McLaughlin, mraz, hockerson-halberstadt, wilson1

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Manjunath et al 12720689 - (D) ENGELS 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PEACH, POLINA G

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Wang et al 12864205 - (D) HANLON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Gill 12084718 - (D) WOODS 103 Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co., LPA IHEZIE, JOSHUA K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte DAY et al 12267815 - (D) KINDER 103 103 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP (SV) DRAGOESCU, CLAUDIA B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3681 Ex Parte Irwin 10775680 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 102/103 DILWORTH IP, LLC HENRY, RODNEY M

3696 Ex Parte Deeming et al 12144538 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/103 103 AOL Inc./Finnegan BERONA, KIMBERLY SUE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Grgac et al 12746948 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 MAGNA INTERNATIONAL, INC. VAN SELL, NATHAN L

It has been recognized that the question of obviousness involves hindsight reasoning:

Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.

In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) 707.07(f) , 2145

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Hammen et al 12136058 - (D) JIVANI 112(2)/103 Perkins Coie LLP - SHA General WITZENBURG, BRUCE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Jacobs 11852956 - (D) McCARTNEY 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. SMITH, CHENEA

2487 Ex Parte Biesbrouck et al 11008165 - (D) SHIANG 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON WERNER, DAVID N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Kirk 12193546 - (D) HOSKINS 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG NGUYEN, BAO LONG T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Hoang 12515531 - (D) WOODS 102/103 FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION) FOX, JOHN C

While we are mindful that Hockerson-Halberstadt cautioned that patent drawings not designated as being drawn to scale cannot be relied upon to define precise proportions of elements if the specification is completely silent on the issue, that does not mean, “that things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded.” In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972); Hockerson-Halberstadt, 222 F.3d at 956. ...

We find the Mraz decision to be more on point than both the Wright and Nystrom cases. The Mraz case involved a claim that included an edging roll having a groove therein formed by inwardly converging inclined surfaces, with the angle of the inclines not exceeding 15°. Mraz, 435 F.2d at
1070. A prior art reference to Wilson, asserted to disclose this claim feature, and illustrating (but not explicitly disclosing in writing) an angle of incline of about 6°, was characterized by the Court as, “focus[ing] on the edge rolls, showing them with great particularity and showing the grooves thereon to have an angularity well within the range recited in appellant’s claims.” 1 Id. at 1072. This was contrasted with and distinguished from a situation in an earlier decision, In re Wilson, in which “the attempted reliance was not only on a patent drawing per se, it was on a greatly enlarged section of a small drawing obviously never intended to show the dimensions of anything.” Mraz, 435 F.2d at 1072; In re Wilson, 312 F.2d 449 (CCPA 1963).

1 The angle of incline was presumably determined through the simple use of a protractor.

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2125

Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972) 2125

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL INC. Requester and Respondent v. MOTIONPOINT CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7584216 et al 10/784,727 95001918 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP - MotionPoint THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC DESAI, RACHNA SINGH original AL HASHEMI, SANA A

net moneyin, hockerson-halberstadt alza

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Röhrl 13103421 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH LEWIS, BEN

[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 88 USPQ2d 1751 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 2152.02(b)

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3649 Ex Parte Lechner et al 11006805 - (D) BROWN 103 DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC WMS GAMING (DELIZIO GILLIAM) PANDYA, SUNIT

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Feld et al 12390202 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI SIMPSON, SARAH A

3733 Ex Parte Jacene et al 11371741 - (D) JENKS 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP HOFFMAN, MARY C

“[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-Halbertstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that the drawings could not be relied upon to construe whether the term “central longitudinal groove” required that the width of the groove be less than the combined width of the fins).

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2125

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Ausschnitt et al 12360132 - (D) BEST 103 102/103 DeLIO, PETERSON & CURCIO, LLC JELSMA, JONATHAN G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Ambrosio et al 12042012 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/102 112(1)/102 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP BORISSOV, IGOR N

However, one “cannot simply rely on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill to serve as a substitute for the missing information in the specification.” ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 94 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2161.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Tryon et al 12011872 - (D) GARRIS 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. ZHU, WEIPING

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Murthy 12415934 - (D) COURTENAY 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. JONES, HUGH M

