kropa

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Huotari et al 10732540 - (D) SMITH 103 Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy TIV, BACKHEAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Bussell et al 13357436 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 Stuart Bussell HAWK, NOAH CHANDLER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Robb et al 13558037 - (D) HORNER 103 41.50 102 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner / Zimmer LEWIS, RALPH A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Norton et al 12205216 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC SALONE, BAYAN

When we look at the preamble of Appellants’ claimed invention, we note that a preamble usually will not limit the scope of the claim unless the preamble provides antecedence for ensuing claim terms and limits the claim accordingly.  This is what the jurisprudence means by giving life, meaning and vitality to the claims.  See Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951).  In this instance, there is nexus between the preamble, i.e., “[a] manually actuated robotic tool changer” and the claim limitation of a “piston movable along its axis . . . under manual actuation.”  The preamble recitation of a “manually actuated” robotic changer limits the claimed piston to a manually actuated piston, and thus, serves to structurally distinguish the claimed piston over other pistons such as the power driven or spring actuated piston 38 of Erickson '735 and the pneumatically driven piston 32 of Little.

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) 707.07(f) , 2111.02

3747 Ex Parte Inuzuka et al 13454344 - (D) BAHR 102 102/103 41.50 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC MOUBRY, JAMES G

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2137 Ex Parte Haukness et al 12990945 - (D) HORVATH 102 Peninsula Patent Omim fRamhns;^ PARIKH, KALPIT

2166 Ex Parte Herger et al 13621131 - (D) NAPPI 103 LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR) OBERLY, VAN HONG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Xiang et al 13293437 - (D) SNAY 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL DINH, THAI T

kropa

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Hedrick et al 12770529 - (D) OWENS 103 CANAANLAW, P.C. LENIHAN, JEFFREYS

For support, the Appellants rely on, inter alia, Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951). According to the Appellants:

In Kropa the Court held that the preamble, "an abrasive article," gave life and meaning to the interference count at issue, although the claim recited abrasive grains and a binder, because not every combination of those components forms an abrasive article .... Kropa supports patentability here, as not every combination of upper and lower sheets form "roll roofing."

App. Br. 12 (citation omitted).

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) 707.07(f) , 2111.02

1789 Ex Parte Kalkanoglu et al 12057906 - (D) HANLON 102/103 PAUL AND PAUL STEELE, JENNIFER A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2411 Ex Parte Heck et al 13212788 - (D) HOWARD 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP SHIH, ALBERT K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Hubbard et al 10878238 - (D) HUTCHINGS 102 Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C, SINGH, GURKANW ALJIT

3657 Ex Parte Kapanowski et al 12651542 - (D) HOSKINS 103 JONES ROBB, PLLC (w/Ford Motor Co,) WILLIAMS, THOMAS J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Daynes et al 13191334 - (D) BAHR 112(2)/103 103 MARGER JOHNSON -PHYSIO -CONTROL, INC. VOORHEES, CATHERINE M

3775 Ex Parte Snider et al 12775901 - (D) HILL 103 103 SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. SEVILLA, CHRISTIAN ANTHONY

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Cornish et al 11721872 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 LANXESS CORPORATION PAK, JOHN D

1626 Ex Parte Sommer et al 12814536 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 Covestro LLC OTTON, ALICIA L

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Andersen et al 10543721 - (D) KRATZ 103/double patenting ST ONGE STEW ARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC DEES, NIKKI H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte DANE et al 12941720 - (D) FENICK 103/double patenting Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC HOANG, HAU HAI

2176 Ex Parte Liu et al 13052622 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 HP Inc. MCINTOSH, ANDREW T

2185 Ex Parte Simon 13221436 - (D) HOWARD 102/103/double patenting KENYON & KENYON LLP DANG, KHANH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte SUGAYA 12539439 - (D) BAIN 103 Paratus Law Group, PLLC RANDHAWA, MANDISH K

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte REYNOLDS et al 13034679 - (D) TROCK 103 SYNAPTICS C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP RAYAN, MIHIR K

2628 Ex Parte Eteläperä 12804803 - (D) DANG 102 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP NGUYEN, KEVIN M

2646 Ex Parte Kirke 13769745 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 GARLICK & MARKISON (BRCM) OBAYANJU, OMONIYI

2653 Ex Parte King 12724226 - (D) ENGELS 103 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P,C PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL

2665 Ex Parte Puchert 12997637 - (D) BRANCH 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP GILLIARD, DELOMIA L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Lawandy 12220054 - (D) GREENHUT 112(1) BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD. GRABOWSKI, KYLE ROBERT

