giacomini, lockwood, jepson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Haltiner et al 12788834 - (D) McSHANE 103 Delphi Technologies, Inc. DUDLEY, ARCHER DAVIS

1786 Ex Parte KWONG et al 13233213 - (D) NAGUMO 103 Duane Morris LLP (UDC) CLARK, GREGORY D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2198 Ex Parte Moon et al 11877184 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC KABIR, MOHAMMAD H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Jiang 11984779 - (D) MacDONALD 103 41.50 112(2) Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C. ALMEIDA, DEVIN E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2668 Ex Parte Collomosse et al 12179857 - (D) COURTENAY 112(2)/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHEN, XUEMEI G

Our reviewing court guides, "[A]n application is not entitled to a patent if another's patent discloses the same invention, which was carried forward from an earlier U.S. provisional application or U.S. non-provisional application."  In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010). "An important limitation is that the provisional application must provide provisional written description support for the claimed invention."  Id. (emphasis added). ...

However, our reviewing court clarifies that "it is 'not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee's device from the teachings of the disclosure....  Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device,' ... A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fd. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963))(emphasis added). ...

Because of the Examiner's repeated reliance on the word "implied" in the Final Office Action, and based upon our review of the record, we are persuaded the Liu application, at best, may render obvious some portions of the necessary support.  However, under 112, first paragraph (written description), "[a] description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572. (Emphasis added).

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2133.03(a) , 2163 , 2163.02

2691 Ex Parte MA 11840906 - (D) JIVANI 112(1)/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. YANG, KWANG-SU

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3667 Ex Parte Lich et al 12665897 - (D) HOFFMAN 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LANG, MICHAEL DEAN

3671 Ex Parte KUREK 12620908 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 41.50 112(2) James Ray & Associates Intellectual Property, LLC RISIC, ABIGAIL ANNE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Diehl et al 10487489 - (D) THOMAS 103 103 MYERS WOLIN, LLC HOLDER, BRADLEY W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Zhang 12010150 - (D) HORVATH 103 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. LEE, JUSTIN YE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Davis et al 12239964 - (D) HOELTER 103 103 BGL/Yahoo! Overture MYHRE, JAMES W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte State 11775332 - (D) FREDMAN 112(2)/103 112(2)/103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. NGUYEN, TIN DUC

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte HAAS et al 12487137 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP COONEY, JOHN M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Peled et al 10927044 - (D) HAAPALA 103 MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. WANG, HARRIS C

2447 Ex Parte Rimac et al 12813026 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 Kramer & Amado, P.C. JOSHI, SURAJ M

2457 Ex Parte Esfahany et al 12582201 - (D) BAER 103 Baker Botts LLP NANO, SARGON N
AFFIRMED 2625 Ex Parte Sun 11372458 - (D) MANTIS MERCADOR 103 Griggs Bergen LLP SCHNIREL, ANDREW B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2647 Ex Parte CRUESS et al 12203480 - (D) HUME 103 FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. NGUYEN, TUAN HOANG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 Ex Parte Keeton et al 12332469 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 NCR Corporation SMITH, CHAD

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Blouin et al 11303165 - (D) FETTING 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES PC IBM CORP (YA) JASMIN, LYNDA C

3646 Ex Parte Newman et al 12423411 - (D) STAICOVICI 112(1) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. NGUYEN, CHUONG P

3659 Ex Parte Silva et al 12641829 - (D) HOELTER 103 FCA US LLC KNIGHT, DEREK DOUGLAS

3689 Ex Parte Villena et al 10536692 - (D) McSHANE 102/103 Northern Virginia Law and Technology Services, LLC RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM

3693 Ex Parte Richter 11475573 - (D) FETTING 101 Welsh & Katz, Ltd. WEISBERGER, RICHARD C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Harpell 12381031 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 JACK PAAVILA MULLER, BRYAN R

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Koefelda et al 11499251 - (D) WOODS 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. MCKINLEY, CHRISTOPHER BRIAN

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 SEMILEDS CORPORATION Requester and Respondent v. CREE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte Edmonds et al 7,737,459 11/112,429 95001627 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 WILMERHALE/BOSTON Third Party Requester: Baker Botts LLP original MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original LOUIE, WAI SING

ergo, noah, giacomini

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte CHEN et al 11/470,915 KRATZ 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

1715 Ex Parte CHEN et al 11/470,922 KRATZ 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Main 11/210,991 SAADAT 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent EXAMINER MAHMOOD, REZWANUL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Apps 11/252,478 McCARTHY 102(e) REHRIG PACIFIC EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V

3651 Ex Parte Hochtritt et al 10/660,659 McCARTHY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER WAGGONER, TIMOTHY R

