katz1, american academy

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Hoglund 12913915 - (D) HUGHES 103 Harrity & Harrity, LLP MINCEY, JERMAINE A

2166 Ex Parte Lection 11832722 - (D) NAPPI 103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC LIN, SHEW FEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Nielsen et al 12833705 - (D) CRAIG 112(1)/103 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen) SALCE, JASON P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Brown 11562468 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. SOREY, ROBERT A

3657 Ex Parte BAUMGARTNER 12604219 - (D) BROWN 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T

3685 Ex Parte Winter 11973003 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. HEWITT II, CALVIN L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lima et al 12462938 - (D) BRANCH 103 103 NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER HE, WEIMING

2624 Ex Parte Ritter 11909766 - (D) FISHMAN 103 103 41.50 103 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD BIBBEE, CHAYCE R

Conditional steps employed in a method claim need not be found in the prior art if, under the broadest scenario, the method need not invoke the steps. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, *4 (BPAI 2011) (citing In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Kim et al 12058453 - (D) OWENS 103 H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC CLEVELAND, MICHAEL B

1754 Ex Parte Sheth et al 11374972 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1)/102/103 Duane Morris LLP (10/11) Seagate SMITH, NICHOLAS A

1778 Ex Parte Backes et al 13215800 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 EMD Millipore Corporation CECIL, TERRY K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte YU 12615894 - (D) JIVANI 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. BELCHER, HERMAN A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Kun et al 11094823 - (D) BUI 103 Core Wireless Licensing Ltd ONYEKABA, AMY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Li et al 12637593 - (D) FETTING 103/double patenting Dilworth IP - SAP STERRETT, JONATHAN G

3623 Ex Parte Holt et al 12109403 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC BROCKINGTON III, WILLIAM S

3624 Ex Parte Oral et al 12141435 - (D) CRAWFORD 102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC GOLDBERG, IVAN R

3627 Ex Parte Ferreira da Silva 12435010 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC CHEIN, ALLEN C

3627 Ex Parte Godlewski 12503012 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP SHEIKH, ASFAND M

3629 Ex Parte Isom 11847429 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 IBM CORPORATION JASMIN, LYNDA C

3629 Ex Parte Cunningham et al 12770819 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 IBM CORPORATION (RHF) ROBERT H. FRANTZ BAHL, SANGEETA

3689 Ex Parte Gauthier et al 12343703 - (D) SHAH 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. MOONEYHAM, JANICE A

katz1

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 12008599 - (D) GALLIGAN 102/103 102/103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT ZEWARI, SAYED T

“As under the broadest [reasonable interpretation], the steps dependent on the ‘if’ [condition] would not be invoked, the Examiner was not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claims [anticipated].” Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL514314, 4 (BPAI 2011).

PTAB.US Sept 10, 2015:

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Thomas 12790673 - (D) FISHMAN dissenting THOMAS concurring KAISER 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm BUTTRAM, ALAN T

See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at *4—5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011) (the broadest reasonable interpretation of a conditional step in a method claim includes instances in which the conditional step would not be invoked), reh 'g denied, 2011 WL 1211248, at *2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011)

 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred.  We begin our analysis by construing the steps reciting "responsive to" in claim 1.  Claim 1 recited two sets of steps each responsive to one of two mutually exclusive conditions. ... see also In re Johnston, 435 F..3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.").  In particular, claim 1 recites steps to be performed "responsive to determining ... that the cursor is present in the input field" and steps responsive to determining the opposite condition (cursor not in the input field.) 
...
THOMAS dissenting

Regarding (a), the Majority first cites Ex parte Katz, a nonprecedential and thus non-binding opinion of our predecessor Board.  However, one final judgement cannot have any greater effect than any other final judgement. In any event, I believe Ex parte Katz does not support the Majority's position.

I do not believe In re Johnston supports the Majority's position.

Distinguishable from the present application, In re Johnston analyzed the linguistic precision of optional elements, i.e., the claimed "said wall may be smooth, corrugated, or profiled ...." and affirmed the Board's ruling that such limitations "did not narrow the scope of the claim because these limitations are stated in the permissive form 'may'" (see In re Johnston at 1384)(emphasis added).  The majority has not identified any similar permissive language in the present application and in any case, fails to point out precisely what they consider to be "optional" language in claim 1.  I believe the facts of In re Johnston highlights the concept of being "optional" when the claim language indicated that a limitation may be chosen and the Majority has not explained why the presently claimed responsive to steps are similarly optional, i.e., how the claim language signifies choosing between the different responsive to steps.