huang, Geo. M. Martin

custom search

REVERSED
1621 Ex Parte Schiffrin et al 12097847 - (D) GRIMES 103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago CRUZ, KATHRIEN ANN

1792 Ex Parte Jalalpoor 12310579 - (D) WILSON 102/103 W R GRACE & CO. CONN, PATENT DEPATMENT, LEGAL LEFF, STEVEN N

2467 Ex Parte Nix et al 12559717 - (D) KHAN 103 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP DUONG, DUC T

3731 Ex Parte Bergin et al 13249944 - (D) STEPINA 103 MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

3774 Ex Parte Clarke et al 13000594 - (D) JESCHKE 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLP WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2618 Ex Parte Iourcha et al 11513190 - (D) NAPPI 103 103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. CRADDOCK, ROBERT J

AFFIRMED
1791 Ex Parte MURRAY et al 13069040 - (D) SMITH 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP DEES, NIKKI H

In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Appellant must offer proof that the asserted commercial success occurred in the relevant market and “that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention—as opposed to other economic and commercial factors unrelated to the quality of the patented subject matter.”); Geo. M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Machine Systems Int’l LLC, 618 F.3d 1294, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The commercial success of a product is relevant to the non-obviousness of a claim only insofar as the success of the product is due to the claimed invention.”)

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 716.03 , 716.03(b) , 1504.01(c) , 2145

2425 Ex Parte Clapper 11824223 - (D) BUI 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. c/o CPA Global CHEN, CAI Y

2666 Ex Parte Te Vrugt et al 12738659 - (D) McNEILL 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS NAKHJAVAN, SHERVIN K

2691 Ex Parte Van Beek et al 12300154 - (D) HAGY 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LINGARAJU, NAVIN B

2854 Ex Parte Yamada et al 11681902 - (D) BEST 103 AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP CULLER, JILL E

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
2854 Ex parte COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 5,690,988 et al 08/594,607 90012824 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 41.50 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY JONES, DWAYNE C original CULLER, JILL E

huang, cable, baxter travenol

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Attarwala et al 12562603 - (D) PAK concurring-in-part SMITH 102 Henkel Corporation DOLLINGER, MICHAEL M

1776 Ex Parte Hecker 12116545 - (D) KOKOSKI 102/103 Jason P. Webb SMITH, DUANE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Dexter et al 12035587 - (D) LORIN 103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (PA) AL HASHEMI, SANA A

2166 Ex Parte Patton 10857343 - (D) DESHPANDE 102 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. PHAM, KHANH B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte Nielsen et al 11261130 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HON, MING Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Hong 11809715 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Scheinberg & Associates, PC IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE

3638 Ex Parte Dickert 12180247 - (D) SMEGAL 103 41.50(b) 112(2) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD KIM, SHIN H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Hall 12657364 - (D) ASTORINO 103 HUDAK, SHUNK & FARINE, CO., L.P.A. CHOI, STEPHEN

3745 Ex Parte Erickson et al 11548791 - (D) BROWNE 103 Sutherland GE NGUYEN, NINH H

3766 Ex Parte Bonde et al 11739982 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A MALAMUD, DEBORAH LESLIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Ding et al 11966894 - (D) JENKS 102 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC YOO, SUN JAE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Korolik et al 12555217 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/112(2)/102/103/obviousness-type double patenting MPG, LLP and Lam Research Corp. MARKOFF, ALEXANDER

1783 Ex Parte Fensel et al 11651976 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FAY SHARPE LLP VAN SELL, NATHAN L

1791 Ex Parte Ledon et al 11910718 - (D) SMITH 103 American Air Liquide, Inc. BADR, HAMID R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte McDonough 11241819 - (D) RUGGiERO 103 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP STRONCZER, RYAN S

2453 Ex Parte Lioy et al 11193068 - (D) EVANS 101/102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C

2476 Ex Parte Pierce 11914269 - (D) DILLON 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SLOMS, NICHOLAS

2491 Ex Parte Suzuki 11653424 - (D) EVANS 103 Studebaker & Brackett PC LAGOR, ALEXANDER

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Ryan et al 11513357 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. MA, TIZE

2683 Ex Parte Meyer 11557001 - (D) DIXON 103 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON YANG, JAMES J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Saad et al 11576488 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS CWERN, JONATHAN

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2472 Ex parte ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC 90012114 RE41,531 11/859,364 HUGHES 103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC YIGDALL, MICHAEL J original NGUYEN, BRIAN D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 ENVISIONWARE, INC. Requester v. 3M COMPANY and 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95001344 6486780 09/619,220 CURCURI, 103 SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original MULLEN, THOMAS J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 GOOGLE, INC. and MICROSOFT CORP. Requesters and Respondents, v. PAID SEARCH ENGINE TOOLS, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant. 95001863 7,974,912 11/379,897 HOFF 102/103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP WORJLOH, JALATEE original AKINTOLA, OLABODE

Our reviewing court has noted in the past that evidence related solely to the number of units sold provides a very weak showing of commercial success, if any. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (finding that sales of 5 million units represents a minimal showing of commercial success because “[w]ithout further economic evidence . . . it would be improper to infer that the reported sales represent a substantial share of any definable market”); see also In re Baxter Travenol Lab., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985)  716.03(b),   716.06,   1504.03

