perricone, minton, hoffer, griffin

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Ahlem et al 11551195 - (D) FREDMAN 103 HARBOR THERAPEUTICS, INC. PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

Although not clearly stated, the Examiner may alternatively be relying upon a theory of inherency. However, the treatment of HIV does not inherently result in the treatment of a mycobacterium infection.In Perricone, the Federal Circuit distinguished between the topical application of a lotion to skin generally to prevent sunburn, and the topical application of a lotion to treat sunburned skin, finding that the “issue is not . . . whether [the prior art] lotion if applied to skin sunburn would inherently treat that damage, but whether Pereira discloses the application of its composition to skin sunburn. It does not.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Reinschke et al 10591089 - (D) DELMENDO 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ANDREWS, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte KUBLER et al 11764815 - (D) LORIN 103 King & Spalding LLP FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

3662 Ex Parte Munch 11580771 - (D) MURPHY 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. TO, TUAN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 12251173 - (D) FREDMAN 102(e)/103 Pabst Patent Group LLP SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Ritt et al 10843492 - (D) EVANS 102(e) 101 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN MCNALLY, MICHAEL S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Diaz et al 12391821 - (D) TIMM 103 103 Haynes and Boone, LLP LI, MEIYA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Caveney et al 11179762 - (D) STEPHENS 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) Perman & Green, LLP LOWE, MICHAEL S

“A whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “However, when the ‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the Federal Circuit held that the Board did not err in giving limiting effect to the “wherein” clauses in an interference because the wherein clauses “relate back to and clarify what is required by the count.” The court was not persuaded by the arguments that the wherein clauses in that case “merely state the inherent result of performing the manipulative steps.” Id. at 1034. 

Minton, Hoffer, and Griffin establish that each claim reciting a “wherein” or “whereby” clause must be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the clause is entitled to weight in the patentability analysis. 

Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2106 , 2111.04 , 2133.03(c)

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111.04

Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2103 , 2111.04

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11346750 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 Kagan Binder, PLLC DORNA, CARRIE R

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Hind et al 12204597 - (D) TROCK 112(2) 102(e) CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG WALDRON, SCOTT A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Khalid et al 11409586 - (D) COURTENAY 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP TO, BAOTRAN N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Jeong et al 11714060 - (D) COURTENAY 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. MCKIE, GINA M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Karpov et al 12082181 - (D) WILSON 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. BYRNE, HARRY W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 NALCO COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. VOSTEEN CONSULTING GmbH Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte Vosteen et al 90/011,604 6,878,358 B 10/430,088 95001587 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(2) 112(1)/112(4)/102/103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. Third Party Requester: Reed Smith, LLP XU, LING X original STRICKLAND, JONAS N

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Requester Cross-Appellant and Respondent v. ILLUMINA, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent Ex Parte 7232656 et al 10/610,305 95000528 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1) 102/103 COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP Third Party Requester: LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original WHISENANT, ETHAN C

griffin, hoffer, minton

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 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Yano et al 11067290 - (D) DIXON 103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL PEREZ, JULIO R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Takiguchi et al 11126127 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 HOLTZ, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK PC CAROC, LHEIREN MAE ANGLO

2835 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11421825 - (D) MURPHY 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION PAPE, ZACHARY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Chun et al 11139591 - (D) STRAUSS 103 103 NSIP LAW CHBOUKI, TAREK

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Barsness et al 11833290 - (D) HUME 103 IBM CORPORATION KIM, TAELOR

The determination of whether recitations or clauses introduced by terms such as “wherein,” “whereby,” or, in the present appeal, “thereby” result in affirmative claim limitations which are to be given patentable weight depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a “wherein” clause limited a process claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”). In re Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Id.

Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2103, 2111.04
DONNER 10: 909, 916, 1018-24
HARMON 6: 25

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111.04
HARMON 6: 112; 19: 511

Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003)  2106,  2111.04,  2133.03(c)
HARMON 2: 215; 19: 373

hoffer

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Matsa et al 12130285 - (D) HULSE 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN STORK, KYLE R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Oki et al 12078681 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC STAFFORD, PATRICK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Bendel 11901804 - (D) SPAHN 112(1)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) KENYON & KENYON LLP SAHNI, VISHAL R

We note that the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2111.04, entitled “‘Adapted to,’ ‘Adapted For,’ “Wherein,’ and “Whereby’ Clauses,” indicates that “[c]laim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” This section of the MPEP sets forth a non exhaustive list of claim language “that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim,” and the list includes “‘wherein’ clauses.” This section of the MPEP also indicates that “[t]he determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case,” and discusses that “[i]n Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 . . . (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a ‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.”

