innovention toys, gurley

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte TYE et al 12971317 - (D) BEST 103 Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. SMITH, JEREMIAH R

1745 Ex Parte Misek et al 12580765 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. KOCH, GEORGE R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Li et al 12235744 - (D) FENICK 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD MIRZA, ADNAN M

2443 Ex Parte Li et al 13097186 - (D) FENICK 102 41.50 112(2) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. MIRZA, ADNAN M

2449 Ex Parte Peterson et al 11831926 - (D) HUGHES 103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC FAN, HUA

2465 Ex Parte Gaal et al 12824123 - (D) HAMANN 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED DIVITO, WALTER J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Chandler 12425866 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 YEE & ASSOCIATES PC IBM CORP (YA) SALVUCCI, MATTHEW D

2625 Ex Parte Nurmi 12321581 - (D) BAIN 103 Core Wireless Licensing Ltd SCHNIREL, ANDREW B

The Examiner has not rationally explained how Metzler "would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering [the] problem[s]" of Sekiguchi or vice versa. Innovention Toys LLC v. MGA Entertainment Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see id. at 1322—23 (finding sufficient basis for combining references that share the "same purpose," "goal," or "objective"). Moreover, for the reasons recited by the Appellant, App. Br. 5—6, we find that Sekiguchi's disclosure of allowing light to pass through multiple substrate layers teaches away from the combination relied upon by the Examiner. see, e.g., In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (reference teaches away from combination "when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference").

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2123 , 2145

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Kamar et al 12492861 - (D) BAYAT 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION OSMAN BILAL AHME, AFAF

3627 Ex Parte Elwood et al 10026840 - (D) MOHANTY 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP DANNEMAN, PAUL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Vaillancourt 13535060 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 103 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO ABOUELELA, MAY A

3769 Ex Parte Lipow et al 12799427 - (D) REIMERS 103 103 Delio, Peterson & Curcio, LLC LUKJAN, SEBASTIAN X

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Preisler et al 13517877 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DULKO, MARTA S

1798 Ex Parte LENHERT et al 13234540 - (D) HEANEY 103 Alchemy - Partners, PC TAVARES, JULIE L

1799 Ex Parte Allen et al 13185593 - (D) SMITH 103 Covidien LP CONLEY, SEAN EVERETT

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2196 Ex Parte Zhao et al 11944570 - (D) ENGELS 103 The Steadman Law Firm PLLC AGUILERA, TODD

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Young et al 11216240 - (D) JIVANI 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise HOLDER, BRADLEY W

2453 Ex Parte Holtmanns et al 12600128 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy FORMAN, JAMES Q

2465 Ex Parte PAPASAKELLARIOU et al 13204107 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. DIVITO, WALTER J

2469 Ex Parte Vrbaski et al 13083871 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 Kramer & Amado, P.C. AMBAYE, MEWALE A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Barenbrug et al 13119773 - (D) STRAUSS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LEE, KWANG B

2693 Ex Parte Pant et al 13107703 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 SYNAPTICS C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP DICKE, CHAD M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Chang et al 13616194 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 SLATER MATSIL LLP WEISS, HOWARD

2857 Ex Parte Koidl et al 12989908 - (D) SMITH 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP SCHECHTER, ANDREW M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Bulbrook 12670432 - (D) MARSCHALL 103 RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP CATINA, MICHAEL ANTHONY

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Farco 12732181 - (D) HOELTER 102 Joseph Farco SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 CAN CAPITAL, INC., Requester, v. KABBAGE, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7,983,951 B1 et al 12/436,642 95002003 - (D) BRANCH 103 41.77 103 MUSKIN & FARMER LLC PEIKARI, BEHZAD original AIRAPETIAN, MILA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex parte STEPHEN J. BROWN Ex Parte 8140663 et al 11/150,301 90013105 - (D) HOFF 103 Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. For Third Party Requestor STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC MENEFEE, JAMES A original SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2841 STRYKER CORPORATION Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant v. HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent Ex Parte 7,669,263 B2 et al 11/393,645 95002055 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Hill-Rom) THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY LTD. WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original GIBSON, RANDY W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 GOOGLE INC., Third Party Requesters, v. LODSYS GROUP LLC, Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7222078 et al 10/734,102 95000639 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102/103 LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN M. WALDMAN LLC Third Party Requester: Steptoe & Johnson, LLP WASSUM, LUKE S original DIXON, THOMAS A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC. Third Party Requester v. CARRIER CORP. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7,775,452 B2 et al 10/752,626 95002314 - (D) MARTIN 112(1)/102 103 41.77 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester: Baker Botts LLP ENGLISH, PETER C original NORMAN, MARC E

