general foods, vogel, eli lilly

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Wilkinson 11041758 - (D) BAHR 103 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS CONLEY, FREDRICK C

AFFIRMED
1786 Ex Parte Quinn et al 13970238 - (D) McGEE 103 Dodd Call Black, PLLC VINEIS, FRANK J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2459 Ex Parte Turk 11897182 - (D) HAGY 103 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Dhayagude et al 11942239 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI double patenting 103 Fish & Richardson PC / Atmel ABDIN, SHAHEDA A

We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection does not clearly explain or compare the instant claims with claim 1 of the ‘704 Patent. The key question in any obviousness double patenting analysis is: “Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent asserted as supporting double patenting?” General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970)). Answering this question requires that the decision-maker first construe the claims in the patent and the claims under review and determine the differences between them. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2001). After determining the differences, the decision-maker must determine whether the differences in subject matter render the claims patentably distinct.Id. Where the subject matter of a pending claim under review is an obvious variation of the subject matter of a patented claim, the pending claim is not patentably distinct. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804 , 804.01 , 804.02 , 1504.06

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 , 2144.08 , 2165.01

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte McGuire 13096712 - (D) BARRY 103 THE GRIFFITH LAW FIRM, A P.C. WU, JERRY

“[T]hat two inventions were designed to resolve different problems ... is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

general foods, vogel, eli lilly, aldrich

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Chardon et al 11742019 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HUYNH, THU V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2674 Ex Parte Zeng 11827741 - (D) POLLOCK 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PAYER, PAUL F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Teratani et al 11408240 - (D) HASTINGS 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1755 Ex Parte Fulton et al 12292346 - (D) TIMM double patenting 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC TRINH, THANH TRUC

The key question in any obviousness double patenting analyis is: "Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent asserted as supporting double patenting?"  General Foods Corp. v. Studiengessellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278 (Fed, Cir, 1992) (discussing In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970)). Answering this question requires that the decision-maker first construe the claims in the patent and the claims under review and determine the differences between them.  Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  After determinig the differences, the decision-maker must determine whether the differences in subject matter render the claims patentably distinct. Id. Where the subject matter of a pending claim under review is an obvious variation of the subject matter of a patented claim, the pending claim is not patentably distinct.  In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

It is critical during the analysis that no part of the patent be used as "prior art" against the claims under review.  This includes the claims themselves. See In re Aldrich, 398 F.2d 855, 859 (CCPA 1968) ("double patenting rejection[s] cannot be based on section 103,... or on the disclosures of the patents whose claims are relied on to demonstrate double patenting or on the 'disclosures' of their claims... [P]atent claims are looked to only to see what has been patented, the subject matter which has been protected, not for something one may find to be disclosed by reading them") (emphasis added).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804 , 804.01 , 804.02 , 1504.06

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 , 2144.08 , 2165.01

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Miller 11958337 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC FLYNN, RANDY A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Yin et al 12117927 - (D) FINK 102/103 KIRTON MCCONKIE RICHER, AARON M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Kwong et al 11488799 - (D) COURTENAY 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. CHEN, XIAOLIANG

general foods, cohesive tech

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Fiedler et al 10746963 - (D) DIXON 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP TIMBLIN,ROBERT M

2164 Ex Parte Koike et al 11324272 - (D) MacDONALD 102 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ORTIZ DITREN,BELIX M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Derrenberger 10171198 - (D) MacDONALD 103 THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC. CHOWDHURY, NIGAR

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Williams et al 10627085 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 101 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN Mission/BSTZ SCHNURR, JOHN R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Rudell et al 10465376 - (D) BAHR 103 103 IRELL & MANELLA LLP HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE

3745 Ex Parte Danielson 11281194 - (D) GREENHUT 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. WIEHE, NATHANIEL EDWARD

3761 Ex Parte Ponomarenko et al 11479882 - (D) GREENHUT 112(1)/103 obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

Double-patenting is a matter of what is claimed. General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 1992)

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

HARMON 6: 77; 9: 190; 18: 376, 378, 394

3765 Ex Parte Shen 10948057 - (D) TARTAL 102 112(2)/102/103 FULWIDER PATTON LLP TOMPKINS, ALISSA JILL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Moreno-Lopez et al 10816465 - (D) FREDMAN 103 24IP LAW GROUP USA, PLLC WEHBE, ANNE MARIE SABRINA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Svendsen et al 11837876 - (D) QUINN 101/103 Concert Technology Corporation CHBOUKI, TAREK

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Sekiguchi et al 10493823 - (D) NAPPI 112(1)/101/103 Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch HUYNH, AN SON PHI

2444 Ex Parte Taylor et al 10247453 - (D) BOUCHER 112(2)/101/103 AT & T Legal Department - WS CHRISTENSEN, SCOTTB

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Bottomley et al 10869456 - (D) ANDERSON 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC DSOUZA, JOSEPH FRANCIS A

2644 Ex Parte Gallant 10101199 - (D) BOUCHER 103 VERIZON HUYNH, CHUCK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Klippert 10939106 - (D) DANIELS 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP STRIMBU, GREGORY J
 
3635 Ex Parte Vetesnik et al 11836181 - (D) HILL 103 ADE & COMPANY INC. PAINTER, BRANON C

3641 Ex Parte Lucuta et al 11098122 - (D) ABRAMS 102/103 CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP JOHNSON, STEPHEN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Shotwell 11564262 - (D) ASTORINO 103 LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP STASHICK, ANTHONY D

REHEARING
 
DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Ganesh et al 10866433 - (D) QUINN HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE REYES, MARIELA D

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 745 LLC Requester and Appellant v. KONAMI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT CO., LTD Patent Owner and Cross-Appellant 95000410 6,225,547 09/429,545 SIU 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 102/103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP Alex Behrakis, 745 LLC GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original FLETCHER, MARLON T

Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“secondary considerations are not an element of a claim of anticipation”).

