gottschalk, cochrane

custom search

Reversed 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 BEIJING LENOVO SOFTWARE LTD. et al. 14217753 HORVATH 103 SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC LOUIS, VINNCELAS

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED 14985947 RANGE 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED NGUYEN, DILINH P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Daikin Industries, Ltd. 14228105 O’HANLON 103 GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP David Tarnoff ZEC, FILIP

Affirmed-in-Part 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ford Global Technologies, LLC 15492084 HASTINGS 102/103 102/103 41.50 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford HAN, KWANG S

1783 Zhaohui Zhong et al. 13225135 COLAIANNI 103 102/103 41.50 112(1)/112(2) REISING ETHINGTON P.C. JAMES D. STEVENS MILLER, DANIEL H

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972) (“A process is a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing.” (emphasis added) (quoting Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788 (1876))).

Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 24 L.Ed. 139, 1877 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 242 (1876) 2106 , 2106.03

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972) 2103 , 2106 , 2106.03 , 2106.04 , 2106.04(a)(1) , 2106.05(c) ,   2106.05(f)

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL) 14910166 DROESCH 112(2)/102/103 101 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson CHENG, CHI TANG P

Affirmed
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 JINA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 15204826 GRIMES 103 Casimir Jones, S.C. PEEBLES, KATHERINE

1623 Ute Hoch et al. 14354080 KATZ 103 NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS OLSON, ERIC

1641 Warren L. Dinges 13800495 HARDMAN 102/103 COOLEY LLP BELEI, CARMENCITA

1645 HUNT, Terrence J. 13427582 TOWNSEND 102/103 ALLERGAN, INC. LYONS, MARY M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Gregory Cole 15853740 REN 102/103 Braxton Perrone, PLLC MELLOTT, JAMES M

1733 POSCO 14783221 INGLESE 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP MCGUTHRY BANKS, TIMA MICHELE

1735 Soliden, LLC 14545566 HEANEY 103 KAUFHOLD DIX PATENT LAW YOON, KEVIN E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 NICE-SYSTEMS LTD. 14267638 MORGAN 101 Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP HOANG, HAU HAI

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2486 Seagate Technology LLC 14029725 BUSCH 103 Holzer Patel Drennan - Seagate Technology LLC HANSELL JR., RICHARD A

2488 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. 14362113 NAPPI 103 112(1) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DULEY, JANESE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Jérôme Laine 14837286 HOMERE 112(2) 103 Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC EUSTAQUIO, CAL J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2812 ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 14535756 PRAISS 101 Kraguljac Law Group/Oracle SEVEN, EVREN

2853 Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated 14578302 SQUIRE 103 Caesar Rivise, PC Attn: Xerox/PARC MARINI, MATTHEW G

2857 Lecocq, Paul 13895179 TIMM 103 101 OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC CROHN, MARK I

2887 Wayne Fueling Systems LLC 15669109 DENNETT 103 Mintz Levin/Wayne Fueling Systems LLC MAI, THIEN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 ERICSSON TELEVISION INC. 14255029 CALVE 103 112(2)/101 Clairvolex Inc. MANDEL, MONICA A

3622 Hsiao, Sissie Ling-Ie. et al. 13070038 SAADAT 101 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER, KATHERINE

3624 Keith Sholes et al. 13754871 AMUNDSON 101 103 Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Oracle) GOLDBERG, IVAN R

3625 Max Robbertze et al. 14416866 POTHIER 112(1)/112(2) 103 FAY SHARPE/NOKIA SMITH, LINDSEY B

3626 Gregg D. Givens et al. 13124280 PINKERTON 101 MYERS BIGEL, P.A. COLEMAN, CHARLES P.

3657 KIC LLC 15400650 HUTCHINGS 103 Miller Nash Graham & Dunn WILLIAMS, THOMAS J

3659 Edgar Pickel 15005240 STEPINA 103 Garcia-Zamor Intellectual Property Law, LLC (on behalf of SKF GmbH) MORRIS, DAVID R.

