geneva, orthokinetics, schreiber

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1779 Ex Parte HOLZMANN et al 11869229 - (D) OWENS 112(1)/102/103 Foley & Lardner LLP ANDERSON, DENISE R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Malecki 13406924 - (D) BROWN 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY IBRONI, STEFAN

3744 Ex Parte CUR et al 13108183 - (D) CALVE Concurring CAPP 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION TADESSE, MARTHA

3745 Ex Parte Gabeiras et al 13339973 - (D) BROWNE 103 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. EDGAR, RICHARD A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Qian et al 13399496 - (D) McNEILL 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION LE, THUYKHANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte PERVAN et al 13670039 - (D) GREENHUT 102 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC A, PHI DIEU TRAN

Claims 1 and 9 present issues similar to those discussed by our reviewing court in Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003), where a functional interaction with some broad class of unclaimed subject matter is used to define the scope of the subject matter actually claimed.  ...

There is nothing wrong with this style of claiming per se. However, as discussed in Geneva, the scope of the claim becomes highly dependent upon the unclaimed thing, there the bacteria, here the groove, chosen as a basis to analyze the claim. Where that unclaimed subject matter has limits reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, the claim may be quite broad, but not necessarily indefinite. See, e.g., Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (defining the size of the front legs of a travel wheelchair relative to a space between a doorframe and seat of an unclaimed automobile); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (defining the claimed dispensing top by its interaction with kernels of popped popcorn). 

Geneva Pharms. Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 68 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 804.01, 814

Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2173.02 , 2173.05(b)

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 , 2112 , 2114

3695 Ex Parte Ferris et al 12628156 - (D) MacDONALD 101 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP / Red Hat OYEBISI, OJO O

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Kadlec et al 14273535 - (D) CAPP 101 STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP CUFF, MICHAEL A

3753 Ex Parte Jarvis 14269091 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 CROSE LAW LLC HOOK, JAMES F

mannesmann, berenter, geneva, symbol techonologies, pfizer3

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Hedstrom et al 11052886 - (D) OWENS 103 WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

1735 Ex Parte Fukaya et al 12152505 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP IP, SIKYIN

1762 Ex Parte Schorm et al 12279444 - (D) McKELVEY 102 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. NGUYEN, VU ANH

The fact that the overall process is defined by the transitional term “comprising” does not broaden the type of emulsifiers which are recited in the Markush Group. See (1) Mannesmann Demag Corp. v. Engineered Metal Products Co., Inc., 793 F.2d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (cited by applicant at Brief, page 11) and (2) Berenter v. Quigg, 737 F. Supp. 5 (D. D.C. 1988) (a § 145 civil action in which the Commissioner was a party, applying Mannesmann).

Mannesmann Demag Corp. v. Engineered Metal Products Co., 793 F.2d 1279, 230 USPQ 45 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2111.03

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Brock et al 11475603 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 Anova Law Group, PLLC SINGH, AMRESH

2162 Ex Parte Kelley et al 11621238 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - IBM Endicott ALAM, SHAHID AL

2166 Ex Parte Liu et al 10810152 - (D) CHEN 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Shuman et al 10798632 - (D) SPAHN 103 Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/Nokia AHMED, MASUD

3721 Ex Parte Smith et al 12034320 - (D) GROSSMAN 102/103 MAYBACK & HOFFMAN, P.A. CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

3723 Ex Parte Duescher 11029761 - (D) SPAHN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. ELEY, TIMOTHY V

3729 Ex Parte Faatz et al 11958064 - (D) CAPP 103 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION TRINH, MINH N

3731 Ex Parte Hartley 10962766 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

3767 Ex Parte Rioux et al 10392545 - (D) HORNER 102/103 Vista IP Law Group LLP GILBERT, ANDREW M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Endepols et al 10513525 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC PURDY, KYLE A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Fujikawa et al 11396655 - (D) KIMLIN 103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP MOHADDES, LADAN

1761 Ex Parte Mitchell et al 12834131 - (D) KIMLIN 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1762 Ex Parte Seidel et al 11633972 - (D) McKELVEY 103 Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC YOON, TAE H

1785 Ex Parte Tanahashi et al 12218683 - (D) HASTINGS 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT CHAU, LISA N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Godlewski 11612524 - (D) PARVIS 102 MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY MIAN, OMER S

2481 Ex Parte Cronin 10680830 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/102 101 Timothy Raymond Cronin HARVEY, DAVID E

2486 Ex Parte Banerji et al 10074765 - (D) HOFF 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. VO, TUNG T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2659 Ex Parte Tischer et al 11267092 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ GUERRA-ERAZO, EDGAR X

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte Robinson 11418756 - (D) DANIELS 103 Dorr, Carson & Birney, P.C. BREIER, KRYSTINE E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Kaufman et al 11042312 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HOEY, ALISSA L

3778 Ex Parte Jordan 10522721 - (D) FREDMAN obviousness-type double patenting ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE

The "United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals... fashioned a doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting (also known as "obviousness-type" double patenting) to prevent issuance  of a patent on claims that are nearly identical to claims in an earlier patent. This doctrine prevents an applicant from extending patent protection for an invention beyond the statutory term by claiming a slight variant. Geneva Pharmaceuticals v. GlaxoSmithKline, 349 F. 3d 1373, 1377-1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

With regard to double patenting, we recently explained that 35 U.S.C. § 121 (1988) will not apply to remove the parent as a reference where the principle of consonance is violated: Consonance requires that the line of demarcation between the "independent and distinct inventions" that prompted the restriction requirement be maintained. Though the claims may be amended, they must not be so amended as to bring them back over the line imposed in the restriction requirement. Where that line is crossed the prohibition of the third sentence of Section 121 does not apply. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F. 2d 1569, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1991)

There is no suggestion, however, in the legislative history of section 121 that the safe-harbor provision was, or needed to be, directed at anything but divisional applications. The commentary and materials published since section 121's enactment similarly contain no suggestion that section 121 was meant to cover any applications other than divisionals. Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F. 3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) We conclude that the protection afforded by section 121 to applications (or patents issued therefrom) filed as a result of a restriction requirement is limited to divisional applications. Id. at 1362

Geneva Pharms. Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 68 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 804.01, 814

Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found., 422 F.3d 1378, 76 USPQ2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2190

3779 Ex Parte Gazdzinski 09817842 - (D) KERINS 112(2)/102/103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC LEUBECKER, JOHN P

3788 Ex Parte De Laforcade 10914168 - (D) SAINDON 103 Oliff & Berridge, PLC (with Nony) REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN