IPXL, katz interactive, ultimatepointer

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Gray et al 12765352 - (D) BEAMER 102 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP GAMI, TEJAL

2197 Ex Parte Bess 12148767 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise ZHEN, LI B

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2458 Ex Parte CHEN-QUEE et al 13026577 - (D) HUGHES 102/103 CAHN & SAMUELS, LLP PATEL, RONAK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Maruyama et al 12728439 - (D) JESCHKE 102/103 41.50 112(2)/112(4) WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER RIEGELMAN, MICHAEL A

A claim that recites both a system (or apparatus) and a method of using that system (or apparatus) does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and thus, is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. see IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). ...

Stated differently, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably consider the  "placed in an initial operating state" limitation as "directed to user actions, not system capabilities." In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011), quoted in UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., No. 2015-1297, 2016 WL 798354, at *9 (Fed. Cir. Mar. l , 2016). Thus, we reject claim I as invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(p)

Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, In re, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2163

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Nawrot et al 12812254 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 BSH Home Appliances Corporation LU, JIPING

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Julia et al 13405715 - (D) HAGY 103 103 Mahamedi Paradice LLP (QCA) CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Acx et al 10297617 - (D) GREENHUT 103 103 Foley & Lardner LLP GRAHAM, GARY K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte KIM et al 13075787 - (D) MacDONALD 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. MORLAN, ROBERT M

2476 Ex Parte Kobayashi et al 11750256 - (D) STRAUSS 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC SLOMS, NICHOLAS

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Tsuda et al 12278077 - (D) FRAHM 103 KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP NGUYEN, PHONG X

2628 Ex Parte Watanabe et al 11249767 - (D) CHUNG 103 Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C. ONYEKABA, AMY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Palombo et al 10362376 - (D) STEPINA 103 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman D'AGOSTINO, PAUL ANTHONY

3722 Ex Parte Glogger et al 12655736 - (D) ASTORINO 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB GATES, ERIC ANDREW

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION Requester v. DENNIS S. FERNANDEZ Patent Owner Ex Parte 7374003 et al 11/288,724 95002257 - (D) SIU 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 FERNANDEZ & ASSOCIATES, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: KENYON & KENYON LLP DEB, ANJAN K original WALTERS, JOHN DANIEL

3618 TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION Requester v. DENNIS S. FERNANDEZ Patent Owner Ex Parte 7575080 et al 12/114,185 95002258 - (D) SIU 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 FERNANDEZ & ASSOCIATES, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: KENYON & KENYON LLP DEB, ANJAN K original WALTERS, JOHN DANIEL

3618 TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION Requester v. DENNIS S. FERNANDEZ Patent Owner Ex Parte 7,980,341 et al 12/556,573 95002259 - (D) SIU 112(1)/112(2) 103 FERNANDEZ & ASSOCIATES, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: KENYON & KENYON LLP DEB, ANJAN K original WALTERS, JOHN DANIEL

IPXL, H-W, katz interactive

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1756 Ex Parte Cramer et al 10552618 - (D) OWENS 102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP DINH, BACH T

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Cheng et al 12105759 - (D) HUGHES 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP LIAO, JASON G

2158 Ex Parte RAJARAM et al 12487254 - (D) NAPPI 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WILLIS, AMANDA LYNN

2196 Ex Parte Rathi 11930603 - (D) MacDONALD 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/NOVELL HUARACHA, WILLY W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Shorty et al 11737717 - (D) PINKERTON 103 GTC Law Group LLP & Affiliates c/o CPA Global PATEL, HITESHKUMAR R

2462 Ex Parte Han 11849837 - (D) STEPHENS 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. DANIEL JR, WILLIE J

2466 Ex Parte Wu et al 10400882 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 Apple Inc. -- FKM PATEL, JAY P

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Fink 11371496 - (D) OWENS 103 Matheson Keys & Kordzik PLLC BREVAL, ELMITO

2875 Ex Parte Jung et al 12291022 - (D) DERRICK 103 INTELLECTUAL VENTURES - ISF TSIDULKO, MARK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Rubsamen 11329376 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP NAJARIAN, LENA