innovention toys

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Milner 10754886 - (D) FREDMAN 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP PACKARD, BENJAMIN J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Walkling et al 12161666 - (D) KAHN 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 KENYON & KENYON LLP BOCCIO, VINCENT F

2175 Ex Parte BOEZEMAN et al 12467555 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 LAW OFFICE OF JIM BOICE NABI, REZA U

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Adler et al 11542822 - (D) EVANS 103 OKAMOTO & BENEDICTO LLP LE, BRIAN Q

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Course 10562314 - (D) KIM 102 McDermott Will & Emery HEWITT II, CALVIN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Drost et al 12110917 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 JANSSON MUNGER MCKINLEY & SHAPE LTD. TRUONG, THANH K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Hurwitz et al 11850300 - (D) OSINSKI 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY YOUNGER, SEAN JERRARD

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Ruhge et al 12234763 - (D) BEST 112(1)/112(2)/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION MARKOFF, ALEXANDER

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Wibbeler et al 11931885 - (D) JENKS 103 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Adobe Systems Incorporated) TRAN, QUOC A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Chathukutty et al 12060657 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH NGUYEN, STEVEN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Abouchakra et al 12484300 - (D) HUDALLA 103 Jordan IP Law (IBM-RSW) URBAN, EDWARD F

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Wiryana et al 11967161 - (D) BEST 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Armstrong Teasdale LLP (16463) GANDHI, JAYPRAKASH N

We begin by noting that Appellants do not point to any requirement that the prior art references used in a rejection must be analogous art to each other, and we are not aware of any such requirement.  Neither Innovation Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011), nor any of the other cases cited by Appellants establish such a requirement.  Each of these cases discusses the proper test and considerations used to determine whether a reference is analogous to the claimed invention.

If Appellants believe that references are from such disparate fields that an obviousness rejection is erroneous, the proper argument is that a person of ordinary skill in the art to wihich the invention pertains would not have had a resonable expectation of successfully combining the references to arrive at the claimed invention.  Appellants have not made such an argument. 

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Spectrum Brands, Inc. Requester v. Patent of Eveready Battery Company, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6,849,360 B2 et al 10/164,239 95001683 - (D) ROBERTSON 102/103 Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C. Eveready Battery Company, Inc. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC DIAMOND, ALAN D original KALAFUT, STEPHEN J

medichem, gurley, scientific plastic, clay, innovention toys

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Howard et al 11593958 - (D) GARRIS 103 E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY CHOI, PETER Y

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Goodman et al 10730227 - (D) BAHR 103 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION PATEL, DHAIRYA A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2686 Ex Parte Yu et al 12480944 - (D) HUME 102 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP HINDI, NABIL Z

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte HONG et al 12143255 - (D) HASTINGS 103 H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC LEE, PAUL CHANG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Okuniewicz 11057801 - (D) HILL 103 BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP THOMAS, ERIC M

3724 Ex Parte Claus et al 12174058 - (D) WOODS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR

“When a piece of prior art ‘suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant’ the piece of prior art is said to ‘teach away’ from the claimed invention.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2123 , 2145

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Cook et al 11469645 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 102/103 JEANNE E. LONGMUIR PAGE, EVAN RANDALL

3776 Ex Parte TRAN 11767499 - (D) BAHR 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) THOMAS J. TIGHE, ESQ. DOAN, ROBYN KIEU

The Federal Circuit has explained that “[t]he analogous art inquiry is a factual one, requiring inquiry into the similarities of the problems and the closeness of the subject matter as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Scientific Plastic Prods., Inc. v. Biotage AB, 766 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Criteria for determining whether prior art is analogous may be summarized as “(1) whether the art is form the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. at 1359 (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). A reference is reasonably pertinent if . . . it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness
rejection. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Clay, 966 F.2d at 659).