3683 1B3Y, LLC 13781744 MEYERS 101 MEHRMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C. LOFTIS, JOHNNA RONEE

3685 Weiming Tang et al. 13890734 BAUMEISTER 112(2)/103 101 Mintz Levin/Wayne Fueling Systems LLC CHOO, JOHANN Y

3687 FAIRSHARE, LLC 14536577 MEYERS 101/103 Richards Patent Law P.C. MASUD, ROKIB

3689 FANNIE MAE 14095112 CUTITTA 103 101 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (DC) GLENNIE, DEBRA L

3689 Value Connect Inc. 15370374 COURTENAY 101/103 KAGAN BINDER, PLLC WHITE, LANCE WILLIAM

3695 Taiyeong Lee et al. 14482726 FETTING 101 Bell & Manning, LLC POLLOCK, GREGORY A

3695 Sarath K. Balachandran 14268357 FETTING 101 STOEL RIVES LLP - SLC SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY

3696 William Fitzgerald et al. 14216123 FETTING 102/103 101 INACTIVE - SQUIRE PB (PHX) PHX-IP&T-SPB JACOB, WILLIAM J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 David Mahon 15716844 GUIJT 101 Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. GARNER, WERNER G

3715 David Mahon 15693746 GUIJT 101 Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. GARNER, WERNER G

3715 CFPH, LLC 14025236 ASTORINO 101/103 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. CLARKE JR, ROBERT T

3745 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 15021060 BAHR 112(2)/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY LEGENDRE, CHRISTOPHER RYAN

3772 Neurodontics-Stiftung 15334904 CAPP 103 BURR & BROWN, PLLC SPARKS, STEPHEN R

3791 Gordon, Brian Michael. et al. 14716006 HOELTER 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC JANG, CHRISTIAN YONGKYUN

3791 Averbuch, Dorian 13286918 LEBOVITZ 103 41.50 103 Covidien LP TRAN, THO Q

Rehearing

Denied
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Starr, Ephraim D. et al. 12895321 PYONIN 103 LENOVO/PANGRLE Pangrle Patent, Brand & Design Law, P.C. SATTI, HUMAM M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2621 Yehuda Binder 15002425 DIXON 103 May Patents Ltd. c/o Dorit Shem-Tov BUKOWSKI, KENNETH

nuijten, chakrabarty, ferguson2, gottschalk, miller2, aristocrat, function media, finisar

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Lorentsen et al 10553869 - (D) PRATS 103 HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. SWOPE, SHERIDAN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Schilder 10580643 - (D) KRATZ 102 SHELL OIL COMPANY MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Chan et al 10907161 - (D) HUGHES 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP NOFAL, CHRISTOPHER P

2161 Ex Parte Elsaesser et al 11168551 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP NGUYEN, CINDY

2193 Ex Parte Eichenberger et al 10919005 - (D) HUGHES 103 IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) WANG, JUE S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Ross et al 10371338 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 37 CFR 41.40(b) 112(2) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED NGUYEN, THUONG

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Chow et al 11265918 - (D) SCHEINER 112(1)/103 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Zilbershtein et al 11482608 - (D) MOORE 103 103 AVAYA, Inc. Cochran Freund & Young GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Facemire et al 11083913 - (D) HOFF 102/103 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC DASGUPTA, SOUMYA

Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories:

i. transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se), In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2007);

ii. a naturally occurring organism, Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308;

iii. a human per se, The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011);

iv. a legal contractual agreement between two parties, see In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, ___ (Fed. Cir. 2009) (cert. denied);

v. a game defined as a set of rules;

vi. a computer program per se, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72;

vii. a company, Ferguson, 558 F.3d at 1366; and

viii. a mere arrangement of printed matter, In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396, 164 USPQ 46, ___ (CCPA 1969).

