griffin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Gleich 10552818 - (D) JENKS 112(2)/102 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DEJONG, ERIC S

The determination of whether the "wherein clause" is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").

Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2103 , 2111.04

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 Ex Parte Citti et al 12519630 - (D) PAK 103 OLIFF PLC (with Nony) MENDEZ, ZULMARIAM

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte XIAO et al 13167411 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 VERIZON AUNG, SAI

2486 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10629855 - (D) NAPPI 103 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP VO, TUNG T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Sahlman et al 13496234 - (D) WINSOR 103 Clairvolex Inc. CADEAU, WEDNEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 13326467 - (D) MEDLOCK 102 STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION (ROC) VAN BRAMER, JOHN W

3646 Ex Parte Ketcham et al 12774880 - (D) STEPINA 102/103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC O'CONNOR, MARSHALL P

3679 Ex Parte Yow et al 13287043 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP DRIGGERS, GWENDOLYN YVONNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Podhajsky 13085258 - (D) HORNER 103 Covidien LP GOOD, SAMANTHA M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte JAMISON 13455309 - (D) CRAIG 103 101/double patenting Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Simske et al 13100925 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 HP Inc. KELLY, RAFFERTY D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Hara et al 12995415 - (D) COTTA 103/double patenting 103/double patenting Cheng Law Group, PLLC ROGERS, JAMES WILLIAM

1631 Ex Parte Hyde et al 11900051 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC BRUSCA, JOHN S

1631 Ex Parte Kovatchev et al 12664444 - (D) GRIMES 103 Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (UVA) RIGGS II, LARRY D

1644 Ex Parte GOLDENBERG et al 13178307 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/103 Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP SCHWADRON, RONALD B

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte SOORIYAKUMARAN et al 13530004 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 DeLio, Peterson & Curcio, LLC MALLOY, ANNA E

1747 Ex Parte ATCHLEY 12777838 - (D) HEANEY 112(1)/102/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (TC) NGUYEN, PHU HOANG

1759 Ex Parte Hernandez et al 13161116 - (D) HASTINGS 103 ADDMG - Harris TAI, XIUYU

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Kalra et al 13538810 - (D) SILVERMAN 102 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. NGUYEN, KIM T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Lohmar et al 13500594 - (D) HOMERE 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC PIERORAZIO, MICHAEL

2455 Ex Parte Kisel et al 12256560 - (D) HORVATH 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT MURPHY, CHARLES C

2479 Ex Parte Owhadi et al 13120831 - (D) SILVERMAN 102/103 HP Inc. FAYED, RASHA K

2484 Ex Parte Bonovich et al 13492517 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. DANG, HUNG Q

2486 Ex Parte Fang 12766384 - (D) McMILLIN 103 BGL/Huawei SOSANYA, OBAFEMI OLUDAYO

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2691 Ex Parte ITO 14339286 - (D) NAPPI 103 Maschoff Brennan PARK, SANGHYUK

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Aoki et al 12509735 - (D) HOWARD 103 Jordan IP Law, LLC SAWYER, STEVEN T

2851 Ex Parte Siguenza et al 13757617 - (D) KENNEDY 103/double patenting Synopsys/Fenwick LIN, ARIC

2864 Ex Parte Liang et al 12345354 - (D) PINKERTON 103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Minimed RIVERA VARGAS, MANUEL A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Bergh et al 13100447 - (D) KIM 102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

3623 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11371133 - (D) WIEDER 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC FEACHER, LORENA R

3624 Ex Parte Roebke et al 12169227 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL KONERU, SUJAY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Hess et al 12628637 - (D) BAHR 103 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC MICHALSKI, SEAN M

3737 Ex Parte Randall 11672576 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH M

3739 Ex Parte Chu 12729872 - (D) BAHR 102/103 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP VAHDAT, KHADIJEH A

OPQA Ex Parte Miller et al 13310254 - (D) ENGLE 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. GUILLERMETY, FRED

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Mantelle et al 12981154 - (D) FREDMAN 103/double patenting 41.50 103/double patenting Foley & Lardner LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2662 Ex Parte Basson et al 12329466 - (D) KUMAR 102 41.50 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS COLEMAN, STEPHEN P

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Hermsmeyer 12800611 - (D) FREDMAN 103 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. ARNOLD, ERNST V

schreiber, griffin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Muthu-Manivannan et al 12031990 - (D) MOORE 103 41.50 101 TREGO, HINES & LADENHEIM, PLLC MIRZA, ADNAN M

2481 Ex Parte Minagawa et al 13022800 - (D) Per Curiam 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED BELAI, NAOD W

2482 Ex Parte Raveendran et al 11527305 - (D) DIXON 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED KIM, HEE-YONG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte YAMASHIRO et al 12189319 - (D) ENGELS 103 Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP O'TOOLE, COLLEEN J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Alcorn et al 12847589 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 Walder Intellectual Property Law, P.C. GURSKI, AMANDA KAREN

