ANDREW M

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1624 Ex Parte Smith et al 14160725 - (D) GRIMES 103 Sun Chemical Corporation, c/o Frost Brown Todd LLC MCDOWELL, BRIAN E

velander, sunrace, ullstrand, genentech

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Takenaka et al 10/540,606 BEST 103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

1732 Ex Parte Fine et al 11/279,029 SMITH 103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER VADEN, KENNETH I

1767 Ex Parte Laredo et al 11/759,551 SMITH 112(2)/102(b)/non-statutory obviousness type double patenting PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

1771 Ex Parte Niccum et al 10/711,308 PER CURIAM 103(a) KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT LLC ATTN: Christian Heausler EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY

1773 Ex Parte Miller et al 11/500,672 TIMM 103(a) DADE BEHRING INC. EXAMINER WRIGHT, PATRICIA KATHRYN

1783 Ex Parte Henry et al 10/558,753 SMITH 103(a) Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC EXAMINER MEHTA, MEGHA S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Sasai et al 10/446,941 HOFF 103(a) McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER AHN, SANGWOO

2186 Ex Parte Lee 10/453,226 HOMERE 102/103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER PATEL, HETUL B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 Ex Parte CHEN et al 10/779,234 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) TKHR (Broadcom) EXAMINER RIYAMI, ABDULLAH A

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Sumcad et al 10/875,001 KRIVAK 103(a) General Motors Corporation EXAMINER SAFAIPOUR, BOBBAK

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11/372,807 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER ALGAHAIM, HELAL A

3671 Ex Parte Lauer 11/235,749 BAUMEISTER 103(a) TAYLOR IP, P.C. EXAMINER MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Schraga 10/878,390 SCHEINER 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MILES, JONATHAN WADE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Kim 10/873,549 SMITH 103(a) 101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER LO, WEILUN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Bryan et al 10/278,990 WINSOR 103(a) 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER PYZOCHA, MICHAEL J

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Contag et al 11/529,807 FREDMAN 103(a) Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP EXAMINER HILL, KEVIN KAI

1644 Ex Parte Fritz et al 10/399,442 FRANKLIN 103(a) nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. EXAMINER DIBRINO, MARIANNE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Jones et al 11/151,501 GARRIS 103(a) ECOLAB USA INC. EXAMINER HECKERT, JASON MARK

1727 Ex Parte Simmons et al 11/386,612 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) HAMMER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER ARCIERO, ADAM A

1765 Ex Parte Peerlings et al 11/313,419 KRATZ 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER
SERGENT, RABON A

1767 Ex Parte McCabe et al 12/197,622 GARRIS 102(e)/103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

1777 Ex Parte Bischof 12/179,658 GARRIS 112(1)/103(a) COOK ALEX LTD. EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

1782 Ex Parte Buchanan 10/752,898 FRANKLIN 112(2)/103(a) ERIC D. JORGENSON EXAMINER LEFF, STEVEN N

We add that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge provided by both Fischer (which discloses a pet feeding product in general, wherein a dog is specifically disclosed) and Smith (a catnip ball played by a cat), would have been led to Appellant’s claimed subject matter by incorporating the teachings of Smith into Fischer as proposed by the Examiner, with a reasonable expectation of successfully making the toy product as claimed. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claimed subject matter can be shown to be obvious, and thus unpatentable, if it is shown that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the claimed invention. See, e.g., Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte West 10/890,563 FRAHM 102(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER LE, THU NGUYET T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Okamoto et al 10/173,316 THOMAS 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER SHEPARD, JUSTIN E

2444 Ex Parte Holzmann 10/873,665 PERRY 102(e)/103(a) LARSON NEWMAN, LLP EXAMINER SERRAO, RANODHI N

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Kondo 10/481,722 MacDONALD 102(b) William S Frommer Frommer Lawrence & Haug EXAMINER TORRES, JOSE

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Afentakis et al 11/439,410 MacDONALD 102(e)/103(a) SHARP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC. C/O LAW OFFICE OF GERALD MALISZEWSKI EXAMINER O'TOOLE, COLLEEN J

The term “connected” is not a term of art and thus, should receive its ordinary and accustomed meaning. Sunrace Roots Enterprise Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The plain meaning of the word “connect” is “[t]o join or unite; to conjoin, in almost any manner, either by junction, [or] by any intervening means.” (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, http://1828.mshaffer.com/). Furthermore, the word “connected” is restricted to neither a direct nor an indirect connection, and the term is therefore applicable to an indirect connection. Ullstrand v. Coons, 147 F.2d 698, 700 (C.C.P.A. 1945). “To be joined or connected does not necessitate a direct joining or connection.” Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir.2003) . . . .2106, 2111.01

Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 2111.03, 2138.05, 2163

2834 Ex Parte Kaplan et al 10/360,111 MacDONALD 103(a) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC EXAMINER MULLINS, BURTON S

2884 Ex Parte Fan et al 11/627,061 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER MALEVIC, DJURA

REHEARING

DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2143 Ex Parte 7287109 et al Inter Partes RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner v. NVIDIA CORP.
Requestor 95/001,166 10/966,767 EASTHOM 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b)(1) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original EXAMINER NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

genentech, bond, schriber-schroth, omega

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Greff 10/068,812 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

1612 Ex Parte Torney et al 10/939,206 GRIMES 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER MAEWALL, SNIGDHA
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Von Wendorff 10/491,072 DIXON 112(2)/101/102(b)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER TORRES, JOSEPH D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Mostafa 10/149,639 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) AlbertDhand LLP EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK

2445 Ex Parte Boehme et al 10/024,118 LUCAS 102(e)/102(a)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER COULTER, KENNETH R
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned against unreasonably broad claim construction:
Although the PTO emphasizes that it was required to give all “claims their broadest reasonable construction” particularly with respect to [the] use of the open-ended term “comprising,” see Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“the open-ended term comprising ... means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added”), this court has instructed that any such construction be “consistent with the specification, ... and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The PTO’s construction here, though certainly broad, is unreasonably broad. The broadest construction rubric coupled with the term “comprising” does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. See Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217 (1940).