3643 Ex Parte Norgaard et al 12287051 - (D) BAHR 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. NGUYEN, SON T

Moreover, regarding the aforementioned third plausible construction, although the recitation in the last paragraph of claim 31 is expressed in the passive rather than active voice, one can only determine whether the limitation is satisfied once someone or something matches a crop variety to the one or more soil management categories. We again emphasize that claim 31 does not set forth structure for performing a matching step. In IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005), a patent holder sought to enforce a claim reciting a “system . . . wherein the predicted transaction information comprises both a transaction type and transaction parameters associated with that transaction type, and the user uses the input means to either change the predicted transaction information or accept the displayed transaction type and transaction parameters.” IPXL Holdings at 1384 (italics in original). On appeal, our reviewing court interpreted this claim as reciting both a system and a method step to be carried out by a user. Our reviewing court held that:

it is unclear whether infringement . . . occurs when one creates a system that allows the user to change the predicted transaction information or accept the displayed transaction, or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means to change transaction information or uses the input means to accept a displayed transaction. Because [the claim] recites both a system and the method for using that system, it does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope. Id.

In H-W Tech., L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc., 758 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 11, 2014), a patent holder sought to enforce a claim reciting:

A tangible computer readable medium encoded with computer program for performing contextual searches on an Internet Phone (IP) phone comprising the steps of:
receiving a command to perform a contextual search; receiving search criteria from a user of said IP phone;
submitting said search criteria to a server coupled to said IP phone; and
receiving from said server a list of merchants matching said search criteria and information regarding each of said merchants in said list;
wherein said user completes a transaction with at least one of said merchants listed without the need to generate a voice call; 
wherein said information received by said user comprises a variety of offers, wherein said user selects one of said variety of offers associated with said one of said merchants listed, wherein said selected offer is transmitted to said one of said merchants listed electronically; and
wherein said user’s contact and payment information is not transmitted to said one of said merchants listed, wherein said user’s contact and payment information is available to said one of said merchants listed.

Id. at 1335 (italics in original).

On appeal from a district court decision holding the claim invalid as indefinite, our reviewing court agreed that the italicized limitations were method steps recited in an apparatus claim. Citing the reasoning of IPXL Holdings and In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011), our reviewing court held that the claim was indefinite because “it is unclear here when infringement would occur.” Id. at 1336.

Like the claims in IPXL Holdings and H-W Technology, a maker or seller of a system for matching crop varieties of a crop to soil type comprising a plurality of crop varieties and a digitized map depicting soil management categories of a region cannot determine whether the system will infringe, directly or contributorily, at the time of manufacture or sale. Thus, claim 31 is indefinite for this additional reason.

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(p)

3677 Ex Parte Lubchansky et al 11459998 - (D) WOODS 103 HUGH P. GORTLER DELISLE, ROBERTA S

3681 Ex Parte Muthugopalakrishnan et al 13043238 - (D) MOHANTY 103 Hickman Palermo Becker Bingham / Coupons SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

3687 Ex Parte Manucha et al 12327555 - (D) MOHANTY 103 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. HAYLES, ASHFORD S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Sundaresan et al 12263396 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 102 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY NGUYEN, KIM T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Pino et al 12127602 - (D) HORVATH 103 103 MANELLI SELTER PLLC BANTAMOI, ANTHONY

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2688 Ex Parte Coker et al 12653862 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 MARLIN KNIGHT MERCEDES, DISMERY E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Hindle et al 11939336 - (D) BAHR 103 102/103 HONEYWELL/IFL YABUT, DANIEL D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Haedicke et al 10529002 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 102 BSH Home Appliances Corporation ROST, ANDREW J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10558560 - (D) BRADEN 102/103 RATNERPRESTIA WEBB, WALTER E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Owens 13106319 - (D) OWENS 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY HARDEE, JOHN R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte PAEK 12638191 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Jefferson IP Law, LLP CHU, GABRIEL L

2163 Ex Parte Leonard et al 12253194 - (D) FRAHM 103 HUGH P. GORTLER HWA, SHYUE JIUNN

2164 Ex Parte Morris 11086923 - (D) BEAMER 112(1) 103 Stolowitz Ford Cowger LLP / ptomail KUDDUS, DANIEL A

2194 Ex Parte Daherkar et al 11549609 - (D) WINSOR 103 KONRAD RAYNES DAVDA & VICTOR, LLP IBM54 YUN, CARINA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Greggs et al 12327877 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP LENOVO COMPANY (LENOVO-BKLS) JAKOVAC, RYAN J

