halliburton, general electric

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Pierik et al 13121206 - (D) MILLS 101/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LU, FRANK WEI MIN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Elangovan et al 12240725 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CERAMA TEC, INC. CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2481 Ex Parte Minagawa et al 13022804 - (D) BAIN 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED BELAI, NAOD W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Scheibe 11836104 - (D) HAMANN 103 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP - Colorado Springs SIMPSON, LIXI CHOW

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Chang et al 13614688 - (D) HORNER 112(2)/102/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (AU) BAXTER, GWENDOLYN WRENN

3664 Ex Parte Pickett et al 11655492 - (D) PESLAK 112(1) YEE & ASSOCIATES P.C. MANCHO, RONNIE M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Merrell 12372300 - (D) WARNER 102/103 41.50 112(2) OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP PLIONIS, NICHOLAS J

When a claim merely recites a function to be achieved by recited element-here, the rod having an insertion end that is "configured for insertion" into a cavity of a bone-the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. See Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court has explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)).

3738 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 12188113 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 Pabst Patent Group LLP SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Lehtiniemi et al 13547705 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON FISHER, ABIGAIL L

1629 Ex Parte Pfluecker et al 12670442 - (D) NEWMAN 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP SIMMONS, CHRIS E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Paul et al 13990137 - (D) SQUIRE 103 The Dow Chemical Company ROLLAND, ALEX A

1746 Ex Parte OLOUGHLIN et al 13610993 - (D) GARRIS 103 RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP MUSSER, BARBARA J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Hodges 12906222 - (D) O'HANLON 102/103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C, SAMWEL, DANIEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Shuster 12814197 - (D) KHAN 103 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P,C TRAN, ELLEN C

2443 Ex Parte Yen et al 12281977 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP COONEY, ADAM A

2449 Ex Parte Etchegoyen 14201612 - (D) BUI 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/CISC CELANI, NICHOLAS P

2487 Ex Parte Rajamani et al  13239823 - (D) MOORE 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD J

2495 Ex Parte DOHRING et al 12516084 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 Uniloc USA Inc. GEE, JASON KAI YIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte LI et al 11534845 - (D) NEWMAN 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, PLLC ALAM, MOHAMMED R

2881 Ex Parte Preikszas 12931356 - (D) SQUIRE 103 MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC PURINTON, BROOKE J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3747 Ex Parte Scharp 13066552 - (D) CAPP 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. PICON-FELICIANO, RUBEN

3753 Ex Parte HARRINGTON et al 13210922 - (D) PENICK 101/112(1)/103 DORITY & MANNING, PA MCCALISTER, WILLIAM M

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Wall et al 12010414 - (R) GALLIGAN 103 DOWELL & DOWELL, P.C. DAYE, CHELCIE L

halliburton, datamize, miyazaki

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Doumaux et al 12808046 - (D) KAISER dissenting HOUSEL 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, VU ANH

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Keohane et al 11867735 - (D) HAAPALA 103 LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) HO, RUAY L

2176 Ex Parte Dejean et al 11923904 - (D) SHIANG 103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER BURKE, TIONNA M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Salvi et al 12501412 - (D) SILVERMAN 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY POLLACK, MELVIN H

2452 Ex Parte McClain et al 12612895 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP (26530) HUSSAIN, TAUQIR

2457 Ex Parte Brakensiek 12495119 - (D) CURCURI concurring BAUMEISTER 102/103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation KIM, HEE SOO

Rather, "dynamic data" and "static data" are merely undefined terms of degree. When a term of degree is used in a claim, the specification must provide some standard for measuring the requisite degree.  Datamise, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc. 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). "[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite." Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).

Our reviewing court explained the rationale for requiring such definiteness for terms of degree in Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-1 LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In Halliburton, the court was asked to determine whether the relative claim term "fragile gel" was sufficiently definite.  Id. at 1246.  In spite of that Patent's Specification containing an express definition for the term "fragile gel" (id. (citing Kirsner et al., U.S. No. 6,887,832 B2; issued May 3, 2005, at col. 2, II. 26-42)), the Halliburton court nonetheless found that no "possible construction resolves the ambiguity in the scope of the term." Id. at 1250.