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte SCHOEN et al 12545139 - (D) GRIMES 103 MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. EPPS -SMITH, JANET L

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Buck et al 11731880 - (D) GARRIS 103 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company WEISS, PAMELA HL

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Pandya et al 11638412 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. HO, BINH VAN

2164 Ex Parte Murthy 11442002 - (D) DANG 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE OHBA, MELLISSA M

2164 Ex Parte GROSS 11856202 - (D) HUME 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. QUADER, FAZLUL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Lee et al 12050477 - (D) BUNTING 103 Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC NGUYEN, THU V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Schaich et al 11608182 - (D) HUME 112(1)/102/103 Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC LI, SHI K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte LEE 12856148 - (D) HASTINGS 103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP GANNON, LEVI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte McIntyre et al 11297785 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2667 EC DATA SYSTEMS, INC. Requester v. j2 GLOBAL, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7020132 et al 10/393,227 95002002 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP Third Party Requester: Hamilton, DeSanctis & Cha LLP CORSARO, NICK original HOANG, THAI D

envirco, kemco, b. braun, donaldson, ibormeith, innovention toys, wyers, KSR, klein, bigio, encyclopaedia

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12752581 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12490018 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC BOWMAN, AMY HUDSON

Construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is a two-step process. First, the claim must be analyzed to determine whether the claim language actually invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. See Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“If a claim element contains the word ‘means’ and recites a function, th[e] court presumes that element is a means-plus-function element under § 112, ¶ 6. . . . That presumption falls, however, if the claim itself recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.”). The second step is to “determine what structures have been disclosed in the specification that correspond to the means for performing that function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing § 112, ¶ 6.” B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A means-plus-function claim “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that “the 'broadest reasonable interpretation' that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six of 35 USC § 112.” MPEP § 2181. “Accordingly, the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination.” (id.) This “sets a limit on how broadly the PTO may construe means-plus-function language under the rubric of reasonable interpretation.” (emphasis added.) In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Thus, as articulated in MPEP 2181, “the USPTO must apply 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph in appropriate cases, and give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of and consistent with the written description of the invention in the application.” [Emphasis added.] (See also, Br. 3.)

A structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as a “corresponding structure” if the specification or the prosecution history “clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With means-plus-function claiming, the narrower the disclosed structure in the specification, the narrower the claim coverage. Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 732 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 54 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2181

Kemco Sales Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) , 2103,2183, 2184

B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419, 43 USPQ2d 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2163, 2181, 2182

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Harrington et al 11459371 - (D) FREDMAN 101/103 Basch & Nickerson LLP QUADER, FAZLUL

2174 Ex Parte Chen et al 10427279 - (D) HOMERE 103 DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. International Business Machines Corporation NGUYEN, LE V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Deno et al 11116569 - (D) HULSE 112(1)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BAYS, PAMELA M

3788 Ex Parte Livingston 11938849 - (D) MORRISON 102/103 GE ENERGY GENERAL ELECTRIC C/O ERNEST G. CUSICK REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Kulkarni 11549023 - (D) WINSOR 103 103 Siemens Corporation EDWARDS, LINGLAN E

Whether a prior art reference is analogous to the claimed invention such that it qualifies as prior art for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a question of fact. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm't., Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In KSR, the Supreme Court “direct[ed] us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 402); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 420. In an obviousness analysis,

[t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.

In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Determining whether art is in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s claimed invention “requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention's subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. Although the Examiner is correct that the Examiner’s claimed invention and the cited references are all broadly directed to computer programming (Ans. 24), Subramanian diverges substantially from the “the embodiments, function, and structure of [Appellant’s] claimed invention,” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, and the other cited prior art.