2452 Ex Parte Kurylo 11731077 - (D) FRAHM 112(2)/103 Deirdra M Meagher WIDHALM, ANGELA M

2471 Ex Parte Kashima et al 12532085 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. ADHAMI, MOHAMMAD SAJID

2497 Ex Parte Borden et al 11783271 - (D) ZADO 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. ARMOUCHE, HADI S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Peeters et al 12117580 - (D) TROCK 103 BEVER, HOFFMAN & HARMS, LLP TRUONG, NGUYEN H

2671 Ex Parte Liccini et al 11328885 - (D) HARLOW 103 Prass LLP RILEY, MARCUS T

2688 Ex Parte Mathur et al 12716408 - (D) SHAW 102 HolzerIPLaw, P.C. WONG, KIN C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Canora et al 12036176 - (D) FISCHETTI 101/103 Ference & Associates LLC DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. BAHL, SANGEETA

3651 Ex Parte Alexander et al 13186215 - (D) MURPHY 103 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. SINGH, KAVEL

3683 Ex Parte Pullman 10159344 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M

3684 Ex Parte Cue et al 11650858 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Fletcher Yoder, PC APPLE INC. CASEY, ALEXIS M

3685 Ex Parte Aydar et al 11314752 - (D) FISCHETTI 112(2) 101/103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Specific Media/Myspace KIM, STEVEN S

3687 Ex Parte Wade et al 12332887 - (D) BAYAT 102/103 VERIZON ZARE, SCOTT A

3687 Ex Parte Carlegren et al 13163235 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions Holdings Corp. LUDWIG, PETER L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Okuniewicz 11057499 - (D) GOODSON 102/103 BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP SHAH, MILAP

3766 Ex Parte Edwards 12139359 - (D) MOHANTY 103 MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. -PHYSIO -CONTROL, INC. HELLER, TAMMIE K

3782 Ex Parte Moore 11404712 - (D) MOHANTY 103 James Ray & Associates Intellectual Property, LLC HELVEY, PETER N.

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Chen et al 11230446 - (D) FRAHM 101/102 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG LO, ANN J

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 ALIEN TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Third Party Requestor and Appellant v. INTERMEC CORP., INTERMEC TECHNOLOGIES CORP. and INTERMEC IP CORP. Patent Owners and Respondents Ex Parte 6812841 et al 10/056,398 95001265 - (D) HOFF 103 NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOUROUGH LLP Third Party Requester: VAN PELT YI & JAMES LLP LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original MULLEN, THOMAS J

katz interactive, IPXL, rembrandt

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Gutjahr et al 12018514 - (D) CURCURI concurring JEFFERY 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, KIM T

And to the extent that independent claim 10 improperly recites active method steps as part of an apparatus (i.e., "a first computer that provides ...." "a second computer  ... retrieves," " the second computer ... retrieves," "the second computer generates ...") to render the claim indefinite under 112(b) is likewise a question that the Examiner should consider following this opinion.  See In re Katz Interactive Call Proc. Pat. Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)  (citing IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.con, Inc. 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir 2011) (data transmitting device held indefinite for reciting transmitting method step). 

katz HARMON 5: 6, 7; MV5: 319; 6: 1-3, 13, 14; MV6: 191, 432
rembrandt MV5: 319; 6: 16; 9: 11, 22

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(p)

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Setnes et al 12135946 - (D) SPAHN 112(2)/102/103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- IBM NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2497 Ex Parte Boss et al 11549728 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 102/103 IBM CORPORATION C/O DARCELL WALKER, ATTORNEY AT LAW HOLMES, ANGELA R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2882 Ex Parte Van Kampen et al 12020811 - (D) KOKOSKI 102/103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. SANEI, MONA M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Harvey et al 11270795 - (D) KUMAR 103 Baker Botts LLP MITIKU, BERHANU

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Hudgens 12283113 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Ovonyx, Inc QUINTO, KEVIN V

2862 Ex Parte Popp 12152409 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 SMP Logic Systems NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Mourra 10906592 - (D) SMITH 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP VU, TUAN A

kim, greenliant, ergo, katz interactive, NTP, american academy, baxter intern.2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Hikata 10590011 - (D) GARRIS 103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP HORNING, JOEL G