In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

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

Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 2111.03, 2138.05, 2163
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Theiler 10/521,931 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Singhal 09/891,913 KIM 103(a) 103(a) Tara Chand Singhal EXAMINER MONFELDT, SARAH M

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Gertzmann et al 11/784,643 McKELVEY 103(a)/provisional double patenting CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2122 Ex Parte Fu 11/342,086 LUCAS 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER GAMI, TEJAL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2471 Ex Parte Reinold et al 09/943,882 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. EXAMINER HYUN, SOON D

See Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (an express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by the negative limitation is required, such as an express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that provides support for the negative limitation).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Abbasi et al 11/005,683 KIM 103(a) SPRINT EXAMINER GORT, ELAINE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Minoguchi et al 10/836,892 SAINDON 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

genentech, bond, schriber-schroth, E.I. dupont, hall, bruckelmeyer, wyer

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Sandhu 11/257,946 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) Wells St. John P.S. EXAMINER MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Butcher 10/392,698 LUCAS 103(a) MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP

(Oracle formerly d/b/a Sun Microsystems) EXAMINER MANOSKEY, JOSEPH D

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned against unreasonably broad claim construction:

Although the PTO emphasizes that it was required to give all “claims their broadest reasonable construction” particularly with respect to [the] use of the open-ended term “comprising,” see Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“the open-ended term comprising ... means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added”), this court has instructed that any such construction be “consistent with the specification, ... and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

The PTO’s construction here, though certainly broad, is unreasonably broad. The broadest construction rubric coupled with the term “comprising” does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. See Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217 (1940).

In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 2111.03, 2138.05, 2163

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

2154 Ex Parte Fox et al 11/026,358 HUGHES 102(e) DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER CHEN, TE Y

2191 Ex Parte Speare et al 10/806,779 BARRY 102(b) SENNIGER POWERS LLP (MSFT) EXAMINER VO, TED T

"The PTO Rules of Practice require the examiner to cite only what he considers the 'best references.'" E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Berkley & Co., 620 F.2d 1247, 1266-67 (8th Cir. 1980).

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Berkley and Co., 620 F.2d 1247, 205 USPQ 1 (8th Cir. 1980) . . . . . .2107.01
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Watrous 10/094,874 MOHANTY 101/112(2)/103(a) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER SEREBOFF, NEAL

3667 Ex Parte Fahrny et al 11/006,864 FISCHETTI 112(2)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER BADII, BEHRANG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Connor 11/285,883 O’NEILL 112(2)/103(a) FENNEMORE CRAIG EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Schmeling et al 10/011,524 KIM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD

3664 Ex Parte Seki 11/017,293 CHEN 112(2)/103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. EXAMINER PECHE, JORGE O

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Link 10/690,818 ZECHER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER DUFFY, DAVID W

3738 Ex Parte Stacchino et al 11/066,346 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D

3764 Ex Parte Habing et al 11/372,645 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER GANESAN, SUNDHARA M
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2761 Ex parte ePlus, Inc., Appellant and Assignee 90/008,104 6,023,683 TURNER 102(a)/102(b) PATENT OWNER: GOODWIN PROCTER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: LEE PATCH, ESQ. DAY CASEBEER MADRID & BATCHELDER EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R originally Cha & Reiter, LLC EXAMINER COSIMANO, EDWARD R

“The statutory phrase ‘printed publication’ has been interpreted to give effect to ongoing advances in the technologies of data storage, retrieval, and dissemination.” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). “Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Id. at 898-99 (citation omitted).

Our reviewing court has explained that a reference is “‘publicly accessible”’ upon a satisfactory showing that:

(1) the “document has been disseminated”; or

(2) “otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further research or experimentation.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)).

Hall, In re, 781 F.2d 897, 228 USPQ 453 (Fed. Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . .2128, 2128.01, 2128.02

Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F. 3d 1374, 78 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . 2127

Wyer, In re, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901.05, 2127, 2128

AFFIRMED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Smith 10/630,562 GREENHUT 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER GANESAN, SUBA

NEW

REVERSED

2186 Ex Parte Brownhill et al 11/025,413 HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER VERDERAMO III, RALPH

1625 Ex Parte Catinat et al 10/534,502 GRIMES 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER MABRY, JOHN

2188 Ex Parte NOYLE 11/364,691 THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER TRAN, DENISE

AFFIRMED

3627 Ex Parte Cachey et al 10/321,783 RUGGIERO 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER OBEID, FAHD A

2452 Ex Parte Ratcliff et al 10/413,618 FISCHETTI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.41 101 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER CHANKONG, DOHM