grasselli2, meadwestvaco, mason

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Seabaugh et al 14212310 - (D) NAGUMO 102 Greenberg Traurig, LLP TRAN, TONY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Serafin et al 13507397 - (D) WIEKER 103/double patenting CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY HOBAN, MELISSA A

3745 Ex Parte Aiello et al 13627036 - (D) SCHOPFER 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY SEABE, JUSTIN D

3761 Ex Parte VON WEYMARN-SCHÄRLI 13532523 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 ADAMS & WILKS MENSH, ANDREW J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3649 Ex Parte Pascal et al 11721716 - (D) POWELL 103 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC KRUER, KEVIN R

Furthermore, for most of the claims, we are not persuaded that Appellants’ evidence of allegedly unexpected results rebuts this prima facie case of obviousness. To support a contention of nonobviousness, evidence of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Where rebuttal evidence compared catalysts containing sodium to prior art, court held evidence insufficient to rebut prima facie case of obviousness because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with claims, which were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal.). The requirement that the evidence be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention must be applied on a claim-by-claim basis. See MeadWestVaco Corp. v. Rexam Beauty and Closures, Inc., 731 F.3d 1258, 1264—65 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (noting district court erred by failing to treat broader claims differently than narrower claims when considering objective evidence of non-obviousness).

Grasselli, In re, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 716.02(d) , 2112 , 2145

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte van Oudenallen et al 13220383 - (D) KNIGHT 112(1)/103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC HOEY, ALISSA L

Claim 16 — This claim recites a “plurality of connections between [the] third sheet and [the] fourth sheet. . . whereby [the] third sheet is constrained to expand . . . from [the] fourth sheet.” Appellants argue that the plurality of connections are not shown in the art and that the whereby clause must be considered. App. Br. 26-27. The Examiner argues that the whereby clause is functional language that does not define any structure and thus does not distinguish over the prior art, citing to In re Mason, 244 F.2d 733 (CCPA 1957). Ans. 10. We disagree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation. Claim 16 positively recites a plurality of connections and further recites that the connections are distributed so that the third sheet expands a limited distance from the fourth sheet when the chamber is inflated. The Examiner has failed to provide an adequate showing of where this structural limitation of the plurality of connections is found in either Anderson or Clark. Accordingly, because all of the limitations are not shown to be contained in the references cited, this rejection will not be sustained.

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Ferguson et al 13871132 - (D) ROSS 103 Kwan & Olynick LLP, Boeing TUROCY, DAVID P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2412 Ex Parte Kalhan et al 14358339 - (D) BUI 103 KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC. ATKINS JR., GEORGE CALVIN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2676 Ex Parte Liguori et al 14720915 - (D) KUMAR 103/double patenting William Propp, Esq. CHEN, HUO LONG

3625 Ex Parte Gu et al 12061448 - (D) THOMAS 101 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY PALAVECINO, KATHLEEN GAGE

3649 Ex Parte Boeckl et al 10609132 - (D) HORNER 103 NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATI HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

3657 Ex Parte Hanna et al 12793525 - (D) THOMAS 103 BrooksGroup SICONOLFI, ROBERT

3671 Ex Parte Cain et al 13785142 - (D) HORNER 102 Chamberlain, Hrdicka, White, Williams & Aughtry, P.C. MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3747 Ex Parte Martin 14068014 - (D) CAPP 102 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL PICON-FELICIANO, RUBEN

3748 Ex Parte Schneeberger 12564877 - (D) GUIJT 102/103 41.50 102/103 IDEPA INC. DAVIS, MARY ALICE

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Dickson et al 13285427 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. ALLADIN, AMBREEN A

grasselli2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Choi et al 12779167 - (D) OWENS 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials BENNETT, CHARLEE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Levine 12490414 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Professional Patent Solutions; RAEVIS, ROBERT R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Monroe 12757944 - (D) KNIGHT 103 MICHAEL DREW AVILES BOSQUES, ORLANDO E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Buckley et al 13596399 - (D) GUPTA 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY MELLOTT, JAMES M

Moreover, the evidence presented in the Specification is not reasonably commensurate in scope with independent claims 1 and 19. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (concluding that unexpected results “limited to sodium only” were not commensurate in scope with claims to a catalyst having “an alkali metal”).

Grasselli, In re, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 716.02(d) , 2112 , 2145

1735 Ex Parte Lu et al 13833114 - (D) McGEE 112(1) 112(2)/103 The Whitaker LLC GAMINO, CARLOS J

1786 Ex Parte Tang et al 11726087 - (D) RANGE 103 WITHERS & KEYS, LLC LOPEZ, RICARDO E.

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Stall et al 12337431 - (D) ENGLE 101/103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION VICARY, KEITH E

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2485 Ex Parte Ide et al 10905719 - (D) POTHIER 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION LEE, Y YOUNG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Chakravarthy et al 13104167 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(2)/102/103 NeuroWave Systems Inc. TRAN, THO Q

hauserman, arvin, freeman, de blauwe, baxter travenol, grasselli2, clemens, freeman, klosak, dillon, mayne, schulze, greenfield, woodruff

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/21/2011 1655 Ex Parte Yang 10/505,015 ADAMS 103(a) WANG & HO EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

2600 Communications
07/22/2011 2624 Ex Parte Fushiki et al 11/041,033 KOHUT 102(b)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER WANG, CLAIRE X
REEXAMINATION EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/22/2011 3765 Ex parte CHRISTOPER SEAN VAN WINKLE and DAVID COX Appellants 90/009,210 7,076,806 SONG 102(b)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC Third Party Requester: VENABLE LLP EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER PATEL, TAJASH D

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/22/2011 1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/089,525 NAGUMO 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M

07/21/2011 1747 Ex Parte Yokota et al 10/277,646 GUEST 103(a) BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDINGS, INC. EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

The word “substantially” has been construed many times by our reviewing court. While the term “substantially” certainly broadens the term it modifies to some degree, it “cannot be allowed to negate the meaning of the word it modifies.” In re Hauserman, Inc., 892 F.2d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Arvin Industries, Inc. v. Berns Air King Corp., 525 F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1975)).
07/22/2011 1731 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/820,972 OWENS 103(a) K&L GATES LLP EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

That argument is not persuasive because, first, evidence must not merely show an unexpected property but, rather, must show an unexpected difference in a property between the claimed invention and the prior art. See In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973). Second, the Appellants have not provided a side-by-side comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims, and explained why the results would have been unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Freeman, 474 F.2d at 1324; In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . .2131.01, 2145

De Blauwe, In re, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . 716.01(c), 2145

Grasselli, In re, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2112, 2145

Clemens, In re, 622 F.2d 1029, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . 716.02(d), 2145

07/21/2011 1796 Ex Parte Dreier et al 11/032,434 ROBERTSON 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

A showing of unexpected results may be sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). Such a showing must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965). The evidence must also be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978). Further, the Federal Circuit has held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is a claimed range; the applicant must show that the range is critical through unexpected results. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted).

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09, 2145

Schulze, In re, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965) . . . .716.01(c), 2145, 2164.06(c)

Greenfield, In re, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . 2144.05

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/21/2011 2162 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11/058,972 THOMAS 103(a) Baker Botts L.L.P EXAMINER BULLOCK, JOSHUA

07/22/2011 2164 Ex Parte Avinash et al 11/016,081 MORGAN 103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

07/21/2011 2181 Ex Parte Azadet et al 10/880,331 GONSALVES 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
07/21/2011 2456 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/672,601 DANG 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T

2600 Communications
07/21/2011 2617 Ex Parte Filipovic et al 10/412,928 RUGGIERO 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M