The fact that Halliburton can articulate a definition supported by the specification, however, does not end the inquiry.  Even if a claim term's definition can be reduced to words, the claim is still indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot translate the definition into meaningful precise claim scope."

Id. at 1251.

The Hallibrton court explained the public policy underlying its conclusion:

35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 requires that the specification of a patent "conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention." Because claims delineate the patentee's right to exclude, the patent statute requires that the scope of the claims be sufficiently definite to inform the public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e., what subject matter is covered by the exclusive rights of the patent. Otherwise, competitors cannot avoid infringement, defeating the public notice function of patent claims. Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1996) ("[T]he primary purpose of the requirement is `to guard against unreasonable advantages to the patentee and disadvantages to others arising from uncertainty as to their [respective] rights.'") (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Carp., 304 U.S. 364, 369, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402, (1938)). The Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he statutory requirement of particularity and distinctness in, claims is met only when [the claims] clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly circumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise." United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236, 63 S.Ct. 165, 87 L.Ed. 232 (1942).

Id. at 1249 (citations omitted).

The Halliburton court also noted an additional policy consideration, which serves as the basis for why the Board should not ignore the claims' clarity in spite of the issue not being raised on appeal:

the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.

Id. at 1255.

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)

Miyazaki, Ex parte, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (BPAI 2008) 2173.05(b)


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Neuhauser et al 11777051 - (D) SCHOPFER 102 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen) JIAN, SHIRLEY XUEYING

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Scantlebury et al 10503549 - (D) WARREN 103 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP WOOD, ELLEN SUZANNE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Yoshida et al 12631295 - (D) BAER 103 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT DRAVININKAS, ADAM B

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Golombek et al 12128795 - (D) ADAMS 103 41.50 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON SOROUSH, LAYLA

1631 Ex Parte Rambaud 10687636 - (D) POLLOCK 112(1)/112(2)/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON WHALEY, PABLO S

1631 Ex Parte Leuthardt et al 12459493 - (D) McGRAW 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC HARWARD, SOREN T

1631 Ex Parte Leuthardt et al 12459623 - (D) McGRAW 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC HARWARD, SOREN T

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Uensal et al 12375550 - (D) WARREN 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) NGUYEN, COLETTE B

1747 Ex Parte Dale et al 12450964 - (D) GARRIS 112(a)/112(b)/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ROGERS, MARTIN K

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte van Putten 13354196 - (D) NEW 102/103 MAURICE H.P.M. VAN PUTTEN ELLIS, MATTHEW J

2175 Ex Parte Gn et al 12345050 - (D) HOMERE 102 LSI CORPORATION TRAN, MYLINH T

2175 Ex Parte Jude et al 12486914 - (D) NEW 102/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 NABI, REZA U

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Marilly et al 11960691 - (D) KAISER 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT LIN, JASON K

2431 Ex Parte STAUNER et al 11961947 - (D) MCMILLIN 112(2) 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP VAUGHAN, MICHAEL R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Rosenberg 11927060 - (D) SHIANG 103 Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton, LLP BOLOTIN, DMITRIY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Craven et al 10582390 - (D) TIMM 103 GATES & COOPER LLP (General) FOX, BRANDON C

2854 Ex Parte Wilson et al 12110518 - (D) ABRAHAM 102/103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER MARINI, MATTHEW G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Lowles 12394750 - (D) STEPINA 103 41.50 103 RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

3671 Ex Parte Goering et al 12715237 - (D) BROWNE 103 DEERE & COMPANY NGUYEN, MAI T

3672 Ex Parte Selb et al 12800975 - (D) MURPHY 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB LAGMAN, FREDERICK LYNDON

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Vontell 11702715 - (D) BROWNE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY DECKER, PHILLIP