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, ,   2145,   2216,   2242,   2286,   2616,   2642, 2686.04

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Klapka et al 10497852 - (D) NEW 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) WALSH, DANIEL I

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Barry et al 11451634 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 102/103 MAYER & WILLIAMS PC BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Nagghappan 12904286 - (D) MURPHY 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC KEYWORTH, PETER

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Lee et al 12100173 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. BATURAY, ALICIA

2448 Ex Parte Bowen et al 11778354 - (D) FETTING Dissenting-in-part and Concurring-in-part SPAHN 101 101/103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON STRANGE, AARON N

2452 Ex Parte Wardwell 10529701 - (D) Per Curiam 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. NGUYEN, THU V

2452 Ex Parte Curtis et al 11483347 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC GOLABBAKHSH, EBRAHIM

2478 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11953810 - (D) WINSOR 103 LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE SCIACCA, SCOTT M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Primous et al 11529709 - (D) SHIANG 103 Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman, L.L.P. -Hubbell NWUGO, OJIAKO K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Joachim et al 11661161 - (D) KALAN 102/103 VENABLE LLP CHAN, TSZFUNG JACKIE

2853 Ex Parte Laksin et al 10586098 - (D) KALAN 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP SHAH, MANISlH S

2878 Ex Parte Feliss et al 10931679 - (D) KALAN 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP DOWLING, WILLIAM C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Gordon 11351790 - (D) SMEGAL 103 GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. MCCARRY JR,ROBERT J

3657 Ex Parte Balsells 12614769 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP BURCH, MELODY M

3689 Ex Parte Niethammer 10804683 - (D) FETTING 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Field 11748740 - (D) MORRISON 103 FAY SHARPE LLP WEAVER, SUE A

3788 Ex Parte Olsen et al 11512677 - (D) CAPP 103/obviousness-type double patenting Pauley Peterson & Erickson REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC, MEDTRONIC CV LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR GALWAY, LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, AND EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES (U.S.), INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2013-1117 7,892,281 12/348,892 10/412,634 11/352,614 12/029,031 PROST SJ invalidity 102 35 U.S.C. § 120 Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

Citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., 609 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the district court noted that under § 120, a later filed application may claim priority based on an earlier filed application if, inter alia, the later filed application contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.

Section 120 allows a later filed patent application to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States if, among other requirements,3 “it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application . . . submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director.” 35 U.S.C. § 120. We recently clarified that the “specific reference” requirement mandates “each [intermediate] application in the chain of priority to refer to the prior applications.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1352.

3 The other requirements, which are not at issue in this appeal, are that (1) the invention described in the new application must be disclosed in an application previously filed in the United States; (2) the application must be filed by the inventor(s) named in the previously filed application; and (3) the application must be co-pending with the earlier application at some point. 35 U.S.C. § 120; Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1349-50.

brana, bigio, clay, innovention toys

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Senga et al 11818783 - (D) GRIMES 112(1) Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz AEDER, SEAN E

Nonetheless, “[u]sefulness in patent law, and in particular in the context of pharmaceutical inventions, necessarily includes the expectation of further research and development.” In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Although the Brana court referred to usefulness, the rejection on appeal was based on nonenablement. See 51 F.3d at 1564.)

Brana, In re, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995) , 2107.01, 2107.03, 2164.01(c), 2107.02, 2164.02, 2164.04, 2164.07  

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Dheap et al 11390398 - (D) WEINBERG Dissenting SMITH 103 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, L.L.P. LE, JESSICA N

2164 Ex Parte Kwan 11222321 - (D) JEFFERY 112(2)/103 IBM ENDICOTT (ANTHONY ENGLAND) GEBRESENBET, DINKU W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Sano et al 10909109 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP TIV, BACKHEAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2657 Ex Parte Lee et al 10891423 - (D) DROESCH 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP NEWAY, SAMUEL G

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Herremans et al 11427599 - (D) THOMAS 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. PATEL, HARSHAD R

2887 Ex Parte Johnson et al 11641556 - (D) PETTIGREW 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 JENKINS, WILSON, TAYLOR & HUNT, P. A. VO, TUYEN KIM

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Ruehl 11279321 - (D) SPAHN 103 GODFREY & KAHN S.C. GILBERT, WILLIAM V

3635 Ex Parte Lyngstad 10492867 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. MICHENER, JOSHUA J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Henriksson 10592601 - (D) ABRAMS 103 HOLTZ, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK PC CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

3721 Ex Parte Denney et al 11401116 - (D) BAHR 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

3721 Ex Parte Irwin 10835327 - (D) RICE 103 Wells St. John P.S. WEEKS, GLORIA R

3721 Ex Parte Nicolantonio et al 10959796 - (D) KAMHOLZ 102 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY WEEKS, GLORIA R