1721 Ex Parte Goebel et al 10973043 - (D) HANLON 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY VAJDA, PETER L

1782 Ex Parte Fearing et al 11143372 - (D) HOUSEL 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP FROST, ANTHONY J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Eytchison et al 10763701 - (D) HOFF 103 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP LONG, ANDREA NATAE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte PILKINGTON 12041904 - (D) SCANLON 102 Krieg DeVault LLP SWINNEY, JENNIFER B

3766 Ex Parte Moffitt 11752898 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Vista IP Law Group LLP LEE, ERICA SHENGKAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Moyer 11619294 - (D) THOMAS Concurring BOALICK 103 103 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP SADLER, NATHAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Sohn 11732192 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2800 Ex Parte Kashihara et al 10560244 - (D) THOMAS 103 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC TAMAI, KARL I

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Ihle 11919917 - (D) PLENZLER 103 112(2)/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION TYLER, CHERYL JACKSON

3781 Ex Parte Schessl et al 10575297 - (D) SAINDON 103 112(1)/102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Karl 12159991 - (D) SMITH 112(2)/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN

1786 Ex Parte Burrow et al 11958871 - (D) PRAISS Concurring WARREN 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON CHOI, PETER Y

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Watanabe 10716622 - (D) BRANCH 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP HOTELLING, HAROLD A

2166 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10365098 - (D) COURTENAY 103 IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 William J. McGinnis, Jr AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Chouanard et al 11209290 - (D) BENOIT 101/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK MEANS, JAREN M

2448 Ex Parte Fung et al 11272603 - (D) BRANCH 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy STRANGE, AARON N

2471 Ex Parte Izumi 12858009 - (D) GARRIS 251 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. HYUN, SOON D

To decide whether a patentee surrendered certain subject matter, we must determine "whether an objective observer viewing the prosecution history would conclude that the purpose of the patentee's amendment or argument" concerning a particular claim was for reasons of patentability, that is, "to overcome prior art and secure the patent." Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 465 F.3d 1312, 1323 (Fed. Cir.2006).

Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. XICOR LLC, 692 F. 3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 11062807 - (D) BENOIT 102 MYERS WOLIN, LLC ZEWARI, SAYED T

2648 Ex Parte Nagy 10755814 - (D) GONSALVES 101/103 DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. HUANG, WEN WU

2649 Ex Parte Won et al 11219884 - (D) DIXON 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. CHEN, JUNPENG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Courtney et al 11220162 - (D) PETRAVICK 112(2) 103 Patient Practitioners, LLC KANAAN, MAROUN P

“[A] general purpose computer is sufficient structure if the function of a term such as ‘means for processing’ requires no more than merely ‘processing,’ which any general-purpose computer may do without any special programming.” Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation 639 F.3d 1303, 1316-17 (Fed.Cir.2011)).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Gray et al 10791345 - (D) PRATS 102/obviousness-type double patenting JOHNSON & JOHNSON BUI, VY Q

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2687 Ex Parte Becker et al 10564607 - (D) WINSOR 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP SHERWIN, RYAN W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 APPLE, INC. Requester v. ZAPMEDIA SERVICES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001144 7020704 09/679,688 WEINBERG 102/103 PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: TRACY W. DRUCE NOVAK DRUCE + QUIGG LLP FERRIS III, FRED O original PRIETO, BEATRIZ

Our reviewing court, however, has held that “[i]n reexamination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2011), quoting In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Baxter Intern., Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that because District Court proceedings and reexamination proceedings in the PTO apply different burdens of proof and rely on different records, the PTO did not err by failing to provide a detailed explanation as to why the PTO came to a different determination than did the court system). We will follow the Federal Circuit’s holding.