3788 Ex Parte Felsch et al 12267191 - (D) SMEGAL 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials POON, ROBERT

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
2782 HTC CORPORATION Requester v. FLASHPOINT TECHNOLOGY, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 6163816 et al 08/920,424 95001420 - (D) COCKS 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Herskovitz & Associates, PLLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: PEKINS COIE LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original SHIN, CHRISTOPHER B

wright3, halliburton, miyazaki

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Reimann et al 12569411 - (D) PINKERTON 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. BURKE, TIONNA M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2462 Ex Parte LUCKY 12433378 - (D) POTHIER 102 41.50 112(1) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. MILLS, DONALD L

For questions of enablement, the Federal Circuit has held that “the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (emphasis added). Regarding the scope of enablement for purely functional claims, the Board has held that

[W]hen the limitation encompasses any and all structures or acts for performing a recited function, including those which were not what the applicant had invented, the disclosure fails to provide a scope of enablement commensurate with the scope of the claim and the claim would violate the prohibition of [Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1 (1946)].

Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1217 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).

Wright, In re, 999 F.2d 1557, 27 USPQ2d 1510 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   2107.01 ,   2161.01 ,   2164.03 ,   2164.01(a) ,   2164.04 ,   2164.05(a) ,   2164.06(b) ,   2164.08

2462 Ex Parte Lavigne et al 12022486 - (D) BAER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HUYNH, KHOA B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2652 Ex Parte Sylvain 11536304 - (D) WINSOR 112(2)/102 41.50 102 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. POPE, KHARYE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Wastlund-Karlsson et al 12084880 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC SCA Hygiene Products AB KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3778 Ex Parte Karlson et al 11576497 - (D) PAULRAJ 112(1)/103 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC SCA Hygiene Products AB DITMER, KATHRYN ELIZABETH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte LEE et al 12730088 - (D) NAGUMO 103 103 Tokyo Electron U.S. Holdings, Inc. LAW, NGA LEUNG V

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Johnston et al 11372778 - (D) FISHMAN 103 LEWIS RICE LLC TILLERY, RASHAWN N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Cohen et al 11524040 - (D) Per Curiam 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC BELCHER, HERMAN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Lommel et al 12072845 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP UHLIR, CHRISTOPHER J

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2624 Ex parte TESSERON LTD. Appellant Ex Parte 6771387 et al 10/090,074 90012752 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP Third Party Requester: REED SMITH LLP DESAI, RACHNA SINGH original GARCIA, GABRIEL I

montgomery, MEHL halliburton, nautilus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Willison et al 10187666 - (D) FREDMAN 102(e)/103 WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP ROBERTS, LEZAH

“The keystone of the inherency doctrine is inevitability. For anticipation by inherency, a later-claimed invention must have necessarily resulted from the practice of a prior art reference. Our precedent has been steadfast in this strict requirement of inevitability.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

“Inherency, however, 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.” MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Muthiah et al 11605167 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 GERALD K. WHITE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. RAUDENBUSH, ELLEN SUZANNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Smith et al 12024176 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. HOEY, ALISSA L

Our reviewing court instructs us that an applicant “is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.” Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Supreme Court recently instructed us that claims must at least “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the [claimed subject matter] with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instrs., Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Kouhi et al 11999586 - (D) KRIVAK 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT HITT GAINES, PC HUYNH, AN SON PHI

2491 Ex Parte Bomma 11935758 - (D) CHUNG 103 IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Pildner 11521707 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 TYCO FIRE PROTECTION JAMAL, ALEXANDER

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte OSULLIVAN et al 11948458 - (D) PAULRAJ 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG TAN, ALVIN H

halliburton, general electric, holmwood, newkirk, coleman

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Kabra et al 10/610,090 PRATS 102(a)/103(a) Patrick M. Ryan(Q-148) Alcon Research, Ltd. EXAMINER HARTLEY, MICHAEL G

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Rosenflanz et al 10/211,684 KRATZ 112(1)/102(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Roehrle et al 11/193,815 MacDONALD 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Iritani et al 10/468,800 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(5) Cheng Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER RATCLIFFE, LUKE D