MPEP 2106

Nuijten, In re, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2106, 2107.01

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980) , 2103, 2105, 2106, 2107.01

Ferguson,In re, 558 F.3d 1359, 90 USPQ2d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 2106

Miller, In re, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969) 706.03(a), 2106,

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Kelly et al 10540597 - (D) ZECHER 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS CHOKSHI, PINKAL R

2443 Ex Parte Bravery et al 10555433 - (D) HUGHES 103 101/103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC SHIN, KYUNG H

2452 Ex Parte Dresden 10776689 - (D) HUGHES 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP NGUYEN, THU V

2456 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11168650 - (D) McKONE 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP CHANG, TOM Y

2456 Ex Parte Newton et al 10598988 - (D) MOORE 112(2) 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MCADAMS, BRAD

For a computer-implemented claim limitation interpreted under § 112, sixth paragraph, the corresponding structure must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or processor disclosed in the specification into the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google Inc, 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform the general purpose computer or processor to a special purpose processor programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Id. at 1338. An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary 23 (5th ed. 2002). An applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or “in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

An indefiniteness rejection under § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or processor. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38. Mere reference to a general purpose computer or processor with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or to “software” without providing detail about the means to accomplish the software function is not an adequate disclosure. Id. at 1334; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41. In addition, simply reciting the claimed function in the specification, while saying nothing about how the computer or processor ensures that those functions are performed, is not a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

If the specification explicitly discloses an algorithm, the sufficiency of the disclosure must be determined in light of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337. The specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose processor to a special purpose processor so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Id. at 1338.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Moss et al 11553671 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP BAHL, SANGEETA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Swanson et al 11527188 - (D) KILE 112(1)/112(2)/103 PRATT & WHITNEY CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS c/o CPA Global KIM, TAE JUN

3752 Ex Parte Roreger et al 10534797 - (D) DeFRANCO 103 Frommer Lawrence & Haug HWU, DAVIS D  

REEXAMINATION  
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2833 Ex parte PROTECTCONNECT, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90011275 6341981 09/553,425 ARBES 102/103 DLA PIPER LLP US WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original GILMAN, ALEXANDER
 
3686 Ex Parte CAREFUSION 303, INC. Ex Parte Schlotterbeck et al 90011697 90/009,912 7,835,927 10/331,034 FITZPATRICK 102/103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP FOSTER, JIMMY G original RANGREJ, SHEETAL

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Daneshvar 11648944 - (R) FLOYD 102/103 Yousef Daneshvar, MD. FACC HICKS, VICTORIA J
 

diamond1, parker, gottschalk, ultramercial

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Ho 10/599,779 FREDMAN Concurring PRATS 103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP YU, GINA C

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2467 Ex Parte Ahmed 10/126,699 WHITEHEAD, JR. 101/102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. SCHEIBEL, ROBERT C

“Although abstract principles are not eligible for patent protection, an application of an abstract idea may well be deserving of patent protection. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 101 S.Ct. 1048 (1981) (“an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection”); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978) (“While a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a patentable invention, a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth may be.”). The application of an abstract idea to a “new and useful end” is the type of invention that the Supreme Court has described as deserving of patent protection. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). After all, unlike the Copyright Act which divides idea from expression, the Patent Act covers and protects any new and useful technical advance, including applied ideas.” Ultramercial v. Hulu, 657 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2011).


Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01

Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/518,540 KAUFFMAN 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

3761 Ex Parte Nakahata et al 10/736,282 BONILLA 112(1)/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY HAND, MELANIE JO

3761 Ex Parte Thorson et al 11/373,029 PRATS 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3774 Ex Parte Foley 11/451,836 McCARTHY 103 Medtronic, Inc (Spinal/Krieg DeVault) SWEET, THOMAS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Zou et al 10/379,733 FETTING 103 obviousness-type double patenting ACS (Affiliated Computer Services)/Finnegan OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Herman 10/995,616 HASTINGS 102/103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP WALKER, KEITH D

1735 Ex Parte Barnes et al 11/426,937 HASTINGS 102/103 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP SAAD, ERIN BARRY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Flanagan et al 10/940,199 COURTENAY 102/103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global JOHNSTON, PHILLIP A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Stefik et al 11/216,275 FETTING 103 Reed Smith LLP HEWITT II, CALVIN L
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED 
2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Campbell et al  11/507,979 COURTENAY 103 PATE BAIRD, PLLC MARTELLO, EDWARD