2166 Ex Parte Gruetzner et al 12353195 - (D) KAISER 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG LIN, SHEW FEN

2169 Ex Parte Bugir et al 11305871 - (D) BAER 103 Tarolli, Sundheim, Covell & Tummino LLP/HBC Corporation KIM, PAUL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Wu et al 12260528 - (D) BRANCH 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC NGUY, CHI D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Kuc 11268419 - (D) COURTENAY 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. DIVECHA, NISHANT B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Pilpel et al 12021434 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 MICHAUD-Kinney Group LLP STEPHAN, BETH A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Duppert et al 12015571 - (D) JESCHKE 112(2) 112(1)/102/103/obviousness-type double patenting REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. DAVIS, MARY ALICE

3754 Ex Parte Morgan et al 11746214 - (D) ASTORINO 103 S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. DEERY, ERIN LEAH

mraz, hockerson-halberstadt

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 11156875 - (D) Ex Parte Hancock et al RUGGIERO 102(e) Vista IP Law Group LLP AL HASHEMI, SANA A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2634 12262239 - (D) Ex Parte Faller et al RUGGIERO 112(1) Ryan, Mason & Lewis LLP BOCURE, TESFALDET

2642 11258472 - (D) Ex Parte Dunko KRIVAK 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2844 11171758 - (D) Ex Parte Boerstler et al HASTINGS 102(b)/103 IBM CORP. (AUS) C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES BAUDINO, PLLC CRAWFORD, JASON

In this regard, while patent drawings can anticipate claims if the drawings clearly show the claimed structure, In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069,1072 (CCPA 1972), patent drawings not designated as being drawn to scale cannot be relied upon to define precise proportions of elements if the specification is completely silent on the issue. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, Inc. 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972) 2125

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2125
DONNER 1: 476, 477; 2: 400; 3: 309, 437-41, 468, 479
HARMON 6: 144, 159, 162

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 11120720 - (D) Ex Parte Ge BROWN 103 Yaogen Ge SCRUGGS, ROBERT J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 12204511 - (D) Ex Parte Spittle et al GARRIS 103 BRINKS GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

1783 10765707 - (D) Ex Parte Wellman et al GARRIS 112(2) 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP VAN SELL, NATHAN L

1786 11593148 - (D) Ex Parte Kim et al PAK 103 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) WILSON, MICHAEL H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 11258405 - (D) Ex Parte Jung et al THOMAS 102(b)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC SINGH, AMRESH

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 12338589 - (D) Ex Parte Popp NEW 103 DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 11686153 - (D) Ex Parte Thomas BROWNE 103 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) LEE, BENJAMIN P

3674 11857859 - (D) Ex Parte Bustos et al HOSKINS 103 SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION DITRANI, ANGELA M 

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 11330988 - (D) Ex Parte Clark et al SMEGAL 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. PRANGE, SHARON M

hockerson-halberstadt, wright

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Minsek et al 10/389,214 ROBERTSON 103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC EXAMINER CHACKO DAVIS, DABORAH

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Lee 11/796,175 BAUMEISTER 103(a) GIRARD & EQUITZ LLP EXAMINER MALEK, LEILA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Banta 11/464,045 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) THE MAXHAM FIRM EXAMINER PLUMMER, ELIZABETH A

See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (patent owner’s argument hinged on an inference drawn from certain figures about the quantitative relationship between the respective widths of a groove and fins); see also In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977) (“Absent any written description in the specification of quantitative values, arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value” (citation omitted)).

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . 2125

Wright, In re, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2125, 2145

3656 Ex Parte Dismon et al 11/089,106 KAUFFMAN 102(b) Ballard Spahr LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, VICKY A
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Katsumoto et al 10/349,325 WEINBERG 103(a) 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER YAN, REN LUO
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Schulz et al 10/892,743 GREEN 103(a) Steptoe & Johnson LLP EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Shannon et al 11/530,670 OWENS 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) Moser Taboada / Applied Materials, Inc. EXAMINER CROWELL, ANNA M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Bahren et al 09/892,783 KOHUT 103(a) O'Shea Getz P.C. EXAMINER CHANKONG, DOHM

2466 Ex Parte Mizell et al 10/025,543 BARRY 103(a) Wei Wei Jang Haynes and Boone, LLP EXAMINER PATEL, JAY P

2486 Ex Parte Ebrami 09/956,569 HOFF 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP (LA) EXAMINER RAO, ANAND SHASHIKANT

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Tenny et al 11/293,526 DANG 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER KHAN, MEHMOOD B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Neal 10/788,716 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Castronovo 11/740,651 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Whitham, Curtis & Christofferson, PC EXAMINER ROSENBAUM, MARK

3728 Ex Parte Guard 11/974,484 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) Julian C. Renfro, Esquire EXAMINER HICKS, ROBERT J