3737 Ex Parte Haider 10742283 - (D) DILLON 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY MEHTA, PARIKHA SOLANKI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Mehra 10694323 - (D) CURCURI 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 CHEMTURA CORPORATION Requester v. ALBEMARLE CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant 95000391 6,958,423 09/888,246 GUEST 102/103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP JONES, DWAYNE C original BADIO, BARBARA P

1618 Ex Parte Kling 10440395 - (D) SCHEINER 103 WINSTEAD PC VU, JAKE MINH

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Rosenbloom et al 11167587 - (D) KUMAR 102 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. BATAILLE, PIERRE MICHE

2191 Ex Parte Dye et al 10772518 - (D) ZECHER 103 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel PC CHEN, QING

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte James et al 11097724 - (D) HOMERE 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. TILAHUN, ALAZAR

2427 Ex Parte Townsend et al 11403869 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q

2465 Ex Parte Limaye et al 10284619 - (D) SMITH 103 Wilson & Ham ZHU, BO HUI ALVIN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Da Palma et al 10734866 - (D) NEW 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP COLUCCI, MICHAEL C

A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. Innovention Toys, LLC, v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08

2687 Ex Parte Ho et al 11297767 - (D) BENOIT 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC HEINZ, ALLEN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Chen et al 12055010 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 ALIGN TECHNOLOGY C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP MAI, HAO D

3768 Ex Parte Hardy et al 10955630 - (D) BAHR 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY WEATHERBY, ELLSWORTH

thibault, clay, dunn, innovention toys

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Tam et al 11393218 - (D) GARRIS 103 HONEYWELL/DLA PIPER ROGERS, MARTIN K

1772 Ex Parte Wohltjen 11474532 - (D) METZ 112(1)/112(2)/103 LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP KILPATRICK, BRYAN T

1791 Ex Parte Lykomitros et al 12021959 - (D) GARRIS 103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP DEGUIRE, KATHERINE E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Thiessen et al 10607892 - (D) WEINBERG 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LIANG, LEONARD S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Herrmann 11735253 - (D) TORCZON 103 112(a) GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC CULLEN, SEAN P

In Thibault, the board explained that

If the apparatus as claimed is not fully described in [the prior art], it differs so little therefrom as to be obvious to the designer of apparatus. The purpose to which the apparatus is to be put and the numerous expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.

Thibault does not reproduce the apparatus claim in question, but expressly finds that it is very closely the same as the prior art. Thibault, thus, does not create a per se rule that contents and mode of operation never count, but rather simply holds that when disclosed structures are essentially the same and the contents and use would have been obvious from the prior-art structure, the lack of an express teaching of content and use will not prevent anticipation. In short, Thibault's holding cannot be abstracted from its context. Today, we might say that the prior art apparatus was capable of containing and operating as claimed.

Thibault, Ex parte, 164 USPQ 666 (Bd. App. 1969) 2115

1729 Ex Parte Owens et al 11643392 - (D) TIMM 103 103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC DAVIS, PATRICIA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2485 Ex Parte Gordon 10871657 - (D) JEFFERY 102 102 Broadcom/BHGL LEE, Y YOUNG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Petereit et al 10532831 - (D) BONILLA 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. WESTERBERG, NISSA M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Albright 12290333 - (D) KIMLIN 103 Robert W. Mulcahy, Esq. SCHIFFMAN, BENJAMIN A

1762 Ex Parte Zhou et al 11260749 - (D) McKELVEY 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY REDDICK, MARIE L

1789 Ex Parte Dumond 11741266 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 O'Shea Getz P.C. ORTIZ, ANGELA Y

Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting a reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness analysis only when it is analogous to the claimed invention (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992))). If a reference is in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is still considered analogous art if it deals with a matter which logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2655 Ex Parte Disange et al 11014063 - (D) HOMERE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. PAUL, DISLER

Teaching an alternative or equivalent method, however, does not teach away from the use of a claimed method. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 438 (CCPA 1965).

Dunn, In re, 349 F.2d 433, 146 USPQ 479 (CCPA 1965) 804.02

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 Ex Parte Schippers et al 11753368 - (D) KOHUT 103 Trop, Pruner & Hu, P.C. RADKE, JAY W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Burgdorf et al 11182303 - (D) ASTORINO 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F