ghuman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Hartman et al 11166540 - (D) FRAHM 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. TRAN, KHANH C

Appellants argue claims 4, 10, and 14 in the conclusion of the Appeal Brief (Br. 14); and Appellants have not clearly stated in the Appeal Brief that some of the finally rejected claims (e.g., claims 4, 10, and 14) are not being pursued in the appeal. See Ex parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (holding that when appellants are silent in the notice of appeal as to the specific claims being appealed, and then clearly state in the appeal brief that some of the finally rejected claims are not being pursued in the appeal, appellants should cancel those claims not pursued). As such, the facts of the instant case are not congruent with the facts of Ex parte Ghuman, and we consider Appellants to appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, 14, and 20-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on October 22, 2013.

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2194 Ex Parte Tankov et al 10858657 - (D) FISHMAN 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP ZHEN, LI B
 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Subramanian et al 11749671 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 CONLEY ROSE, P.C. WILSON, CANDICE D C

aristocrat, harris2, ghuman,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Hollingsworth et al 10/795,652 WALSH 103(a) IAN C. McLEOD, P.C. 

Ex Parte Rollat et al 10/023,330 ADAMS 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Sjoberg 10/309,345 SMITH 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO

Ex Parte Weeks 10/528,610 DELMENDO 103(a) THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 

Ex Parte Bartenbach et al 10/806,232 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP 

Ex Parte Nam et al 10/374,980 KIMLIN 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM 

Ex Parte Petzoldt et al 10/934,525 NAGUMO 103(a)/provisionalobviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLANDMAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP 

Ex Parte Beutel et al 10/755,128 TIMM 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Bit-Babik et al 10/945,234 HAIRSTON 102(e) MOTOROLA, INC. 

Ex Parte Awada et al 10/845,534 THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) IBM CORP 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte McGowan et al 10/632,072 HAIRSTON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Andreason 09/898,480 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

Ex Parte Chen et al 11/121,877 HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Bristow et al 11/618,950 GARRIS 103(a)/provisional obviousness-type double patenting CANTOR COLBURN, LLP 

Ex Parte Bristow et al2 10/805,760 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, LLP 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Sonkin et al 10/872,633 SIU Concurring JEFFERY 112(2)/101/102(e) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Brabson et al 10/045,556 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION 

The Federal Circuit has stated that simply disclosing a general purpose computer as the structure to perform the claimed function does not meet the corresponding structure requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 sixth paragraph. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333. Rather, "the corresponding structure for a § 112 paragraph 6 claim for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification." Id (citing Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). 

2600 Communications

Ex Parte Fritz et al 10/307,680 HOFF 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 

Ex Parte Marvit et al 10/807,561 EASTHOM 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 

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

Ex Parte Bunker 10/089,011 STAICOVICI 103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC 

Consistent with the holding in BPAI precedential opinion Ex Parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (BPAI 2008), Appellant may not reserve arguments for some later time. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 (c)(1)(vii)(2009).