3737 Ex Parte Govari et al 12816492 - (D) HILL 103 112(2)/103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON SMITH, RUTHS

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Leadbeater et al 10520786 - (D) KRATZ 102 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC DEES, NIKKI H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte He 12876092 - (D) REIMERS 102/103 WANG & HO MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., Requester, v. LIGHT TRANSFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Patent Owner Ex Parte 6543911 et al 09/566,521 95001410 - (D) COCKS 102 The Law Office of Clay McGurk HUGHES, DEANDRA M original ALAVI, ALI

bell comm, rowe, corning glass, kropa

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Narayanan et al 10990995 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PURDY, KYLE A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1758 Ex Parte Casali et al 12972007 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 102 Streets & Steele - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. DAM, DUSTIN Q

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Ungureanu et al 12669393 - (D) NEW 103 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA RICCI, CRAIG D

We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the language of the preamble is a limitation on the claim. “[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.” Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In instances where a patentee uses the claim preamble to recite structural limitations of his claimed invention, the PTO and courts give effect to that usage. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation. Id. (citing Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 (1951).

Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 2111.02 ,   2163

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 , 2303

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2111.02 , 2163

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) 707.07(f) , 2111.02

wertheim, kropa, net moneyin, advanced display, seversky, arkley

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte ASAOKA 12/174,973 PAK 102(b)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LEYSON, JOSEPH S

1747 Ex Parte Jiang et al 12/277,883 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER SHEH, ANTHONY H

1767 Ex Parte Shooshtari et al 11/245,668 COLAIANNI 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK

1773 Ex Parte Ricci et al 10/581,964 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC EXAMINER SAKELARIS, SALLY A

Based on these facts, we determine that the preamble breathes life and meaning into the claim that provides completeness to the claim and thus must be considered a limitation of the claim. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 269 (CCPA 1976) (citing Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951)).

Wertheim, In re, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976) . . .706.03(o),1302.01, 2144.05, 2163, 2163.03, 2163.04, 2163.05

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02

1783 Ex Parte Conner et al 11/891,433 COLAIANNI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KHATRI, PRASHANT J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Frieder et al 10/926,548 ZECHER 102(e)/103(a) Roland W. Norris Pauley Petersen & Erickson EXAMINER DANG, THANH HA T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Gauselmann 10/458,429 ASTORINO 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER HSU, RYAN

3734 Ex Parte Palmer et al 10/867,498 WALSH 103(a) GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D

3737 Ex Parte Fymat et al 11/524,866 GREEN 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) LEON D. ROSEN FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN EXAMINER HUNTLEY, DANIEL CARROLL

3782 Ex Parte Katchko et al 11/107,340 GREENHUT 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Nickerson et al 11/135,045 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE

In an anticipation rejection, “it is not enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that [an ordinary] artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Rather, the reference must “‘clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.’” Id. (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (brackets in original)). Thus, while “[s]uch picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection, . . . it has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587-88.
REEXAMINATION

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2165 Ex Parte 6192347 et al Ex parte Graff/Ross Holdings LLP, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/009,556 09/134,451 TURNER 101/102(e) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER ROSEN, NICHOLAS D

To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1283 (Fed.Cir.2000), citing In re Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674 (CCPA 1973). A “mere reference to another application, or patent, or publication is not an incorporation of anything.” Id. at 674 (emphasis in original).
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Chinea et al 11/189,139 McKELVEY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I

1715 Ex Parte Wojtaszek et al 12/050,709 GARRIS 103(a) ARTHUR G. SCHAIER CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1716 Ex Parte Hughes et al 10/673,376 COLAIANNI 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN

1731 Ex Parte Shore et al 11/142,580 COLAIANNI 103(a) ENGELHARD CORPORATION EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A

Citing to In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972), Appellants’ arguments seem to take issue with the picking and choosing needed to arrive at the claimed invention (Reply Br. 3). However, this line of argument appears to improperly treat the rejection as an anticipation rejection. The rejection on appeal is under § 103 and is based on whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious at the time the invention was made. The court in Arkley recognized that picking and choosing is entirely proper in an obviousness rejection. Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587-588.