American Academy of Science Tech. Center, In re, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2004)  2111,  2111.01


2161 GOOGLE, INC., APPLE, INC., and NAPSTER, INC. Requesters, Respondents v. INTERTAINER, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95000313 6925469 09/947,592 MOHANTY 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP Third Party Requester: Fish & Richardson, PC FERRIS III, FRED O original COBY, FRANTZ

IPXL, katz interactive, rembrandt, ekchian

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Arends et al 11740355 - (D) ZECHER 103 IBM CORPORATION ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte Moore et al 11517020 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 103 VERIZON GIDADO, RASHEED

2485 Ex Parte Fukuhara et al 10835582 - (D) JEFFERY 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP LEE, Y YOUNG

2486 Ex Parte Jeon 10337611 - (D) WHITE 102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Sukhman et al 11021904 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General STAFFORD, PATRICK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3683 Ex Parte Vu et al 10484498 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 102 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. MISIASZEK, MICHAEL

3686 Ex Parte Koster 10702253 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP PHONGSVIRAJATI, POONSIN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Harris et al 11415881 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 Lewis and Roca LLP - Sony D'AGOSTINO, PAUL ANTHONY

3767 Ex Parte Moberg et al 11224416 - (D) ADAMS 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. HALL, DEANNA K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Kito et al 12179803 - (D) McKONE 102 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC BRYANT, MICHAEL C

A claim that recites a combination of two separate statutory classes of invention (under 35 U.S.C. § 101) “‘is not sufficiently precise to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the ‘metes and bounds’ of protection involved’ and is ‘ambiguous and properly rejected’ under section 112, paragraph 2.’” IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548, 1550-51 (BPAI 1990)).

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(p)
...
We conclude that claim 17, although couched in terms of a conditional statement, is directed to the actions performed by the system, rather than the capabilities of the system. Thus, claim 17 recites both a statutory machine and a statutory process. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Like the language used in the claim at issue in IPXL (‘wherein . . . the user uses’), the language used in Katz’s claims (‘wherein . . . callers digitally enter data’ and ‘wherein . . . callers provide . . . data’) is directed to user actions, not system capabilities.”); Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (data transmitting device held indefinite for reciting transmitting method step). Accordingly, claim 17 is indefinite. See IPXL, 430 F.3d at 1384.

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Semerdzhiev et al 10856247 - (D) STEPHENS 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN SAP/BSTZ GOFMAN, ALEX N

2176 Ex Parte Mewherter et al 10685192 - (D) HOMERE 101/112(1)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP DEBROW, JAMES J

2179 Ex Parte Michelitsch et al 10726298 - (D) BENOIT 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LO, WEILUN

2194 Ex Parte Facemire et al 11268326 - (D) POTHIER 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP JORDAN, KIMBERLY L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Shah 10670550 - (D) NEW 103 MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) JOO, JOSHUA

2445 Ex Parte Hind et al 10643601 - (D) PARVIS 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP JOO, JOSHUA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Valley et al 11854449 - (D) BRANCH 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. LI, SHI K

2643 Ex Parte Nandagopal 11345695 - (D) CURCURI 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

2659 Ex Parte Beiermeister et al 11948480 - (D) HOMERE 103 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. SHAH, PARAS D

2678 Ex Parte Vandenbrande et al 11421413 - (D) KRIVAK 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. HOANG, PHI

2689 Ex Parte Huang 11607842 - (D) KRIVAK 112(2)/103 Paul M. Denk MORTELL, JOHN F

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte JENNINGS et al 11831830 - (D) DESHPANDE 102/103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX WILKES, ZACHARY W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Nagda et al 10000121 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER CASLER, TRACI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Weil et al 10994505 - (D) TARTAL 103 Dority & Manning P.A. PINHEIRO, JASON PAUL  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Achtermann et al 11456225 - (R) HOMERE 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC ESKANDARNIA, ARVIN  

FEDERAL CIRCUIT  

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 2761 USHIP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, AND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Third Party Defendant-Appellee. 2012-5077 5,831,220 08/845,012 6,105,014 09/162,874 MOORE summary judgment of noninfringement Cooper & Kirk, PLLC; Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Desmarais, LLP original DATTEN MUCHIN ZAVIS ROSENMAN GIBSON, RANDY W; COSIMANO, EDWARD R

Thus, statements giving rise to a disclaimer may be made in response to a rejection over the prior art, but they may also take place in other contexts. For example, an applicant’s remarks submitted with an Information Disclosure Statement can be the basis for limiting claim scope. See Ekchian v. Home Depot, Inc., 104 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We hold that a patent applicant’s response to a restriction requirement may be used to interpret patent claim terms or as a source of disclaimer.

reuter, aristocrat, katz interactive, olson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Msika 10808701 - (D) FREDMAN 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP JUSTICE, GINA CHIEUN YU

See In re Reuter, 670 F.2d 1015, 1023 (CCPA 1981) (expert's opinion on ultimate legal issue entitled to no weight).