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111.04

3672 Ex Parte Roelofs 11994070 - (D) ASTORINO 103 GOTTLIEB RACKMAN & REISMAN PC FIORELLO, BENJAMIN F

3693 Ex Parte Hadi et al 11954656 - (D) MOHANTY 102(b) BGL/CME Group MAGUIRE, LINDSAY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Renzin et al 11996845 - (D) SCHEINER 103 O'Shea Getz P.C. ANDERSON,CATHARINE L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Chambers et al 11888238 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) SHIH, HAOSHIAN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Fedder et al 12152553 - (D) PRAISS 102(b) 102(b)/103 Tyco Technology Resources NGUYEN, PHUONGCHI T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Kleshinski et al 11184069 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(1) 112(1)/102(b)/103 SEPTRX, INC ORKIN, ALEXANDERJ

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Bernstein 12036901 - (D) FRANKLIN 102(b) Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH) ANDERSON, JAMES D

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Mazany et al 12829178 - (D) OWENS 103 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. (UTC) PENNY, TABATHA L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Kim 10873549 - (D) SMITH 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

2193 Ex Parte Cho et al 10320632 - (D) CHEN 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Shearer 11536074 - (D) COURTENAY 103 IBM CORPORATION RICKS, DONNA J

2631 Ex Parte Huang et al 11005137 - (D) DANG 102(b)/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. TIMORY, KABIR A

2648 Ex Parte Rofougaran 12131550 - (D) KRIVAK 102(b)/103 GARLICK & MARKISON WEST, LEWIS G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Falcone 12195999 - (D) SMEGAL concurring SPAHN 103 CAHN & SAMUELS, LLP DUCKWORTH,BRADLEY

3672 Ex Parte Flor et al 11883190 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Christopher John Rudy SINGH, SUNIL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Benz et al 11919723 - (D) PLENZLER 102(e)/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION POOS, MADISON LYNN

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 JAKE LEE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MIKE’S NOVELTIES, INC. (doing business as Mike’s Worldwide Imports) AND MANISCH CHANDER (also known as Mike Chander, Manisch Chandra, and Mike Chandra), Defendants-Appellants. 2013-1049 6,418,936 09/570,114 DYK willful infringement; enhanced damages judgment of infringement and no invalidity Handal & Morofsky, LLC; SLC Law Group LOPEZ, CARLOS N

cordis, hoffer, minton, cybersource, dealertrack

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2199 Ex Parte Dent 11/143,157 GONSALVES 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER BULLOCK JR, LEWIS ALEXANDER

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Edgar 11/298,336 HOELTER 102/103 Elizabeth A. Edgar EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3657 Ex Parte Adoline et al 10/820,280 STAICOVICI 103 FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG

3687 Ex Parte East 11/177,182 FETTING 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Tarantino 10/810,782 LORIN 103 WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K

3721 Ex Parte Seyffert 11/051,274 CALVE 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

3761 Ex Parte Meir 10/601,455 BONILLA 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Kiehlbauch et al 11/812,902 DELMENDO 103 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER CHANDRA, SATISH

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Alberth et al 10/206,706 DILLON 103 103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER BOCURE, TESFALDET

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Uhlir-Tsang et al 11/553,932 OWENS obviousness-type double patenting/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FAISON, VERONICA F

1734 Ex Parte Higgins 12/167,139 METZ 103 DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP EXAMINER LE, EMILY M

1764 Ex Parte Ganapathiappan et al 11/700,633 GAUDETTE 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P

1767 Ex Parte TAKAGI et al 12/391,725 FRANKLIN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

1771 Ex Parte Bhan et al 11/014,362 SCHAFER 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Sahita et al 11/170,925 DROESCH 101/102 Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC/Intel Corporation RIAD, AMINE

Claim construction is an issue of law subject to review de novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

2183 Ex Parte Lippincott 10/850,095 DILLON 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E

The determination of whether an intended use clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. In re Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Jain et al 10/291,169 KIM 101/103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC EXAMINER STERRETT, JONATHAN G

See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[i]t is clear that unpatentable mental processes are the subject matter of claim 3. All of claim 3’s method steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”). Simply adding computer limitations to such mental processes, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

3625 Ex Parte Leon et al 11/241,883 KIM 102 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EXAMINER SMITH, JEFFREY A

3627 Ex Parte Stenz et al 10/873,000 FETTING non-obvious double patenting 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

3634 Ex Parte Woller 10/426,550 HORNER 102 GARDNER GROFF GREENWALD & VILLANUEVA. PC CHIN EXAMINER SHUE, ALVIN C

3682 Ex Parte Boyle 11/215,907 KIM 103 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER HAMILTON, MATTHEW L

3685 Ex Parte Stefik et al 11/174,654 FETTING 103 Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER NIGH, JAMES D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Boukhny 11/060,827 FRANKLIN 103 ALCON EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

3743 Ex Parte Yabuuchi et al 10/879,136 BAHR 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER LU, JIPING

3767 Ex Parte Dalton 11/252,329 FITZPATRICK 103 Cardinal Law Group EXAMINER OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Simmons et al 10/159,718 DANG 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER NGO, NGUYEN HOANG

hoffer, dembiczak, schaefer, collier

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Geisler et al 11/031,557 TIMM 103(a) Charles N.J. Ruggiero, Esq. Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P. EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ERIK

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Tan et al 09/873,061 MORGAN dissenting SMITH 102(e) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER BLACK, LINH

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Kroon et al 10/274,470 RUGGIERO 103(a) Xerox Corporation EXAMINER VO, QUANG N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Nye et al 11/223,238 GREENHUT 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Bell & Manning, LLC EXAMINER MONDT, JOHANNES P

In Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, 339 F. 3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the Court distinguished cases dealing with “accidental, unwitting, and unappreciated” anticipation, Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923) and Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707 (1880), where the record did not conclusively establish that the prior art produced the claimed subject matter, from cases in which the record established that the claimed subject matter necessarily and inevitably was a consequence of practicing a prior art process under the normal, as opposed to hypothetical or unusual, conditions disclosed.

Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Brown 10/940,994 SPAHN 103(a) LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. EXAMINER SUERETH, SARAH ELIZABETH
See the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2111.04 citing Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (When a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.”).

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Green et al 11/114,485 WALSH 103(a) John A. O'Toole EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte Mao et al 11/218,642 McCOLLUM 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER DESAI, ANAND U

1657 Ex Parte Gurewich et al 11/447,455 GRIMES 103(a) MEDLEN & CARROLL, LLP EXAMINER KOSSON, ROSANNE

The analysis required by § 103 has been characterized as “casting the mind back to the time of invention, to consider the thinking of one of ordinary skill in the art, guided only by the prior art references and the then-accepted wisdom in the field.” In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). For this reason, obviousness has been likened to “the creature of an imagination projected upon the future out of materials of the past.” Schaefer, Inc. v. Mohawk Cabinet Co., 276 F.2d 204, 207 (2d Cir. 1960)(Learned Hand, J.). A determination of obviousness is based only on knowledge available at the time the claimed invention was made.

Dembiczak, In re, 175 F.3d 994, 50 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . .1504.06, 2144.04

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Takahashi et al 10/369,596 TIMM 103(a) KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O

Such a recitation of an act that may occur in the future does not positively recite a structural relationship between the battery and the substrate. See In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 1005 (CCPA 1968).

Collier, In re, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQm 266 (CCPA 1968) . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05, 2172.01, 2173.05(k)

1781 Ex Parte DuBois et al 09/838,809 HANLON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

hoffer, gartside, princeton biochemicals, dystar, merck2, gechter, champagne

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1615 Ex Parte Ahlgren et al 11/057,480 MILLS 103(a) Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. EXAMINER SASAN, ARADHANA

07/25/2011 1624 Ex Parte Pathi et al 11/574,642 WALSH Concurring FREDMAN 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER WILLIS, DOUGLAS M

07/25/2011 1628 Ex Parte Bieringer et al 10/198,580 MILLS 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2161 Ex Parte Rath et al 11/388,012 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

See Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.”).

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04

07/25/2011 2168 Ex Parte Idicula et al 11/014,442 DIXON 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER MOBIN, HASANUL

07/25/2011 2179 Ex Parte Uotila et al 11/124,651 GONSALVES 102(b)/103(a) HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3624 Ex Parte Fama et al 11/478,714 PETRAVICK 103(a) SETTER ROCHE LLP EXAMINER WALKER III, GEORGE H

07/25/2011 3634 Ex Parte Rieder et al 11/288,682 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/25/2011 3767 Ex Parte Torris et al 10/419,934 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO EXAMINER GRAY, PHILLIP A
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1626 Ex Parte Almirante et al 10/566,292 WALSH 103(a) ARENT FOX LLP EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R

“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references. . . is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Motivation to apply prior art teachings may be found when “the nature of the problem called for exactly the solutions in the prior art.” Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming obviousness). Accord, DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied”). The prior art’s disclosure of a multitude of combinations does not necessarily render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. .716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

07/25/2011 1637 Ex Parte Park et al 11/965,687 ADAMS 103(a) MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. EXAMINER TUNG, JOYCE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/25/2011 1763 Ex Parte Gestermann et al 11/709,411 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

07/25/2011 1787 Ex Parte NOWAK et al 09/178,329 KRATZ 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2166 Ex Parte Kreulen et al 10/851,754 DANG 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2436 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos et al 10/810,025 DROESCH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, DANIEL L

07/25/2011 2464 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 10/354,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) EXAMINER HAN, CLEMENCE S

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Smith 10/658,896 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Nakhjiri et al 11/169,406 DANG 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

2600 Communications
07/26/2011 2617 Ex Parte Heaven et al 11/239,346 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3621 Ex Parte Goodwin III 12/128,694 KIM 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E
REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2187 Ex Parte Lake 10/960,184 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N

Our reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has had occasion to analyze the word “review” as it is used in its jurisdictional statutes – 35 U.S.C. § 144.3 See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1458, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (discussing the scope of review, and vacating a Board decision that omits several crucial findings); accord Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir 1998) (J. Michel concurring) (citing Gechter). We find the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the term “review,” in the context of the Federal Circuit’s review of Board decisions, to be particularly helpful in determining the meaning of the word “review” in the context of our statutory duty to review adverse decisions of examiners.