1745 Ex Parte Hansson et al 10/580,219 KRATZ 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1772 Ex Parte DiMagno et al 10/890,588 PER CURIAM 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER KINGAN, TIMOTHY G

1787 Ex Parte Samanta et al 12/549,780 McKELVEY 112(2)/103(a) W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN EXAMINER SHAH, SAMIR

1787 Ex Parte Samanta et al 12/549,810 McKELVEY 112(2)/103(a) W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN EXAMINER HUANG, CHENG YUAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Majumdar et al 11/000,695 POTHIER 103(a) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER ENGLAND, DAVID E

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Zeng et al 10/635,526 JEFFERY 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER WANG, TED M

2617 Ex Parte Chiang et al 10/136,002 Per Curiam 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CAI, WAYNE HUU

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Doucette et al 11/275,747 BARRETT 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER PATEL, YOGESH P

kropa

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 11/150,861 GRIMES ADAMS Dissenting PRATS 103(a) Workman Nydegger / INVENTION SCIENCE FUND EXAMINER DUTT, ADITI

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Talwar 11/551,550 COLAIANNI FRANKLIN OWENS 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER YOON, KEVIN E

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Opaterny 11/114,399 HUGHES BOALICK MACDONALD 102(b) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER BUCKINGHAM, KELLYE DEE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Nastacio et al 10/809,175 NAPPI DESHPANDE DROESCH 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER LINDSEY, MATTHEW S

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Keller et al 09/842,346 NAPPI HAHN MACDONALD 102(e)/103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER BROWN, VERNAL U

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Welbourne 11/318,279 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) Dascenzo Intellectual Property Law, P.C. EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Da Silva et al 11/235,035 SPAHN 103(a) Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER MCKINLEY, CHRISTOPHER BRIAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/111,240 ADAMS 102(a)/103(a) C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Best et al 09/747,063 POTHIER WINSOR ZECHER 103(a) 103(a)/112(1) SUGHRUE MION PLLC USPTO CUSTOMER NO WITH IBM/SVL EXAMINER PILLAI, NAMITHA

2184 Ex Parte Haines et al 11/348,636 RUGGIERO BAUMEISTER HOFF 103(a) 103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens EXAMINER TSENG, CHENG YUAN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Tsuchiyama et al 10/580,211 GREENHUT CALVE HOELTER 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER SEVERSON, JEREMY R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 Ex Parte Gueret 11/320,557 6,669,389 KAUFFMAN BARRETT SAINDON 251/102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TUAN N

The subject matter of claim 204 is not all magnetic particles; rather, claim 204 covers magnetic particles that are part of a mascara product. Therefore, the preamble serves to further define the structure of the article claimed. See Kropa v. Robie, 187 F2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951).

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02

3762 Ex Parte Hanson et al 10/531,359 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER KAHELIN, MICHAEL WILLIAM
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Studin et al 11/788,959 ADAMS 103(a) Stuart D. Frenkel Frenkel & Associates EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Vacassy et al 11/491,612 COLAIANNI FRANKLIN OWENS 103(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER CHRISTIE, ROSS J

1766 Ex Parte Thomas et al 12/281,023 GARRIS OWENS WARREN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

1774 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/699,770 FRANKLIN COLAIANNI WARREN 102(b)/103(a) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER RAMDHANIE, BOBBY

1776 Ex Parte Broske et al 11/254,964 OWENS 102(e)/103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3667 Ex Parte Dudley et al 10/860,287 KIM 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER
GREENE, DANIEL LAWSON

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Hansen et al 11/122,397 ADAMS SCHEINER WALSH 102(b) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER COLELLO, ERIN L

3761 Ex Parte Osborn et al 10/860,910 FRANKLIN FREDMAN GREEN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3733 Ex Parte 7128744 et al SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. Requester, Respondent v. SYNTHES (U.S.A) Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,465 and 90/009,377 10/665,505 SONG LEBOVITZ ROBERTSON 103(a) 103(a) Patent Owner WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP Third Party Requester ROBERT A, KING HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN original EXAMINER SWIGER III, JAMES L

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2819 Ex Parte 7161506 et al BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC. Respondent v. REALTIME DATA LLC. 95/000,479 SIU MacDONALD TORCZON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner, Appellant Patent Owner STERN, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOXX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester MICHAEL A. MESSINA, ESQ. MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original EXAMINER NGUYEN, LINH V

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2155 Ex Parte 7321937 et al BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC. Respondent v. REALTIME DATA LLC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,466 SIU MacDONALD TORCZON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOXX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2819 Ex Parte 7378992 et al BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC. Respondent v. REALTIME DATA LLC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,478 SIU MacDONALD TORCZON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original EXAMINER NGUYEN, LINH V

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2819 Ex Parte 6624761 et al BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC. Respondent v. REALTIME DATA LLC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,464 SIU MacDONALD TORCZON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester MICHAEL A. MESSINA, ESQ. MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original EXAMINER WAMSLEY, PATRICK G

porter2, kuehl, blattner, pfizer, steele, kropa

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Burkart et al 11/401,558 GREENHUT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(4) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph four, requires that a dependent claim specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Claim 6 recites in its entirety, “An electric belt retractor with a control arrangement to carry out the method of claim 1.” Reciting that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is “to carry out” a particular method does not further limit that method. Intent relates to a state of mind and there is nothing in claim 6 actually requiring performance of the steps recited in claim 1. See, e.g., In re Hansen, 99 USPQ 319, 321 (BPAI 1953); compare In re Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1147 (BPAI 1992) (citing In re Kuehl, 475 F.2d 658 (CCPA 1973) and In re Blattner, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (BPAI 1987)); See also MPEP § 608.01(n)(III).

Claims 7-13 depend from claim 6. Only claim 6 contains a reference to claim 1. Accordingly, we find claims 6-13 fail to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph four. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We recognize that the Appellants could have drafted claims 6-13 as properly depending from claim 1 or could have written claim 6 in independent form. However, we decline to speculate about what the Appellants intend to claim and reverse, pro forma, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6-13 without opinion on the merits thereof. See id.; see also In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962).

Kuehl, In re, 425 F.2d 658, 177 USPQ 250 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2116.01

Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06

Porter, Ex parte, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) . . . .608.01(n), 2173.05(e), 2173.05(f), 2173.05(q)

Blattner, Ex parte, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.09
3673 Ex Parte Kavounas 11/248,929 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) KOLISCH HARTWELL, P.C. EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G

See Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951) (A preamble reciting “‘An abrasive article’” was deemed essential to point out the invention defined by claims to an article comprising abrasive grains and a hardened binder and the process of making it. The court stated “it is only by that phrase that it can be known that the subject matter defined by the claims is comprised as an abrasive article. Every union of substances capable inter alia of use as abrasive grains and a binder is not an ‘abrasive article.’” Therefore, the preamble served to further define the structure of the article produced.).

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Rice 11/003,199 KAUFFMAN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER BRINSON, PATRICK F
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Tsang et al 11/169,095 HOMERE 101/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER TANG, JIEYING

2186 Ex Parte Rau 11/021,707 DANG 103(a) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D

REHEARING

GRANTED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Fernald et al 10/755,708 FRAHM 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER EL SHAMMAA, MARY A

NEW

REVERSED

1729 Ex Parte Drake et al 10/664,822 TIMM 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2165 Ex Parte Buros et al 11/268,931 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 112(2)/112(4) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER HOANG, SON T

AFFIRMED

2815 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/230,772 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER CLARK, JASMINE JHIHAN B

2448 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/675,653 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N

2425 Ex Parte Kelly 10/515,696 FRAHM 101/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LEWIS, JONATHAN V

2453 Ex Parte Shalabi et al 10/984,090 CHEN 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T

2166 Ex Parte Stecker 10/918,520 MORGAN 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B

1761 Ex Parte Trinh 11/059,078 HASTINGS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R

pitney bowes, paulsen, marrin, bell comm, kropa, corning glass, rowe

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Dobler et al 10/258,006 MILLS 103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SHEIKH, HUMERA N 

Ex Parte Selvin et al 10/976,546 SPIEGEL 103(a) RICHARD ARON OSMAN EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA 

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

Ex Parte Giffin 10/629,094 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP EXAMINER DEUBLE, MARK A 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Kuivasto et al 10/572,393 BARRETT 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER MILLER, BENA B 

Ex Parte Ma et al 11/390,978 O’NEILL 102(b)/nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER GIMIE, MAHMOUD 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Sakata et al 10/518,814 GREEN 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER JAVANMARD, SAHAR 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Vizzini et al 11/472,153 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER RABAGO, ROBERTO 

Ex Parte Berkowitz et al 10/306,765 DELMENDO 103(a) FRANK J. BONINI, JR. EXAMINER JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN 

REEXAMINATION 

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

Ex parte REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY 90/006,283 6,283,044 LEBOVITZ Opinion Dissenting SONG 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester UNGARETTI & HARRIS LLP EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ANDRES

Precedent establishes that the preamble limits the claims when it distinguishes the use of the claimed article from the prior art . . . . [Internal citations omitted] The preamble limits the claimed invention if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . .

Generally stated, “terms appearing in a preamble may be deemed limitations of a claim when they give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . .

Marrin v. Griffin, 94 USPQ2d 1140, 1143-44 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (dissent by J. Newman).

[W]here a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation. See Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 (1951).

The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d [1251] at 1257 [(Fed. Cir. 1989)]. The inquiry involves examination of the entire patent record to determine what invention the patentee intended to define and protect. [Internal citations omitted.]

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02

Paulsen, In re, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . .716.03, 2106, 2144.08

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2163

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303