king, gulack

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Yoon et al 12297042 - (D) OGDEN 103 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C STACHEL, KENNETH J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2864 Ex Parte Chankaya et al 13007099 - (D) OWENS 103 Reising Ethington PC PEREZ BERMUDEZ, YARITZA H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte FURUTA et al 14031648 - (D) JESCHKE 103 HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP LAFLAME JR, MICHAEL A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Mafi 13616648 - (D) OWENS 103 103 Ryan Alley IP SMITH, PRESTON

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Erb et al 13373610 - (D) WINSOR 103 101/103 41.50 101 PERRY + CURRIER INC. (FOR MITEL) KHAN, AFTAB N

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2194 Ex Parte Gopal et al 12130568 - (D) BUI 103 MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT) ONAT, UMUT

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2621 Ex Parte Mauro et al 13787756 - (D) BUI 103 Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. LUI, DONNA V

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Summer et al 14738807 - (D) FETTING 112(1)/112(2) 101/103 KOLISCH HARTWELL, P.C. DURAN, ARTHUR D

Mental perceptions of what data represent are non-functional and given no weight. King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he relevant question is whether ‘there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.’” (quoting In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); 

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05 , 2112.01

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2112.01

3687 Ex Parte Ferguson 12077863 - (D) FETTING 101 Anthony John Ferguson CRAWLEY, TALIA F

3689 Ex Parte Hamilton et al 12173419 - (D) FETTING 101/103 Driggs, Hogg, Daugherty & Del Zoppo Co., L.P.A. ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Vu 14692728 - (D) STEPINA 102 102/103 LAMORTE & ASSOCIATES P.C. MENDIRATTA, VISHU K

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Harjula et al 14034010 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. GETACHEW, ABIY

gulack, ngai

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Toland et al 12494146 - (D) HOWARD 103 WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY JOHNSON, CEDRIC D

2194 Ex Parte BURCKART et al 12763521 - (D) JEFFERY 112(1)/112(2)/101 LAW OFFICE OF JIM BOICE WATHEN, BRIAN W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Cyron et al 12775187 - (D) MORGAN 103 Cozen O'Connor GBLENDE, JEFFREY A

2842 Ex Parte Bakalski et al 12704737 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. O TOOLE, COLLEEN J

2872 Ex Parte Luo et al 12978966 - (D) HEANEY 102 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch) PICHLER, MARIN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Mirkovic et al 12686262 - (D) ABRAMS 102/103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP COMSTOCK, DAVID C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Conlon 12636297 - (D) SILVERMAN double patenting/103 double patenting Basch & Nickerson LLP PRINGLE-PARKER, JASON A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Hospach et al 12560110 - (D) NEW 102/103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. CROW, ROBERT THOMAS

1649 Ex Parte GRELL et al 13052496 - (D) ADAMS dissenting McCOLLUM 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EMCH, GREGORY S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Mindrum 11685378 - (D) EVANS 112(a) 103 FROST BROWN TODD LLC TRUONG, CAM Y T

We declined to afford the claimed "identifier" patentable weight because  "[t]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." Mindrum 1 5 (quoting In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). We answered that question in the negative, finding "[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability." In re Ngai, 367 F. 3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

...

We recognize that the "[d]ifferences between an invention and the prior art cited against it cannot be ignored merely because those differences reside in the content of the printed matter." Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1385. The "critical question" is whether the claimed "identifier" is more than "a new instruction sheet" because it is claimed as a "machine-readable feature configured to provide automatic acquisition of information?" See Ngai, 367 F. 3d at 1338—39 (The Ngai court reasoned that if it "were to adopt Ngai's position, anyone could continue patenting a product indefinitely provided that they add a new instruction sheet to the product").

