harnisch

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Kovatchev 12159891 - (D) JENKS 103 Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (UV A) RIGGS II, LARRY D

1644 Ex Parte Vale et al 12887272 - (D) PRATS 112(1) Parker Highlander PLLC SKELDING, ZACHARY S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Doshi et al 13185747 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY TO, BAOTRAN N

2445 Ex Parte Buchheit et al 10914035 - (D) DIXON 103 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP I Google ELFERVIG, TAYLOR A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex Parte McQUEEN et al 13400632 - (D) NAGUMO 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP TA, THO DAC

2859 Ex Parte Gale et al 12423176 - (D) NAGUMO 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L PELTON, NATHANIEL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte BREAULT et al 13451964 - (D) PLENZLER 103 Henkel Corporation CHEYNEY, CHARLES

3763 Ex Parte Wengreen et al 12250670 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) THOMAS, JR, BRADLEY G

3769 Ex Parte Eder 13126649 - (D) HILL 102/103 HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC JACKSON, GARY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Chaddock et al 13202696 - (D) ADAMS 103 103 MORRIS, MANNING & MARTIN, LLP SWOPE, SHERIDAN

The test for whether a Markush group is proper is whether all of the compounds in the group have in common a functional utility and a substantial structural feature disclosed as being essential to that utility. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 722 (CCPA 1980). 

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

1671 Ex Parte Maas et al 12279792 - (D) GRIMES 103 double patenting Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) WITHERSPOON, SIKARL A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Dryden et al 12568443 - (D) ADAMS 103 LOEB & LOEB, LLP POPA, ILEANA

1662 Ex Parte Richburg et al 13452472 - (D) SCHNEIDER 103 Magleby Cataxinos & Greenwood/Dow AgroSciences LLC KOVALENKO, MYKOLA V

1673 Ex Parte Yang et al 12009421 - (D) NEW 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC MAIER, LEIGH C

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Khakhalev 12794949 - (D) BEST 103 Buckert Patent & Trademark Law Firm, P,C, CHMIELECKI, SCOTT J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Lobo et al 12500282 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 OSHA LIANG LLP/Oracle VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Hadar et al 12565474 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 Baker Botts LLP NGUY, CHI D

2482 Ex Parte Homma et al 13320506 - (D) MacDONALD 103 HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC ZHOU, ZHIHAN

2491 Ex Parte Faith et al 12031036 - (D) DEJMEK 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP/VISA HENNING, MATTHEW T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2654 Ex Parte Shuman 12315136 - (D) NAPPI 103 Barry M. Shuman TRAN, CON P

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