scaltech, weber, haas, harnisch, kronig

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Peterson 10/246,851 GRIMES 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

“Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to establish inherency.” Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra L.L.C., 178 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1999). ]

Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 269 F.3d 1321, 60 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . .2133.03(c)
3765 Ex Parte Nunn 11/650,365 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Timothy T. Tyson Freilich, Hornbaker & Rosen EXAMINER QUINN, RICHALE LEE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Kong et al 10/852,448 TIMM 102(b) WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK P.C. EXAMINER PIERY, MICHAEL T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Doll et al 10/926,155 SCHAFER 102(b)/103(a) MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC EXAMINER PETTITT, JOHN F

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Makadia et al 11/267,540 FREDMAN 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP (MTC) EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Sell et al 10/437,267 GREENHUT 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER KISH, JAMES M

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1627 Ex Parte DeGrado et al 10/801,951 SCHAFER 121 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO

Applicants ... argued that requiring a restriction between independent inventions present in a single claim was improper under In re Weber, 580 F.2d 455 (C.C.P.A. 1978) and In re Haas, 580 F.2d 461 (C.C.P.A. 1978).

We require that Applicants brief the apparent conflict between the plain language of § 121 and the Weber and Haas opinions. As part of the briefing applicants are required to address whether the language of the second paragraph of § 112, requiring “one or more claims . . . claiming the subject matter the applicant regards as his invention” necessarily precludes the Director from exercising his statutory discretion “to require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions” when more than one independent and distinct inventions are encompassed within a single claim.

Weber, In re, 580 F.2d 455, 198 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803.02

Haas, In re, 580 F.2d 461, 198 USPQ 334 (CCPA 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803.02
We also require additional briefing on whether Claims 16-48 are proper Markush Claims. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716 (C.C.P.A. 1980) notes that the body of law relating to Markush-type claims is concerned with the concept of “unity of invention.” Harnisch, 631 F.2d at 721.

Harnisch, In re, 631 F.2d 716, 206 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . 803.02, 2173.05(h)

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Frutos et al 11/437,477 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J

See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302 (CCPA 1976) (“[T]he ultimate criterion of whether a rejection is considered „new‟ in a decision by the board is whether appellants have had fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the rejection.”)

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Ni et al 09/821,753 TIMM Dissenting Opinion KRATZ 112(1)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN GILMAN & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ALEJANDRO MULERO, LUZ L

NEW

REVERSED
2444 Ex Parte Betge-Brezetz et al 10/434,056 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

3753 Ex Parte Strattan et al 10/972,923 KAUFFMAN 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER RIVELL, JOHN A

AFFIRMED
1781 Ex Parte Makadia et al 11/267,540 FREDMAN 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP (MTC) EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

3734 Ex Parte Terry et al 11/135,824 STAICOVICI 102(b) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER DOWE, KATHERINE MARIE

danly, haas, desilva, young2, sneed

REVERSED

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Smith et al 10/891,883 SAADAT 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER THIER, MICHAEL
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Sperry et al 10/979,583 STAICOVICI 103(a) Sealed Air Corporation EXAMINER PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Piepgras et al 11/419,660 SAADAT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Philips Intellectual Property and Standards EXAMINER PAYNE, SHARON E
The Examiner, citing MPEP § 2114, found that the phrase “to provide the at least one control signal to the at least one lighting unit” is functional language not entitled to patentable weight as it merely describes an intended use of the apparatus (Ans. 5, 23-24). Appellants contend that “a conductor ‘provid[ing] the at least one control signal’ claims what a conductor is, not what a conductor does” (Reply Br. 13 (brackets in original); see also App. Br. 14). ... We find that this distinction between the conductors for the power and the control signal is a structural distinction that must be given patentable weight, see In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847 (CCPA 1959).

Danly, In re, 263 F.2d 844, 120 USPQ 528 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2114

AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Hakiel et al 10/667,581 DANG 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BELANI, KISHIN G
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Nordstrand 10/302,564 BARRETT 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S
3684 Ex Parte Campbell et al 10/237,424 LORIN 102(b) TIMOTHY P. O'HAGAN EXAMINER VIZVARY, GERALD C
Cf. Ernst Haas Studio, Inc. v. Palm Press, Inc., 164 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Appellant's Brief is at best an invitation to the court to scour the record, research any legal theory that comes to mind, and serve generally as an advocate for appellant. We decline the invitation."); DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[An appeal] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Gauthier et al 11/415,333 COCKS 103(a) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER ESHETE, ZELALEM

The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable, without change, to render obvious the invention under review. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Sneed, In re, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1445, 2145

Young, In re, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01
3751 Ex Parte Adelman 11/650,711 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D