aoyama, golight, donaldson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Flinchem 11613817 - (D) ANDERSON 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP AFOLABI, MARK O

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Marsili 11090811 - (D) MORGAN 103 Dicke, Billig & Czaja, PLLC MALEK, LEILA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Lassl et al 11530293 - (D) SPAHN 112(1)/103 Just Intellectuals, PLLC WESTBROOK, SUNSURRAYE

3646 Ex Parte McCarty et al 11735612 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A

The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation “is to define the particular function of the claim limitation.” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation “is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” Id. at 1297 (quoting Golight, 355 F.3d at 1334). As explained in In re Donaldson, “the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination.” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Rather, the PTO must look to the Specification and construe the “means” language recited in the claim as limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification and equivalents thereof. Id.

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2182

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Wright et al 11526953 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP SCHAPER, MICHAEL T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Pitroda 11931872 - (D) KIM 101/102/103 102./103 Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz NGUYEN, NGA B

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte Kay et al 10200002 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP WHITEMAN, BRIAN A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte De Villiers et al 11982431 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD

3753 Ex Parte Neff et al 11045448 - (D) SPAHN 103 Phillips McFall McCaffrey McVay & Murrah, P.C. SCHNEIDER, CRAIG M

3767 Ex Parte Weilbacher 11517043 - (D) ADAMS 103 Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

3777 Ex Parte Stamatas et al 10986941 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON CHENG, JACQUELINE

aoyama, golight, cardiac pacemakers, med. instrumentation, larson, default proof, prater, biomedino, donaldson

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Garg et al 11/284,193 SMITH 103(a) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P

1729 Ex Parte Takeguchi et al 11/225,586 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, PATRICIA A

1761 Ex Parte Wenderoth et al 10/333,611 NAGUMO 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER OGDENJR, NECHOLUS

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Blandy et al 10/854,990 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, HETUL B

2193 Ex Parte Satoh et al 10/762,174 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER MAI, TAN V

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Iwasaki 10/588,935 HOFF 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER ALLEN, DANIELLE NICOLE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Norcom 11/068,092 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BRADEN, SHAWN M

3761 Ex Parte Parks et al 10/453,316 SAINDON 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Chandler 11/401,198 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HANDY, DWAYNE K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte DeCenzo 11/478,905 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V

“‘The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation. The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.’” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Fed. Cir. 2011, internal cites omitted).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte D. et al 10/620,044 Per Curiam 101/102(e)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER SINKANTARAKORN, PAWARIS

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Richards 11/375,319 FRAHM 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER EVANISKO, LESLIE J
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex Parte 6,672,187 et al Ex parte BIMEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 90/010,445 LEBOVITZ 112(1) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER ASHLEY, BOYER DOLINGER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1614 Ex Parte 6506400 et al ZUND SYSTEMTECHNIK AG & ZUND AMERICA, INC. Requester v. Patent of MIKKELSEN GRAPHIC ENGINEERING, INC. 95/001,354 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner JANSSON, SHUPE & MUNGER, LTD EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER REAMER, JAMES H

“The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.” Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2002). . . .

“The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” Golight, 355 F.3d at 1334. “Under this second step, structure disclosed in the specification is corresponding structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182

Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 63 USPQ2d 1725 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . 2181, 2182

Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 68 USPQ2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . .2181, 2182
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Yudoovsky et al 12/246,086 GUEST 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R

In the “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer, the Examiner, for the first time, expresses an alternative rationale for unpatentability, which is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transform the RT2 and RT3 devices of Ohshimo into a single device, citing In re Larson, 340 F.3d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (Ans. 10). This abstract rationale is completely unrelated to the claim interpretation rationale of the Examiner’s stated rejections. We decline to consider this new rationale because it implicitly constitutes an unauthorized new ground of rejection. The “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer is not an appropriate place to raise a new rationale for unpatentability.

Larson, In re, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04

1731 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/374,238 SMITH 103(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1745 Ex Parte Gammons et al 11/459,625 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) KNOX PATENTS EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R

1764 Ex Parte Scherzer et al 11/813,833 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L

1766 Ex Parte Eipper et al 11/996,489 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER GULAKOWSKI, RANDY P

1782 Ex Parte Kendig et al 11/180,263 TIMM 102(e)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WOOD, ELLEN S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Graves et al 10/893,617 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HUQ, FARZANA B

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brandt 11/603,264 SIU 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Alverson et al 10/634,504 FISCHETTI 101/112(2)/103(a) ERNEST D. BUFF ERNEST D. BUFF AND ASSOCIATES, LLC. EXAMINER CHOI, PETER H

Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is indefinite because at best, the human involvement required in the claim fails to describe non-human structure and/or material, which perform the functions recited by the "means". See Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291 (fed. Cir. 2005), citing to In re Prater, 56 C.C.P.A. 1381, 415 F.2d 1393, 1398 (CCPA 1969) (“…a human being cannot constitute a “means”). The test is whether the Specification actually describes the structure that performs the claimed function. “If there is no structure in the specification corresponding to the means-plus-function limitation in the claims, the claim will be found invalid as indefinite.” Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).

Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 75 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . 2181

Prater, In re, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) . . .2106, 2111, 2172, 2173.05(a), 2173.05(q), 2411.01

Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . .2181, 2185

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . .2106, 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182
As to the latter activity, we find that

[s]imply adding a “computer aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See [SiRF Tech, Inc. v. ITC, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)] (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.”).

Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 2012 WL 164439 at *17 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
3633 Ex Parte Snyder et al 11/561,468 SAINDON 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP EXAMINER GLESSNER, BRIAN E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Matsumura et al 11/172,058 KAUFFMAN 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P

fisher, brenner, golight

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Lantz et al 10/143,822 WALSH 101/112(1) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER SAUNDERS, DAVID A

The basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point--where specific benefit exists in currently available form-- there is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 534-35 (1966).

Courts have used the labels “practical utility” and “real world” utility interchangeably in determining whether an invention offers a “substantial” utility. Indeed, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals stated that “‘[p]ractical utility’ is a shorthand way of attributing ‘real-world’ value to claimed subject matter. In other words, one skilled in the art can use a claimed discovery in a manner which provides some immediate benefit to the public.” Nelson [v. Bowler, 626 F.2d 853, 856 (CCPA 1980)](emphasis added). It thus is clear that an application must show that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research. Simply put, to satisfy the “substantial” utility requirement, an asserted use must show that that claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public.

In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “It is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.” Id. at 1378.

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 148 USPQ 689 (1966). . . . .2106, 2107.01, 2107.02 

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Nancekievill 10/939,992 THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER ALROBAYE, IDRISS N 

Ex Parte Flynn et al 10/347,481 HOMERE 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LI, AIMEE J 

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

Ex Parte Abolfathi et al 11/271,360 MOHANTY 102(e) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER MORGAN, ROBERT W 

Ex Parte Gopalan 09/888,470 LORIN 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER AKINTOLA, OLABODE 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Boehmer et al 10/866,627 HANLON 112(1) RICHMOND, HITCHCOCK, FISH & DOLLAR EXAMINER WOOD, ELIZABETH D 

REEXAMINATION 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte CONSTRUCTION MASTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 6,721,623 90/008,298 EASTHOM 103(a) IAN F. BURNS & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M

“Structural features that do not actually perform the recited function do not constitute corresponding structure and thus do not serve as claim limitations.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 355 F.3d 1327, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc., 268 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). 

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182