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2112.01

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2112.01

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Singhal 13199739 - (D) JIVANI 102/103 103/double patenting Tara Chand Sighal CHAI, LONGBIT

2468 Ex Parte Bahrs et al 12049287 - (D) McNEILL 103 LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN IBM CORPORATION- POUGHKEEPSIE (JVL) WAQAS, SAAD A

2469 Ex Parte KIM et al 12534999 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. HUYNH, DUNG B.

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Conlon 12636331 - (D) SILVERMAN double patenting/103 Basch & Nickerson LLP PRINGLE-PARKER, JASON A

2618 Ex Parte Conlon 12636348 - (D) SILVERMAN double patenting/103 Basch & Nickerson LLP PRINGLE-PARKER, JASON A

2622 Ex Parte Birnbaum 12605651 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton, LLP NGO, TONY N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Hagenbuch 13544913 - (D) GUIJT 112(2)/103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer BRITTMAN, FELICIA LUCILLE

3622 Ex Parte Patel et al 11373023 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. RETTA, YEHDEGA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Crowhurst 10870428 - (D) MELVIN 103 MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A

3731 Ex Parte Reiser et al 13220917 - (D) MURPHY 102/103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON WOO, JULIAN W

hotchkiss, boehringer, gulack

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Breitenbach 12197734 - (D) FETTING 103 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. AMELUNXEN, BARBARA J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Hackel 11240676 - (D) BROWNE 103 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory PAIK, SANG YEOP

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Liu 13532838 - (D) NAGUMO 103/double patenting RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP PARVINI, PEGAH

The use of similar materials for similar purposes based on properties disclosed as making the materials useful for those purposes is a classical instance of prima facie obviousness. Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248, 265 (1850) (“the knob of clay was simply the substitution of one [known] material for another [wood].”)

1783 Ex Parte Lim et al 11935126 - (D) DERRICK 103 Fox Rothschild LLP WATKINS III, WILLIAM P

1792 Ex Parte Sugawara et al 12065396 - (D) HEANEY 103 SUGHRUE-265550 LONG, LUANA ZHANG

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Schmidt 12060802 - (D) KAISER 103 BOSWELL IP Law GORTAYO, DANGELINO N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Casagrande 12135360 - (D) BUI 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (EchoStar) ALATA, YASSIN

2434 Ex Parte Overcash et al 11458965 - (D) PYONIN 103 HANLEY, FLIGHT & ZIMMERMAN, LLC BAYOU, YONAS A

2466 Ex Parte Witzel et al 12299346 - (D) STEPHENS 103 ERICSSON INC. ROBERTS, BRIAN S

2487 Ex Parte George et al 12771929 - (D) PINKERTON 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY LI, TRACY Y

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Mehta et al 13356269 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 double patenting FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. WU, RUTAO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Isenberg 13526384 - (D) SMEGAL 103 41.50 112(2) David H. Chervitz THAI, XUAN MARIAN

It is well established that “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2112.01

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte Stansell et al 12234850 - (D) SPONDOWSKI 103 CRGO LAW GOSSAGE, GLENN

king, ngai, gulack

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2198 Ex Parte MALCOLM 12040047 - (D) KHAN 102 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP KABIR, MOHAMMAD H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2489 Ex Parte Yang et al 11140833 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation PHILIPPE, GIMS S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Tava et al 12578405 - (D) GEIER 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP TO, TUAN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte LOVELESS et al 11833986 - (D) HORNER 103 INDEL, INC. VAN, QUANG T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Cherney et al 12262721 - (D) CAPP 103 103 DEERE & COMPANY PHAN, THIEM D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Moore et al 11849507 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Edell Shapiro & Finnan, LLC PATEL, DHAIRYA A

The rationale underlying the "printed matter" cases has been extended to the analysis of patentability of method claims.  King Pharms. Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1278-79 (Fed, Cir. 2010) (applying the "printed matter" reasoning to method claims containing an "informing" step that could be either printed or verbal instructions).  In this case, the relevant inquiry is whether the recitation that the event statement conforms to the structure, " was seen to with ," as opposed to some other format structire, has a "new and unobvious functional relationship" with the method.  Id. at 1279.

There is no objective evidence of record that there is a functional relationship between the format structure of the event statement and the claimed method.  Indeed, the only mention in claim 1 of the event statement is in the final "wherein clause", i.e., "wherein the generated metadata is converted to an event."