3694 Ex Parte Lozano 10/821,610 PETRAVICK 112(1)/101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER MERCHANT, SHAHID R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Boyle et al 10/662,697 SAINDON 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, KEVIN THAO

Thus, as suggested by Appellants, the claims’ point of novelty lies within functional language. See Halliburton Energy Serv., Inc., v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“a vice of functional claiming occurs … ‘when … conveniently functional language [is used] at the exact point of novelty.’”) (citing General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Torrey et al 10/982,279 MORGAN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Amarr Company Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Wayne-Dalton Corp. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,304 6,640,872 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: PHILLIP L. KENNER RENNER, KEENER, GREIVE, BOBAK, TAYLOR & WEBER THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFREY R. MCFADDEN WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER LEV, BRUCE ALLEN

To prove a reduction to practice, an applicant must show that “the embodiment relied upon as evidence of priority actually worked for its intended purpose.” Holmwood v. Sugavanam, 948 F.2d 1236, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (quoting Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1582, (Fed.Cir.1987)).

The Federal Circuit “applies a ‘rule of reason’ standard when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence about reduction to practice.” Id., at 1238 (citing Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The rule of reason “requires the Patent and Trademark Office to examine, analyze, and evaluate reasonably all pertinent evidence when weighing the credibility of an inventor's story.” Id., at 1239.

“Only an inventor's testimony needs corroboration . . . [T]he Board must view the evidence as a whole to determine if the inventor's story withstands careful examination.” Id.

Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 3 USPQ2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . 715.07 Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 224 USPQ 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . 2138.04
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Ponder et al 11/762,313 MILLS 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

1628 Ex Parte Arduini 10/343,626 FREDMAN 102(b) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R

1629 Ex Parte Amalric et al 10/466,558 GRIMES 112(1)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER ROYDS, LESLIE A

1654 Ex Parte Li et al 10/664,697 PRATS 103(a) BELL & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Erickson et al 11/096,577 ROBERTSON 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MENG, JAU SHYA

2424 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/078,877 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/102(b) JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC. EXAMINER SHELEHEDA, JAMES R

NEW

REVERSED

1741 Ex Parte Ackerman et al 09/844,947 OWENS 112(2)/112(1) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M

2437 Ex Parte Destidar et al 10/165,938 DIXON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GERGISO, TECHANE

2448 Ex Parte Harvey et al 10/848,159 THOMAS 102(a)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) VERIZON EXAMINER LUU, LE HIEN

2492 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/433,856 THOMAS 112(1)/103(a) KF ROSS PC EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J

2871 Ex Parte Maruyama et al 11/065,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAUREN

3634 Ex Parte Obinata et al 11/321,913 ASTORINO 102(b) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER REDMAN, JERRY E

3634 Ex Parte Sullivan 11/004,230 ASTORINO 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

AFFIRMED

1618 Ex Parte Arduini 10/343,626 FREDMAN 102(b) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER Vu, Jake

2617 Ex Parte Borst et al 10/422,286 SAADAT 103(a) PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN PLLC EXAMINER LEE, JUSTIN YE

2853 Ex Parte Donovan 11/017,995 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER HUFFMAN, JULIAN D

2168 Ex Parte Erickson et al 11/096,577 ROBERTSON 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MENG, JAU SHYA

2166 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/944,623 BARRY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER YEN, SYLING

2478 Ex Parte Holder 10/138,453 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LIN, KENNY S

3738 Ex Parte Jang 10/419,280 STAICOVICI 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER MILLER, CHERYL L

2439 Ex Parte Kean 10/900,011 THOMAS 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER WANG, HARRIS C

3752 Ex Parte Petrovic et al 11/359,647 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation EXAMINER GORMAN, DARREN W

2451 Ex Parte Ramamoorthy et al 10/751,899 ZECHER 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ANWARI, MACEEH

2161 Ex Parte Yuan et al 10/930,486 POTHIER 103(a) RIM EXAMINER LU, CHARLES EDWARD