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01, 2145

boehringer, stencel, Jung, tiffin, joy technologies, huang, cable, standish, ariad, reiffin, lockwood, barker, vas-cath

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Thastrup et al 10/072,036 GREEN 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) Workman Nydegger EXAMINER BURKHART, MICHAEL D
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Desai et al 10/288,126 TIMM 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Cabillic et al 11/186,036 JEFFERY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kim 10/216,875 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2451 Ex Parte McDougall et al 10/284,966 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Lilleness et al 10/287,337 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER PHAM, TAMMY T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Robinson et al 11/265,364 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHARIFZADA, ALI R

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Krafft et al 11/100,212 GRIMES 102(b) Jane Massey Licata, Esquire Licata & Tyrrell P.C. EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Muller et al 11/040,270 COURTENAY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER TANK, ANDREW L

We also broadly but reasonably construe the “configured to render an arrangement . . . .” language of claim 1 as a statement of intended use or purpose. (emphasis added) “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim's preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id.

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.02
...
See In re Jung, No. 2010-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 at 7 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(“Jung argues that the Board gave improper deference to the examiner’s rejection by requiring Jung to‘identif[y] a reversible error’ by the examiner, which improperly shifted the burden of proving patentability onto Jung. Decision at 11. This is a hollow argument, because, as discussed above, the examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation and the burden was properly shifted to Jung to rebut it. . . . ‘[R]eversible error’ means that the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong . . . .”).

2192 Ex Parte Bagley et al 10/852,908 BARRY 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BUI, HANH THI MINH
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/026,043 MacDONALD 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER KIM, JUNG W
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lindskog 10/502,018 SAADAT 103(a) Mark P. Stone EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Bodine et al 10/943,795 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DURAND, PAUL R

Objective evidence of non-obviousness, including commercial success, must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 197 1) (evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). In order to be commensurate in scope with the claims, the commercial success must be due to claimed features, and not due to unclaimed features. Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 229 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 959 F.2d 226, 228 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Features responsible for commercial success were recited only in allowed dependent claims, and therefore the evidence of commercial success was not commensurate in scope with the broad claims at issue.). An inventor’s opinion as to the purchaser’s reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus between the sales and the claimed invention. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Further, gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence as to market share, Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27 (Fed. Cir. 1985), or as to the time period during which the product was sold, or as to what sales would normally be expected in the market, Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454, 1458 (BPAI 1988).

Tiffin, In re, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04, 2142

Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp 225, 17 USPQ2d 1257 (D.D.C. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.03(a)

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . 716.03(b), 716.06, 1504.03

Standish, Ex parte, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) .716.03(a), 716.03(b), 2138.01
3738 Ex Parte Calandruccio et al 10/842,030 BAHR 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. EXAMINER PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D

3772 Ex Parte Masini 10/872,717 O’NEILL 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PATEL, TARLA R

[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. . . . [T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed. . . . This inquiry . . . is a question of fact.

Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). See also Vas-Cath at 1563-64.

New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. Written description support can be either express or inherent, and is determined from the disclosure considered as a whole. Reiffin v. Microsoft, 214 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000). That one of ordinary skill in the art might see the scenario asserted by Appellant as possible within the context of the description in Appellant’s Specification is insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See, e.g., Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Wohnsiedler, 315 F.2d 934, 937 (CCPA 1963). See also In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977):

That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that [the] step is part of appellants’ invention. Such an indication is the least that is required for a description of the invention under the first paragraph of § 112.

Precisely how close the original description must come to comply with the description requirement must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The primary consideration is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure. See Vas-Cath at 1561-63.

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163

tiffin, remark, huang, cable

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

3673 Ex Parte Martin 11/221,324 SCHAFER 102(b)/103(a) BEYERS COSTIN, P.C. EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1644 Ex Parte Seed et al 10/960,442 FREDMAN 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) QUINE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, P.C. EXAMINER DAHLE, CHUN WU

See In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971) (“objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”)(evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). ...

In the case of evidence of commercial success, the Federal Circuit has acknowledged that the Appellant bears the burden of establishing a nexus, stating:

In the ex parte process of examining a patent application… the PTO lacks the means or resources to gather evidence which supports or refutes the applicant's assertion that the sales constitute commercial success. Cf. Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1503 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990) (evidentiary routine of shifting burdens in civil proceedings inappropriate in ex parte prosecution proceedings because examiner has no available means for adducing evidence). Consequently, the PTO must rely upon the applicant to provide hard evidence of commercial success.

In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996). ...

Rather than supporting a conclusion of obviousness, copying could have occurred out of a general lack of concern for patent property, in which case it weighs neither for nor against the nonobviousness of a specific patent. It may have occurred out of contempt for the specific patent in question, only arguably demonstrating obviousness, or for the ability or willingness of the patentee financially or otherwise to enforce the patent right, which would call for deeper inquiry. Even widespread copying could weigh toward opposite conclusions, depending on the attitudes existing toward patent property and the accepted practices in the industry in question. It is simplistic to assert that copying per se should bolster the validity of a patent.
Cable Elec. Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
1648 Ex Parte Jones et al 10/326,908 SCHEINER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER HORNING, MICHELLE S
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Blaker et al 09/845,432 HOMERE 101/102(b) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Lindstrom 10/557,666 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN EXAMINER ZHANG, JUE

REHEARING

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2448 Ex Parte Hessmer et al 09/954,423 HOMERE 103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T