Regardless of the format of the event statement, the underlying method recited in claim 1 is the same.  The specific format structure of the event statement does not depend on the method, and the method does not depend on the format of the structure of the event statement.  As such, it constitutes non-functional descriptive material that may not be relied on for patentability.  See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2112.01

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2112.01

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Howard 11716493 - (D) BAHR 103 PRAXAIR, INC. PETTITT, JOHN F

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte Lubbers et al 11771980 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Hall Estill Attorneys at Law (Seagate - MKM) RIGOL, YAIMA

ngai, gulack, lowry, curry, mathias

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Morgan 10979014 - (D) WIEDER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Kallio et al 13411189 - (D) COURTENAY 102 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP MONIKANG, GEORGE C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Zuge et al 12010930 - (D) BROWNE 103 Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP DICKSON, PAUL N

3682 Ex Parte Stefanik et al 12235159 - (D) BAHR 103 AT&T Legal Department - G&G MYHRE, JAMES W

Our reviewing court has held that nonfunctional descriptive material cannot lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability). ...

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2112.01

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2112.01

Unlike the data structures in In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the user information of Appellants’ invention does not “provide increased efficiency in computer operation[s].” See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1580, 1584; cf. Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274–75 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (discussing computer-related situations involving nonfunctional descriptive material); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (same).

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.05

3686 Ex Parte Jung et al 11906112 - (D) PRAISS 112(1)/112(2)/101/102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC PATEL, NEHA

3686 Ex Parte Jung et al 11904016 - (D) PRAISS 112(2)/101/102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC PATEL, NEHA

3686 Ex Parte Jung et al 11524084 - (D) PRAISS 101/102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC PATEL, NEHA

gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Burgess et al 11272764 - (D) HASTINGS 103 GENERAL MILLS, INC. LEFF, STEVEN N

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte Szczesniak et al 11199938 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP PREVAL, LIONEL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Pasqualino et al 12034327 - (D) BOUDREAU 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation MEHRA, INDERP

2691 Ex Parte Lagnado 11249594 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY JOHNSON, ALLISON WALTHALL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Sundstrom 11424019 - (D) KATZ 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG SANDVIK, BENJAMIN P

2859 Ex Parte Ghabra et al 12415164 - (D) GARRIS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION TORRESRUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Kogan et al 11320028 - (D) FETTING 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG ROTARU, OCTAVIAN

In a non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969), and In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) decisions. We have held that patent applicants cannot rely on printed matter to distinguish a claim unless “there exists [a] new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 ([Fed. Cir. 1983]) . . . .
. . . .
. . . [T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.” . . . ; [see] In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 ([Fed. Cir. 1994]) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, . . . 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).

In re Xiao, 462 Fed. Appx. 947, 950–52 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential). Thus, non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight. 

gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao, king, ngai

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 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Gadkaree et al 12599896 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CORNING INCORPORATED SAHA, BIJAY S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Ha et al 11307382 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP ULLAH, ELIAS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Ryan et al 12070387 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 Medtronic CardioVascular WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Potekhin et al 10144561 - (D) KOHUT 112(1)/103 101 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. TANG, KAREN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Xu et al 11707812 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 112(2)/obviousness-type double patenting GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC LEUNG, WAI LUN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Yamashita et al 12217899 - (D) GARRIS 102 102 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. DUNLAP, JONATHAN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Fitzpatrick 11213577 - (D) FETTING 103 102 MACCORD MASON PLLC IWARERE, OLUSEYE

Finally, while claim 1 does recite “transaction data that represents a single client expenditure with a merchant in exchange for a plurality of products,” the manner or degree of representation is unspecified, and there is no recital of a sale, only an expenditure in exchange for products. Thus, this limitation is aspirational instead of functional or structural, and is perceptible only in the mind of the beholder.

In a non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir.1983), In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969) and In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) decisions. We have held that patent applicants cannot rely on printed matter to distinguish a claim unless “there exists [a] new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed.Cir.1983)

[T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.”. . . . see In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1994) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).

