kuhle, rice

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte ALCORN et al 12606930 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY KUMAR, ANIL N 11/19/2015

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Plagge 11802929 - (D) SHAH 103 Reed Smith LLP OYEBISI, OJO O 11/19/2015

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Sarrafi-Nour et al 11941415 - (D) HASTINGS 103 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EMPIE, NATHAN H 11/19/2015

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Haaf 13015446 - (D) JESCHKE 103 103 41.50 103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC NGUYEN, TRINH T 11/19/2015

Design choice may apply when alternative elements or configurations in the prior art perform the same function as the claimed structures with no unexpected results. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (finding that the use of the claimed feature "would be an obvious matter of design choice" when it "solves no stated problem" and "presents no novel or unexpected result" over the disclosed alternatives). In the context of a rejection based on design choice, the relevant issue is whether the alleged differences between the claimed invention and the prior art "result in a difference in function or give unexpected results." See In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965).


Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) 2144.04

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Corrigan et al 12473386 - (D) DERRICK 103 POLSINELLI PC TARAZANO, DONALD LAWRENCE 11/19/2015

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2122 Ex Parte Partridge 12622857 - (D) PINKERTON 103 PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP RIFKIN, BEN M 11/20/2015

2123 Ex Parte Bischoff et al 12193341 - (D) HAAPALA 103 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS 11/19/2015

2165 Ex Parte Lynch 12434511 - (D) WINSOR 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN 11/19/2015

2173 Ex Parte Schnettgoecke et al 12198653 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP DURKIN, JAMES T 11/19/2015

2176 Ex Parte BYRNE et al 12825253 - (D) PINKERTON 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/IBM SVL JOSEPH, SHAWN S 11/20/2015

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Moore 11828903 - (D) KRIVAK 103 Dr. James F. Moore PARK, JEONG S 11/19/2015

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Salfati et al 12526185 - (D) WINSOR 103 D. Kligler I.P. Services LTD EL-ZOOBI, MARIA 11/19/2015

2657 Ex Parte Neuhauser et al 11805166 - (D) STRAUSS 102 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen) LERNER, MARTIN 11/19/2015

kuhle, king

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Subramaniam 12354974 - (D) ARBES 103 GRIFFITHS & SEATON PLLC (IBM) KUDDUS, DANIEL A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Takala et al 12323737 - (D) BUI 103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP POTRATZ, DANIEL B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Wildfang 11908046 - (D) BROWNE 102 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. JONAITIS, JUSTIN M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex Parte Basir et al 11830575 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. LOUIE, WAE LENNY

Neither this disclosure nor Appellant's attorney argument supports a finding that it would not be a matter of design choice to have Funk's voice portal server 104 provide speech recognition for numbers, as well as words, to determine a destination for routing purposes.  See, e.g., In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975) (concluding that the use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and "would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art") (citation omitted)

Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) 2144.04

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Westrup 13012720 - (D) STEPINA 103 103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP ORTIZ, RAFAEL ALFREDO

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Bulluck et al 11199494 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Egan, Peterman & Enders LLP. RIOJA, MELISSA A

We also emphasize that Appellants’ argument is undermined by legal precedent that, “[t]o anticipate, the prior art need only meet the inherently disclosed limitation to the extent the patented method does.” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2010). That is, based on the record before us, it is reasonable to believe the compositions of Sellstrom inherently exhibit surface isotherms to the same extent as the identical compositions claimed by Appellants.

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2133 Ex Parte Djordjevic 12134380 - (D) HOMERE 112(2) 103 John S. Economou AYASH, MARWAN

2159 Ex Parte Gross 12191999 - (D) McMILLIN 103 PATENTBEST MAMILLAPALLI, PAVAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2462 Ex Parte Friskney et al 11964534 - (D) HOMERE 102 Daniels IP Services LTD. MILLS, DONALD L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Anastas et al 12272547 - (D) DEJMEK 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP SASINOWSKI, ANDREW

2628 Ex Parte Noda 10911546 - (D) BOUDREAU 103 FISHMAN STEWART YAMAGUCHI PLLC JOHNSON, ALLISON WALTHALL

2637 Ex Parte Karstens 12043332 - (D) DEJMEK 112(1)/103 PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. IBM-RSW LI, SHI K

2641 Ex Parte Fomin et al 12040131 - (D) BEAMER 103 Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP Qualcomm LAI, DANIEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Chaudhry 12441798 - (D) HOELTER 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY MEADE, LORNE EDWARD

3742 Ex Parte Dighe et al 12378167 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP NGUYEN, HUNG D

yorkey, celeritas, crish, boyer, bush, kuhle, thompson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Verfaillie et al 10561826 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. WANG, CHANG YU

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Weismantel et al 12065123 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

Determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves two analytical steps: (1) the Board must interpret the claim language; and (2) the Board must then compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference."