3671 Ex Parte de Kerdanet 10/535,792 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) Levy & Grandinetti EXAMINER MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Kliskey 11/404,527 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) obviousness-type double patenting RENNER KENNER GREIVE BOBAK TAYLOR & WEBER EXAMINER GRANT, ALVIN J

3732 Ex parte D’ALISE 11/255,846 ADAMS 102(e)/103(a) RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB, PA EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2167 GOOGLE, INC. Third Party Requestor, Respondent v. FUNCTION MEDIA, L.L.C. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,061 6,446,045 09/480,303 PER CURIAM 112(2)/112(6) Michael F. Heim HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER JAKETIC, BRYAN J

The use of means-plus-function language in a claim does not excuse an appellant from complying with the claim definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303 LLC, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., No. 2011-1390, 2012 WL 1150216 at *7 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2012). If an Applicant does not disclose structure for a means plus function term, the claim is indefinite. Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303 LLC, Inc., 673 F.3d at 1361.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Lubker 11/212,357 METZ 103(a) 102(b)/102(a,e)/103(a) PACTIV CORPORATION c/o NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Gelbard 10/839,190 GONSALVES 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 101/102(e)/102(b) DR. MARK M. FRIEDMAN EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Hallowell et al 10/256,818 SAINDON 103(a) 103(a) CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP. C/O NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER SHAPIRO, JEFFERY A

Appellants additionally argue that Stieber is not prior art because the Examiner is not entitled to use the filing of a provisional application in a §102(e) rejection. App. Br. 27-30. This issue has, since the filing of Appellants’ brief, been addressed in In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (the patent-defeating date of a published application under §102(e) can be the provisional filing date).

3653 Ex Parte Mandel et al 11/141,545 SAINDON 102(a)/103(a) 112(2) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP EXAMINER GOKHALE, PRASAD V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Kadykowski et al 11/710,370 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) TERUMO CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS CORPORATION ATTN: GAEL DIANE TISACK EXAMINER CRONIN, ASHLEY L

3763 Ex Parte Haase 11/412,464 SCHEINER 103(a) 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Jordens et al 10/550,219 PRAISS 102(b)/103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER FANG, SHANE

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Gupta 10/027,580 JEFFERY 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER VO, HUYEN X

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Ellefson et al 11/185,170 TURNER 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP EXAMINER CARTER, CANDICE D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Besselink 10/528,044 ADAMS 103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

3761 Ex Parte Guerreschi et al 10/831,725 SCHEINER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHAPMAN, GINGER T

giacomini, kubin, o'farrell, rolls-royce

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Batke et al 09/967,742 MacDONALD 103(a) ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./BF EXAMINER SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Vayssiere 11/024,094 COURTENAY 102(e) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP EXAMINER LY, ANH

“[A]n applicant is not entitled to a patent if another’s patent discloses the same invention, which was carried forward from an earlier U.S. provisional application or U.S. non-provisional application. . . . An important limitation is that the provisional application must provide written description support for the claimed invention.” In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

The 35 U.S.C. 102(e) critical reference date of a U.S. patent or U.S. application publications and certain international application publications entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is the filing date of the provisional application with certain exceptions if the provisional application(s) properly supports the subject matter relied upon to make the rejection in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.

MPEP § 2136.03 (III.)(bold in original).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Benz et al 10/791,432 KAUFFMAN 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER LE, DAVID D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Song 10/638,920 GRIMES 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER VU, JAKE MINH

1633 Ex Parte Blanche et al 11/582,427 FREDMAN 103(a) WILEY REIN LLP EXAMINER KAUSHAL, SUMESH

We are not persuaded. Kubin stated that “[r]esponding to concerns about uncertainty in the prior art influencing the purported success of the claimed combination, this court [in O’Farrell] stated: ‘[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success … all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”’ In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-904 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1776 Ex Parte Louis Schupp 11/145,205 NAGUMO 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER ORLANDO, AMBER ROSE

1781 Ex Parte Chaudhry et al 11/127,714 GAUDETTE 112(1)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER BADR, HAMID R

Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Technologies Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“If a person of ordinary skill, before the time of invention and without knowledge of that invention, would have found the invention merely an easily predictable and achievable variation or combination of the prior art, then the invention likely would have been obvious.”).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/191,469 DANG 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOI, YUK TING

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Wee et al 10/245,892 GONSALVES 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D

NEW

AFFIRMED

06/01/2011 1767 Ex Parte Gong et al 10/518,127 GAUDETTE 103(a) EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

06/01/2011 1764 Ex Parte Guenther et al 12/008,740 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER HUHN, RICHARD A