In re Xiao, 2011-1195 WL 4821929, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Non-precedential). Thus non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight. “The rationale behind this line of cases is preventing the indefinite patenting of known products by the simple inclusion of novel, yet functionally unrelated limitations.” King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed Cir 2010). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (The relevant inquiry here is whether the additional instructional limitation has a “new and unobvious functional relationship” with the method, that is, whether the limitation in no way depends on the method, and the method does not depend on the limitation).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) , 2112.01
DONNER 7: 153, 175 8: 1000

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
DONNER 6: 179; 8: 395, 1924

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) , 2112.01
DONNER 7: 153, 175 8: 1000

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1768 Ex Parte Shiping 11862389 - (D) McKELVEY 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP NERANGIS, VICKEY M

1784 Ex Parte Zhai et al 10912576 - (D) KALAN 103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP SAMPLE, DAVID R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Klein et al 11781374 - (D) HUME 102/103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA TSAI, SHENG JEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Pantalone et al 11469680 - (D) STRAUSS 103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP ZHOU, YONG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Kraufvelin 11436772 - (D) BUI 103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. TORRES, MARCOS L

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Requester, Respondent v. PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001654 6,890,324 09/894,042 MARTIN 305/102/103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P. WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original KIDWELL, MICHELE M

gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Rimpler et al 10344884 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C BASQUILL, SEAN M

1655 Ex Parte Morazzoni et al 10587468 - (D) GRIMES 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON MI, QIUWEN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1729 Ex Parte Cartwright et al 11562645 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER

1774 Ex Parte Freeman et al 11893230 - (D) OWENS 103 SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP CLEVELAND, TIMOTHY C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Kashi 11224160 - (D) PRATS 103 Cohen, Pontani, Lieberman & Pavane STORK, KYLER

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte BOUCHAT et al 11943395 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Ogren 10857299 - (D) FETTING 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Dryja Patents SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Raab 11587410 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ALI, MOHAMMAD M

3769 Ex Parte Dai et al 11332824 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 AMO / Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP SHAY, DAVID M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1732 Ex Parte Martin 12260162 - (D) PAK 103 obviousnesstype double patenting MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP BRUNSMAN, DAVID M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Bauman et al 11386280 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. BURCH, MELODY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Albrecht et al 11276042 - (D) McCARTHY 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) JENNISON,BRIAN W

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1765 Ex Parte Ziegler et al 12053822 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC BUTTNER, DAVID J

1765 Ex Parte Gallucci 11744354 - (D) McKELVEY 103 SABIC Innovative Plastics BUTTNER, DAVID J

1767 Ex Parte DAI-ICHI F R Co., LTD. 11398585 McKELVEY 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

1776 Ex Parte Kolesinski et al 11895209 - (D) TIMM 103 Gaetano D. Maccarone THERKORN, ERNEST G

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Brown et al 11751284 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC GOODCHILD, WILLIAM J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2667 Ex Parte Gaukroger 10561495 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP RUSH, ERIC

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Bhan et al 10734811 - (D) FETTING 112(2) 103 WILMERHALE/BOSTON OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

3684 Ex Parte Graff 10885569 - (D) FETTING 112(2) 103/obviousness-type double patenting PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M

In a recent non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969) and In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) decisions.

We have held that patent applicants cannot rely on printed matter to distinguish a claim unless “there exists [a] new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed.Cir.1983). . . .
. . . .
. . . [T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.” . . . ; see In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1994) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, . . . 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).

In re Xiao, 2011-1195 WL 4821929, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Non precedential).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) , 2112.01
DONNER 6: 280, 281, 340-44, 355-57; 7: 763-65
HARMON 2: 15, 46; 3: 21; 4: 199; 6: 74

Bernhart, In re, 417 F.2d 1395, 163 USPQ 611 (CCPA 1969) 2173.05(j)
DONNER 13: 162

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.05
DONNER 6: 282, 283, 345-48, 687, 695, 696, 698-700, 708, 771
HARMON 2: 15, 61; 4: 205

3684 Ex Parte Zellner et al 10750695 - (D) SMEGAL 103 AT&T Legal Department - CC NGUYEN, NGA B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Di Serio 10180878 - (D) TARTAL 103 HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI PC OMGBA, ESSAMA