Yorkey v. Diab, 605 F.3d 1297 (2010) (quoting In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998) (alteration in original))).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Xydis 09997299 - (D) HOMERE 103 103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC PICH, PONNOREAY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Lunak et al 11423060 - (D) KAMHOLZ concurring SCANLON 103 103 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Buehlmeyer et al 12084162 - (D) OWENS 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION CORMIER, DAVID G

1733 Ex Parte Ougi et al 10855868 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. YANG, JIE

The elimination of a feature disclosed by the prior art, along with its attendant function, is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art. Application of Thompson, 545 F. 2d 1290, 1294 (CCPA 1976) Application of Kuhle, 526 F. 2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)

1782 Ex Parte Bartley et al 11840467 - (D) McKELVEY 103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN

1793 Ex Parte DeSmidt et al 10918892 - (D) KIMLIN 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. WONG, LESLIE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Kwon et al 11226693 - (D) JEFFERY 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. LUONG, ALAN H

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Chambers et al 10951930 - (D) KOHUT 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FISHMAN, LLP GENACK, MATTHEW W

2645 Ex Parte Link et al 11541916 - (D) McKONE 103 O'Shea, Getz & Kosakowski, P.C. MILLER, BRANDON J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Nathans et al 10392849 - (D) TURNER 103 Pay Rent, Build Credit, Inc. MONFELDT, SARAH M

In sustaining a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Board may rely on one reference alone without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, (CCPA 1966).

thompson, kuhle

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Cleary et al 10/207,627 KIMLIN 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER SINGH-PANDEY, ARTI R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Parsons et al 10/496,546 GARRIS dissenting-in-part and concurring-in-part NAGUMO 103(a) FERRELLS, PLLC EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Frye 10/200,734 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) DAVIS, BROWN, KOEHN, SHORS & ROBERTS, P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2172 Ex Parte 6408307 et al 90/008,398 08/920,044 Ex parte Civix DDI LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner PER CURIAM concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part TURNER 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: LATHROP & GAGE LLP FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: Robert A. Saltzbert Morrison & Foerster LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original EXAMINER ALAM, HOSAIN T

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Staffel et al 11/021,405 FREDMAN 103(a) KAMMER BROWNING PLLC EXAMINER MCMILLIAN, KARA RENITA

1634 Ex Parte Herman 11/007,582 FREDMAN 103(a) SMITHS DETECTION INC. EXAMINER FORMAN, BETTY J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Groezinger 10/591,198 PAK 103(a) Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y

1763 Ex Parte Toussaint et al 11/735,189 GUEST 103(a) COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY EXAMINER LACLAIR, DARCY D

See In re Thompson, 545 F.2d 1290, 1294 (CCPA 1976) (“Eliminating the cost of the preliminary step of wax impregnation would have been sufficient motivation”); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (“deletion of the switch member (and other elements) found in Smith and Sherrard, thereby deleting their function, was an obvious expedient”).

Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

1764 Ex Parte Adur et al 10/567,292 GARRIS 103(a) POLYONE CORPORATION EXAMINER BOYLE, ROBERT C

1772 Ex Parte Xiao et al 11/082,445 OWENS concurring NAGUMO 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER DANG, THUAN D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Ahokas 10/946,567 BROCKETTI 103(a) NOKIA CORPORATION c/o Ware, Fressola, Van Der Sluys & Adolphson LLP EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Cummins 11/384,593 PETRAVICK 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BOVEJA, NAMRATA

3682 Ex Parte Srinivasan et al 09/805,336 FISCHETTI 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC EXAMINER JANVIER, JEAN D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Carter et al 11/706,929 HOELTER 103(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER MORGAN, EILEEN P

kaplan, kuhle, cordis, praxair, miyazaki

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Hedstrom et al 11/052,893 SMITH 103(a)/non-statutory obvious-type double patenting WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY- MD 0750 EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

“[T]here must be some clear evidence to establish why the variation would have been obvious which can properly qualify as ‘prior art.’” In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Kaplan, In re, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804
1731 Ex Parte Flytzani-Stephanopoulos et al 10/534,110 GAUDETTE 103(a) Milstein Zhang & Wu LLC EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Hendrix et al 11/290,291 SPAHN 103(a) Brocade Communications c/o Bever, Hoffman & Harms, LLP EXAMINER BRADFORD, CANDACE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Kovac 11/444,445 CLARKE 102(b)/103(a) THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION EXAMINER COZART, JERMIE E

With regard to the rationale of the Examiner, the predecessor of our reviewing court has stated that design choice is inapplicable in a rejection where the use of the claimed feature solves a stated problem. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)(use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” ).

Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04
3763 Ex Parte Simas et al 11/138,553 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER PRICE, NATHAN R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Nabors et al 10/517,732 FREDMAN 103(a) Syngenta Corp Protection, Inc. EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1647 Ex Parte Byrum 11/491,371 ADAMS 101/112(1) Arnold & Porter LLP EXAMINER ALLEN, MARIANNE P

1652 Ex Parte Zandi et al 10/079,949 FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER
PROUTY, REBECCA E

1655 Ex Parte Lindberg 10/271,186 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Yoshitake et al 10/472,378 GARRIS 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W

1762 Ex Parte Kesavan et al 11/243,144 WALSH 103(a) Kevin E Mcveigh RHODIA INC. EXAMINER METZMAIER, DANIEL S

1789 Ex Parte Fultz et al 10/955,443 COLAIANNI 102(e)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Deng et al 10/386,217 SMITH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

2172 Ex Parte Aurenz 11/140,398 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HEFFINGTON, JOHN M

2183 Ex Parte Fowles 11/145,601 LUCAS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B

“Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 is an issue of claim construction and a question of law that we review de novo.” Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).

However, during prosecution before this Office, while Appellant still has the opportunity to amend the claims, a higher standard of clarity is required:

In particular, rather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we hold that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.

Ex parte Kenichi Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (precedential opinion) (BPAI 2008).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte McCown et al 10/934,186 CHEN 102(b) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK EXAMINER FIELDS, COURTNEY D

NEW

REVERSED

06/02/2011 2451 Ex Parte Helsper et al 10/985,664 BARRY 102(e) Ballard Spahr LLP EXAMINER MAUNG, ZARNI

06/22/2011 1777 Ex Parte Olsta et al 11/599,080 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

AFFIRMED

06/02/2011 1722 Ex Parte Hirayama et al 10/546,573 GAUDETTE 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER EOFF, ANCA

06/03/2011 1765 Ex Parte Musgrave et al 11/027,442 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER ZEMEL, IRINA SOPJIA

06/02/2011 1782 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 11/357,971 KRATZ non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER YAGER, JAMES C

06/02/2011 2164 Ex Parte Smith et al 10/864,267 JEFFERY obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

06/02/2011 1745 Ex Parte Tuertscher et al 11/182,422 GAUDETTE 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHAN, SING P

DISMISSED

06/03/2011 1716 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11/018,641 BARTLETT RCE Edwards Vacuum, Inc. EXAMINER LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT

kuhle, mraz

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Cooper et al 10/656,192 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER LONG, SCOTT

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Richey et al 10/944,209 GRIMES 103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

The Examiner’s argument that the configuration of the strands is a matter of design choice is not persuasive. Design choice may be an acceptable rationale for an obviousness rejection when a claimed product merely arranges known elements in a configuration recognized as functionally equivalent to a known configuration. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (“The manner in which electrical contact is made for Smith’s battery would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art…. As the board pointed out, use of a spring-loaded contact in the manner claimed is well known with the common flashlight.”). Here, the Examiner has not provided evidence that the strand configuration recited in the claims was a known alternative to the designs shown by Mills, Kretchmer, and Soderlund.

Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Ouyang et al 10/746,658 ZECHER 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Momosaki et al 10/934,380 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER TRAN, BINH Q

While patent drawings alone may be used to reject claims, the value of the drawing sin that context extends only to what is clearly shown therein. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972).

Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2125
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Kelley et al 10/777,961 STEPHENS 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER PILLAI, NAMITHA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Nickerson et al 11/168,784 DROESCH 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER TRAN, MINH LOAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Scirica 11/544,519 CHEN 103(a) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M

REVERSED

2817 Ex Parte Pietig 10/538,580 BAUMEISTER 103(a) NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING EXAMINER JONES, STEPHEN E

3717 Ex Parte Rose 10/341,110 SILVERBERG 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER
HARPER, TRAMAR YONG

3721 Ex Parte Schneider et al 11/106,806 SILVERBERG 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

3685 Ex Parte Suermondt et al 10/175,469 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WORJLOH, JALATEE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3714 Ex Parte Darby 10/339,096 SILVERBERG 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER COBURN, CORBETT B

AFFIRMED

3627 Ex Parte Bross et al 10/495,633 MOHANTY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DANNEMAN, PAUL

2155 Ex Parte Campbell et al 11/019,336 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOFFLER, RAHEEM

3724 Ex Parte Gilder 11/147,000 SILVERBERG 102(e)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DEXTER, CLARK F

1612 Ex Parte Jentzsch et al 10/515,636 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E

1796 Ex Parte Jo et al 11/674,390 WALSH 103(a) F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUY-AI N

3745 Ex Parte REIMER et al 11/535,162 SILVERBERG 103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. EXAMINER LOPEZ, FRANK D