greenfield, harris

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2199 Ex Parte Birdal et al 12396369 - (D) HAAPALA 102 PERKINS COIE LLP - PAO General BULLOCK JR, LEWIS ALEXANDER

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Chieu et al 12042424 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES PC IBM CORP (YA) HUANG, TSAN-YU J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Aouad et al 12491315 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MCCORMACK, JOHN PATRICK

3771 Ex Parte DeBenedictis et al 12134009 - (D) HORNER 103 THOMPSON HINE L.L.P. SKORUPA, VALERIE LYNN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Graefe et al 12495628 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 101 Hewlett Packard Enterprise FAN, SHIOW-JY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2878 Ex Parte Papadopoulos 12479251 - (D) DANG 112(1)/103 103 Vidas, Arrett & Steinkraus, P.A. VAS/Orbital ATK, Inc. LEE, JOHN R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Wunderlich et al 12224016 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Mintz Levin/Special Group CULBERT, ROBERTS P

1761 Ex Parte Goffinet 12994622 - (D) HEANEY 103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

Appellant has not provided on this record a sufficient basis for concluding that the generic scope of protection sought by claim I is reasonably commensurate with the showing of alleged unexpected results. See In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (obviousness rejection affirmed because evidence establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof); In re Harris, 409 F.3d  1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Even assuming that the results were unexpected, Harris needed to show results covering the scope of the claimed range. Alternatively Harris needed to narrow the claims.").

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

Harris, In re, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2144.05

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Diwakar et al 12620381 - (D) DANG 102/103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (CA, Inc.) CHANG, SUNRAY

2141 Ex Parte Hamilton et al 12501922 - (D) PINKERTON 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

2142 Ex Parte Yee et al 11451734 - (D) ENGELS 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION RIEGLER, PATRICK F

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Moskowitz 10939065 - (D) ENGELS 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (EchoStar) RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Kamath et al 12499372 - (D) DANG 103 VERIZON PERROMAT, CARLOS

2611 Ex Parte Jiao et al 11735353 - (D) DANG 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED PERROMAT, CARLOS

2641 Ex Parte NIEMELA 12705312 - (D) KAISER 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. HEIBER, SHANTELL LAKETA

2646 Ex Parte KIM et al 13045101 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. AJAYI, JOEL

2676 Ex Parte Asano 11894096 - (D) JIVANI 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Mielekamp et al 12305997 - (D) HUTCHINGS 102 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS PAULS, JOHN A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3722 Ex Parte Peuker et al 11749183 - (D) GEIER 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY SINGH, SUNIL K

3763 Ex Parte Magers 12192045 - (D) SHAH 103 Rogitz & Associates MEDWAY, SCOTT J

3771 Ex Parte Lugtigheid 11364005 - (D) ASTORINO 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON STUART, COLIN W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex parte BIOGENIE PROJETOS LTDA. Appellant Ex Parte 6991853 et al 10/446,933 96000011 - (D) MOORE 102/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP SPEER, TIMOTHY M original MCNEIL, JENNIFER C

baxter travenol, chapman, general foods, nuijten, greenfield, burckel, tiffin, kollman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Ariyapadi et al 12782346 - (D) GARRIS 103 KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT LLC MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Argenbright et al 10240479 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP PORTER, RACHEL L

3664 Ex Parte Krause et al 11273659 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 Dierker & Associates, P.C. SAMPLE, JONATHAN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Kim et al 11656460 - (D) VANOPHEM 102/103 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL

3761 Ex Parte Allen et al 11414032 - (D) ASTORINO 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TREYGER, ILYA Y

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Adams et al 10785227 - (D) MacDONALD 103 101/102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC BELANI, KISHIN G

Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because:

Appellants respectfully disagree and point out that the Examiner's position is based entirely upon taking of words out-of-context of its intended meaning in the specification, clearly directed to media used to store computer instructions, when interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art, who is willing to be free of the bias of attempting to interpret every reference to "transmission media" as somehow referring to a "signal", which is reasonably considered non-statutory under the holding of Nuijten, and that every reference to "transmission media" converts any claim remotely related to this reference as equivalent to a "signal."

That is, "energy" per se is not used to store computer instructions. Nor is this claim directed to a "signal" per se, as were the facts of Nuijten. Moreover, to one having any genuine skill in the art, signals per se are not used to store instructions, and, contrary to the confusion running rampant within the USPTO in the aftermath of the Nuijten holding, the terminology "transmission media" is not equivalent to "signal." Indeed, if taken outside any other context, the terminology "transmission media" would clearly mean the media through which a transmission occurs and would not even refer to a signal per se. Therefore, someone at the USPTO is clearly very confused about underlying technology.

(App. Br. 9)(Emphasis omitted).


AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Constantz et al 11189555 - (D) MILLS 103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provisional double patenting rejection EPA - Bozicevic Field & Francis LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

“Because nonstatutory double patenting compares earlier and later claims, an earlier patent’s disclosure is not available to show nonstatutory double patenting. See Gen. Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1281-82 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Mosseveld et al 10551109 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. REDDY, KARUNA P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2413 Ex Parte Christenson et al 11279667 - (D) WINSOR 103 IBM CORPORATION COSTIN, JEREMY M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Reid 10864866 - (D) MCKONE 102/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. ALAM, FAYYAZ

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Slatter 11258352 - (D) FETTING 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHUMPITAZ, BOB R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte McKiernan et al 11145353 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CRAIG, PAULA L  

When an obviousness rejection is based on a combination of components in the prior art reference as in the instant situation, the comparison to show unexpected results need only be between the closest prior art reference and the claimed invention. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 422 (CCPA 1966). It need not be between the claimed invention and the invention suggested by the combined teachings in the prior art reference or references. Chapman, 357 F.2d at 422. To do so would require Appellants to compare the claimed invention against itself.   

Chapman, In re, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) 716.02(e)  

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


REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Boffa 11435698 - (R) OBERMANN 103 M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC VASISTH, VISHAL V

In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179-80 (CCPA 1979) (the claimed subject matter must be compared with the closest prior art in a manner which addresses the thrust of the rejection).

Burckel, In re, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(e)

“Establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for ‘it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’” In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971))...

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

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) 716.03(a)

Cf. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (CCPA 1979) (acknowledging that in some cases several data points may enable an ordinary artisan “to ascertain a trend in the exemplified data which would allow him to reasonably extend the probative value thereof”)

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(d)

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