HARMON 3: 100; 4: 104; 6: 71, 125a; 8: 66, 103a; 11: 355

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 NATIONAL STANDARD, LLC Requester and Appellant v. LINCOLN GLOBAL, INC. Lincoln Electric Company/Perkins COIE LLP Patent Owner Third Party Requestor MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 95000620 6708864 10/107,499 FITZPATRICK 102/103 Lincoln Electric Company/Perkins COIE LLP NGLE, PATRICIA LYNN original MCHENRY, KEVIN L
 
2764 Ex parte SIEMENS ENERGY, INC 90009941 5774372 08/624,174 CURCURI 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION Andrews & Kurth, LLP RALIS, STEPHEN J original VO, HIEN XUAN

REMANDED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 GOOGLE, INC. Third Party Requester, Respondent v. FUNCTION MEDIA, L.L.C. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001061 6446045 09/480,303 PER CURIAM 102/103 HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP GELLNER, JEFFREY L original JAKETIC, BRYAN J

baxter travenol, chapman, general foods, nuijten, greenfield, burckel, tiffin, kollman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Ariyapadi et al 12782346 - (D) GARRIS 103 KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT LLC MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Argenbright et al 10240479 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP PORTER, RACHEL L

3664 Ex Parte Krause et al 11273659 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 Dierker & Associates, P.C. SAMPLE, JONATHAN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Kim et al 11656460 - (D) VANOPHEM 102/103 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL

3761 Ex Parte Allen et al 11414032 - (D) ASTORINO 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TREYGER, ILYA Y

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Adams et al 10785227 - (D) MacDONALD 103 101/102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC BELANI, KISHIN G

Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because:

Appellants respectfully disagree and point out that the Examiner's position is based entirely upon taking of words out-of-context of its intended meaning in the specification, clearly directed to media used to store computer instructions, when interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art, who is willing to be free of the bias of attempting to interpret every reference to "transmission media" as somehow referring to a "signal", which is reasonably considered non-statutory under the holding of Nuijten, and that every reference to "transmission media" converts any claim remotely related to this reference as equivalent to a "signal."

That is, "energy" per se is not used to store computer instructions. Nor is this claim directed to a "signal" per se, as were the facts of Nuijten. Moreover, to one having any genuine skill in the art, signals per se are not used to store instructions, and, contrary to the confusion running rampant within the USPTO in the aftermath of the Nuijten holding, the terminology "transmission media" is not equivalent to "signal." Indeed, if taken outside any other context, the terminology "transmission media" would clearly mean the media through which a transmission occurs and would not even refer to a signal per se. Therefore, someone at the USPTO is clearly very confused about underlying technology.

(App. Br. 9)(Emphasis omitted).


AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Constantz et al 11189555 - (D) MILLS 103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provisional double patenting rejection EPA - Bozicevic Field & Francis LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

“Because nonstatutory double patenting compares earlier and later claims, an earlier patent’s disclosure is not available to show nonstatutory double patenting. See Gen. Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1281-82 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Mosseveld et al 10551109 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. REDDY, KARUNA P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2413 Ex Parte Christenson et al 11279667 - (D) WINSOR 103 IBM CORPORATION COSTIN, JEREMY M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Reid 10864866 - (D) MCKONE 102/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. ALAM, FAYYAZ

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Slatter 11258352 - (D) FETTING 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHUMPITAZ, BOB R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte McKiernan et al 11145353 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CRAIG, PAULA L  

When an obviousness rejection is based on a combination of components in the prior art reference as in the instant situation, the comparison to show unexpected results need only be between the closest prior art reference and the claimed invention. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 422 (CCPA 1966). It need not be between the claimed invention and the invention suggested by the combined teachings in the prior art reference or references. Chapman, 357 F.2d at 422. To do so would require Appellants to compare the claimed invention against itself.   

Chapman, In re, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) 716.02(e)  

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


REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Boffa 11435698 - (R) OBERMANN 103 M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC VASISTH, VISHAL V

In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179-80 (CCPA 1979) (the claimed subject matter must be compared with the closest prior art in a manner which addresses the thrust of the rejection).

Burckel, In re, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(e)

“Establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for ‘it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’” In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971))...

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

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) 716.03(a)

Cf. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (CCPA 1979) (acknowledging that in some cases several data points may enable an ordinary artisan “to ascertain a trend in the exemplified data which would allow him to reasonably extend the probative value thereof”)

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(d)