Friday December 31, 2010

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

1731 Ex Parte Taylor et al 10/971,211 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) SALLY J. BROWN AUTOLIV ASP, INC. EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

2123 Ex Parte Grayson 10/793,161 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R 

“[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

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

3695 Ex Parte Monk et al 10/690,394 CRAWFORD 101/102(e) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER HAVAN, THU THAO 

Here, similar to Benson, concluding that the claimed subject matter is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 would effectively pre-empt performing the various steps by any means, and in practical effect would be a patent on the idea of detecting fraud in relation to stored value products. As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[a]n idea of itself is not patentable.” Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. 498, 507 (1874) quoted in In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498 (1874). . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106 

Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

AFFIRMED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

1657 Ex Parte Malaviya et al 10/483,930 SPIEGEL 101/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

1716 Ex Parte Yamazaki et al 11/072,521 COLAIANNI 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N 

1773 Ex Parte Blouin et al 10/007,031 COLAIANNI 102(b) BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER ALEXANDER, LYLE 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

2448 Ex Parte Janniello et al 09/938,147 STEPHENS 101/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

2874 Ex Parte Guttmann et al 10/399,938 EASTHOM 112(1)/103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER KIM, ELLEN E 

REHEARING DENIED 

2600 Communications 

2626 Ex Parte Karavansky 10/640,992 MANTIS MERCADER 101/102(b)/103(a) Sviatoslav Karavansky EXAMINER SMITS, TALIVALDIS IVARS

multiform, altiris, langmyr, gottschalk,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Blume et al 10/790,658 LEBOVITZ 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) VINSON & ELKINS, L.L.P. EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA 

Ex Parte Gall et al 11/337,866 McCOLLUM 103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER BLUMEL, BENJAMIN P 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Megerle et al 10/282,370 WARREN Concurring OWENS 103(a) BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER YOO, REGINA M 

Ex Parte Turi et al 10/938,079 KIMLIN 103(a) AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Papanyan et al 10/601,353 SIU 102(e) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER GORTAYO, DANGELINO N 

Any special meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd. , 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1998).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2111.01 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Howard et al 10/404,583 JEFFERY 103(a) AUSTIN RAPP & HARDMAN EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R 

Ex Parte Curry et al 09/683,995 LUCAS 102(e) LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL DRYJA EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Cutler et al 10/184,499 HOFF 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION C/O LYON & HARR, LLP EXAMINER RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR 

Ex Parte Pettinato 11/043,229 BARRETT 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, PC EXAMINER HUYNH, CHUCK 

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

Ex Parte Walker et al 10/232,647 LORIN 103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Ghercioiu et al 10/283,548 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert, & Goetzel PC EXAMINER DAO, THUY CHAN 

“Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 65 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . 2111.01 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Phillips et al 10/577,938 HAHN 102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WEISS, HOWARD 

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

Ex Parte Anderson et al 10/061,354 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD 

Nominal recitations of structure in an otherwise ineligible method fail to make the method a statutory process. Ex parte Langmyr, 89 USPQ2d 1988, 1996 (BPAI 2008) (informative) (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972)). 

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Kennedy 10/662,599 STAICOVICI 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT 

REEXAMINATION 

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART ex parte 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 90/007,189 6,166,667 LEE 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R

cochrane, diamond1, gottschalk,

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Imachi et al 11091368 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK EXAMINER RHEE, JANE J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Clinton 10179624 BARRETT 112(2)/103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER MITCHELL, JASON D 

Ex Parte Nightingale et al 10142148 DANG 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PATEL, SHAMBHAVI K 

Ex Parte Sattler et al 11026052 DIXON 101/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER CHOI, MICHELE C 

“A process is . . . an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing.” Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788 (1877). “‘Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.’” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972)). 

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01 

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Hellerstein et al 09731937 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte McMullin 10607127 DANG 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D