3657 Ex Parte Lowe et al 12174320 - (D) PESLAK 102/103 BrooksGroup AUNG, SANM

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Hentschel et al 12984330 - (D) CAPP 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P,C FRISTOE JR, JOHN K

3778 Ex Parte Seiver et al 12812545 - (D) CALVE 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS HAN, MARK K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Buchhop et al 11419653 - (D) KHAN 103 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD VU, MICHAEL T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Suciu et al 13116116 - (D) CALVE 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY KIM, CRAIG SANG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Chaudry et al 13160009 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc, WESTERBERG, NISSA M

"It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable." In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We conclude that this is true whether an intended use recitation is recited in the preamble or, as in the present case, in a wherein clause. See Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 , 2112 , 2114

Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2103 , 2111.04

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Ito et al 13145348 - (D) KENNEDY 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP, BURKHART, ELIZABETH A

1722 Ex Parte Cheng et al 13190226 - (D) OWENS 112(2)/112(4) SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P,C HAMILTON, CYNTHIA

1764 Ex Parte FURUTA et al 12212716 - (D) KENNEDY 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP, REDDY, KARUNA P

1778 Ex Parte Olson et al 12572487 - (D) REN 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY KURTZ, BENJAMIN M

1797 Ex Parte Egle et al 12580203 - (D) GARRIS 112(2) 103 SCHLEE IP INTERNATIONAL P.C. ADAMS, MICHELLE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Onchuck 12902313 - (D) KHAN 102/103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. SILVER, DAVID

2126 Ex Parte Ruggieri et al 12214961 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP KASENGE, CHARLES R

2173 Ex Parte T S et al 12955667 - (D) PINKERTON 102/103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P,C (SAP) HOPE, DARRIN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Adelman et al 11866989 - (D) JIVANI 103 Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC 1 NGUYEN, ANGELA

2442 Ex Parte Adelman et al 11306612 - (D) JIVANI 103 Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC NGUYEN, ANGELA

2492 Ex Parte Kraft et al 12041805 - (D) SMITH 112(2) 102/103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd, (Frankfurt office) DAVIS, ZACHARY A

2497 Ex Parte Puttaswamy Naga et al 13469176 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. SONG, HEEK

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Sarkar 12244629 - (D) MOORE 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED TSVEY, GENNADIY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte WERNER et al 13288570 - (D) SMITH 103 NXP B.V. MAI, TIEN HUNG

2899 Ex Parte Yu et al 12701104 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 Haynes and Boone, LLP LEE, JAE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte LIU 13532552 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103/double patenting SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP REAGAN, JAMES A

3669 Ex Parte Tang 12959305 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 Intellectual Property Investment Law Group KHATIB, RAMI

3673 Ex Parte Farley 12879969 - (D) HORNER 112(1) 103 P ANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP POLITO, NICHOLAS F

3674 Ex Parte Pope et al 12532682 - (D) MURPHY 102/103 CHALKER FLORES, LLP LOIKITH, CATHERINE A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte BALL et al 13462931 - (D) STEPINA 103 Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP LEVICKY, WILLIAM J

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte ROGERS et al 12404581 - (D) SCHOPPER 103 41.50 103 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 MASHRUWALA, NIKHIL P

griffin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Langan et al 10873411 - (D) DENNETT 103 Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon SAAD, ERIN BARRY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Henze 12396896 - (D) PESLAK 103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. ROSS, DANA

3766 Ex Parte Peterson 12820971 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC PORTER, JR, GARY A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte Nickel et al 12847907 - (D) MOORE 112(2)/102/103 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise GOSSAGE, GLENN

2165 Ex Parte Ruckart 11321336 - (D) MOORE 103 103 AT&T Legal Department - MB SYED, FARHAN M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Tofts et al 11389503 - (D) NAPPI 112(2)/102/103 103/double patenting Hewlett Packard Enterprise ASANBAYEV, OLEG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Zhao et al 12635346 - (D) HUME 103 103 REISING ETHINGTON P.C. General Motors Corporation ORTIZ SANCHEZ, MICHAEL

2693 Ex Parte Rofougaran et al 12137143 - (D) JIVANI 103 103 GARLICK & MARKISON (BRCM) EURICE, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte George et al 11673119 - (D) MAJORS 102/103 THE ESTEE LAUDER COS, INC ZISKA, SUZANNE E

Thus, the final "wherein" clause is non-limiting — it describes a source of the mineral ions for the production of the claimed composition, rather than imparting any actual or apparently meaningful structural limitation to the claims themselves. MPEP   2110.04; see generally Griffin v. Berlina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affirming interpretation that a wherein clause was limiting because it provided "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps" of the claim).

Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2103 , 2111.04

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Chaudhry 11960547 - (D) McMILLAN 103 AT&T Legal Department - MB FLYNN, NATHAN J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2693 Ex Parte Lee 12654155 - (D) HAAPALA 102/103 ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM LEE, DAVID J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3647 Ex Parte Haaf 12958965 - (D) BROWNE 103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC HAYES, KRISTEN C

3694 Ex Parte Tittel et al 12606633 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1) 103 IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US) MILEF, ELDA G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Wadleigh et al 12063815 - (D) COCKS 102/103 NIXON PEABODY LLP HOWARAH, GEORGE L

3765 Ex Parte Wartmann 13430276 - (D) KERINS 102 BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

3788 Ex Parte Soehnlen et al 11406889 - (D) HOFFMANN 103/double patenting FAY SHARPE LLP REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

perricone, minton, hoffer, griffin

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Ahlem et al 11551195 - (D) FREDMAN 103 HARBOR THERAPEUTICS, INC. PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

Although not clearly stated, the Examiner may alternatively be relying upon a theory of inherency. However, the treatment of HIV does not inherently result in the treatment of a mycobacterium infection.In Perricone, the Federal Circuit distinguished between the topical application of a lotion to skin generally to prevent sunburn, and the topical application of a lotion to treat sunburned skin, finding that the “issue is not . . . whether [the prior art] lotion if applied to skin sunburn would inherently treat that damage, but whether Pereira discloses the application of its composition to skin sunburn. It does not.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Reinschke et al 10591089 - (D) DELMENDO 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ANDREWS, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte KUBLER et al 11764815 - (D) LORIN 103 King & Spalding LLP FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

3662 Ex Parte Munch 11580771 - (D) MURPHY 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. TO, TUAN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 12251173 - (D) FREDMAN 102(e)/103 Pabst Patent Group LLP SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Ritt et al 10843492 - (D) EVANS 102(e) 101 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN MCNALLY, MICHAEL S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Diaz et al 12391821 - (D) TIMM 103 103 Haynes and Boone, LLP LI, MEIYA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Caveney et al 11179762 - (D) STEPHENS 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) Perman & Green, LLP LOWE, MICHAEL S

“A whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “However, when the ‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the Federal Circuit held that the Board did not err in giving limiting effect to the “wherein” clauses in an interference because the wherein clauses “relate back to and clarify what is required by the count.” The court was not persuaded by the arguments that the wherein clauses in that case “merely state the inherent result of performing the manipulative steps.” Id. at 1034. 

Minton, Hoffer, and Griffin establish that each claim reciting a “wherein” or “whereby” clause must be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the clause is entitled to weight in the patentability analysis. 

Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2106 , 2111.04 , 2133.03(c)

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111.04

Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2103 , 2111.04

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11346750 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 Kagan Binder, PLLC DORNA, CARRIE R

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Hind et al 12204597 - (D) TROCK 112(2) 102(e) CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG WALDRON, SCOTT A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Khalid et al 11409586 - (D) COURTENAY 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP TO, BAOTRAN N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Jeong et al 11714060 - (D) COURTENAY 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. MCKIE, GINA M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Karpov et al 12082181 - (D) WILSON 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. BYRNE, HARRY W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 NALCO COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. VOSTEEN CONSULTING GmbH Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte Vosteen et al 90/011,604 6,878,358 B 10/430,088 95001587 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(2) 112(1)/112(4)/102/103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. Third Party Requester: Reed Smith, LLP XU, LING X original STRICKLAND, JONAS N

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Requester Cross-Appellant and Respondent v. ILLUMINA, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent Ex Parte 7232656 et al 10/610,305 95000528 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1) 102/103 COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP Third Party Requester: LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original WHISENANT, ETHAN C

griffin, hoffer, minton

the blogger search function has been broken for months, google knows this, to search for names (ie examiner's name or a company) use custom search (google cse) below.  to search for cases use tabs above

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Yano et al 11067290 - (D) DIXON 103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL PEREZ, JULIO R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Takiguchi et al 11126127 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 HOLTZ, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK PC CAROC, LHEIREN MAE ANGLO

2835 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11421825 - (D) MURPHY 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION PAPE, ZACHARY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Chun et al 11139591 - (D) STRAUSS 103 103 NSIP LAW CHBOUKI, TAREK

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Barsness et al 11833290 - (D) HUME 103 IBM CORPORATION KIM, TAELOR

The determination of whether recitations or clauses introduced by terms such as “wherein,” “whereby,” or, in the present appeal, “thereby” result in affirmative claim limitations which are to be given patentable weight depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a “wherein” clause limited a process claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”). In re Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Id.

Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2103, 2111.04
DONNER 10: 909, 916, 1018-24
HARMON 6: 25

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111.04
HARMON 6: 112; 19: 511

Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003)  2106,  2111.04,  2133.03(c)
HARMON 2: 215; 19: 373