1635 Ex Parte Bentwich 10536560 - (D) WALSH 112(2)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 ROSETTA-GENOMICS c/o POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC SHIN, DANA H

1652 Ex Parte Koizumi et al 10940026 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Sexton et al 11697695 - (D) OWENS 112(1)/103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP CHEN, KEATH T

1777 Ex Parte Kopperschmidt et al 10580869 - (D) NAGUMO 102/112(6)/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP GIONTA, ALLISON

When a claim is drawn to a computer implemented function invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, a general purpose computer is usually sufficient for the corresponding structure for performing a general computing function, but the corresponding structure for performing a specific function is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer. In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The structure needed to transform a general purpose computer into a specific purpose computer is an algorithm. Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008). An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 23 (5th ed. 2002).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Adendorff et al 10663345 - (D) FETTING 103 Walder Intellectual Property Law PC PARKER, BRANDI P

3646 Ex Parte Harris et al 10529055 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Flynn et al 10245193 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C FRIDIE JR, WILLMON

3731 Ex Parte Gellman et al 10325125 - (D) SCHEINER 102/103 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP NGUYEN, TUAN VAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Osawa et al 11286356 - (D) NAGUMO 103 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. IP, SIKYIN

1746 Ex Parte Varaprasad 12222071 - (D) GARRIS 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BLADES, JOHN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Syed et al 12817703 - (D) McKONE 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL BERHANU, SAMUEL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Koyata et al 11121937 - (D) GREEN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. DO, PENSEE T

“Ordinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability.” In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954).
 
1649 Ex Parte SCHAEBITZ et al 11931326 - (D) PRATS 102/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. BORGEEST, CHRISTINA M
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1735 Ex Parte Burns et al 10606436 - (D) KIMLIN 112(2)/103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global IP, SIKYIN

1747 Ex Parte Thielen et al 11930805 - (D) METZ 103 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1763 Ex Parte Kawaguchi et al 12520913 - (D) TIMM 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC USELDING, JOHN E

1791 Ex Parte Cupp et al 10945768 - (D) KRATZ 103 K&L Gates LLP SAYALA, CHHAYA D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Yeh et al 11285614 - (D) NEW 103 MACRONIX C/O HAYNES BEFFEL & WOLFELD LLP DUONG, KHANH B

2854 Ex Parte Schmitt 11528928 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP BANH, DAVID H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Katzman et al 11190347 - (D) FETTING 101/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS ADE, OGER GARCIA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Herzog et al 10415195 - (D) GREENHUT 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

3735 Ex Parte Bauman 11516388 - (D) FREDMAN 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. DORNA, CARRIE R

3737 Ex Parte Schwartz 10574184 - (D) GREEN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SANTOS, JOSEPH M

3763 Ex Parte Nishikawa et al 10520180 - (D) McCARTHY 103 Burns Doane Swecker & Mathis BOUCHELLE, LAURA A

katz interactive

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Zha et al 10537760 - (D) NAGUMO 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION MENON, KRISHNAN S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Gottesman et al 11115626 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) NGUYEN, HIEP VAN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Harkness 11445364 - (D) GRIMES 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. HAND, MELANIE JO

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Sutardja et al 11196651 - (D) POTHIER 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. TRUONG, LOAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Rhodes 11021942 - (D) ZECHER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DENNISON, JERRY B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Shahoumian et al 10157661 - (D) PETRAVICK 112(2) 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BOVEJA, NAMRATA  

Also, where relatively low level functions are claimed, the disclosure of a general purpose computer may be sufficient.

Katz has not claimed a specific function performed by a special purpose computer, but has simply recited the claimed functions of "processing," "receiving," and "storing." Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms "processing," "receiving," and "storing," [] those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. As such, it was not necessary to disclose more structure than the general purpose processor that performs those functions. Those seven claims do not run afoul of the rule against purely functional claiming, because the functions of "processing," "receiving," and "storing" are coextensive with the structure disclosed, i.e., a general purpose processor.

Katz v Am. Airlines, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed,Cir. 2011)  

REHEARING  

GRANTED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Dzau et al 10850994 - (D) ADAMS obviousness-type double patenting J. MICHAEL SCHIFF WOITACH, JOSEPH T