otto, thibault, kumar, stepan

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Zimran et al 11/343,313 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) RICHARD AUCHTERLONIE NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER LODHI, ANDALIB FT

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Bernier 10/224,780 DANG 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER LONSBERRY, HUNTER B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Omar 11/095,887 GRIMES 103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. EXAMINER DUNN, DAVID R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Hacker et al 11/701,228 FETTING 103(a) James P. Broder Roeder & Broder LLP EXAMINER COLLINS, DOLORES R

3716 Ex Parte Mothwurf et al 10/991,308 PETRAVICK 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER KIM, KEVIN Y
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Grenier et al 11/490,319 FRANKLIN 103(a)/112(2) ERAGEN BIOSCIENCES, INC. EXAMINER LU, FRANK WEI MIN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Jones et al 10/832,322 DIXON 103(a)/103(a) Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole, P.C. EXAMINER REYES, MARIELA D

2176 Ex Parte Errico et al 10/155,269 BARRY 103(a)/103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Peterka et al 10/882,606 FETTING 103(a)/103(a) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP EXAMINER MOLINA, ANITA C

"[E]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 940 (CCPA 1963).

Otto, In re, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2115
Thibault, Ex parte, 164 USPQ 666 (Bd. App. 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Britto et al 10/274,301 FETTING 103(a)/103(a) Eric S. Britto True Bounce, Inc. EXAMINER CHAMBERS, MICHAEL S
REEXAMINATION REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2643 Ex Parte 6985569 et al JINGLE NETWORKS, INC. Third Party Requestor, Appellant v. GRAPE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent, Appellant 95/001,163 TURNER 314(a)/102(b) PATENT OWNER: SOFER & HAROUN LLP. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER BARNIE, REXFORD N
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Kahn et al 11/315,391 MILLS 103(a) Amersham Biosciences Corp EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J

1636 Ex Parte Kenten et al 10/726,069 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER KETTER, JAMES S

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Fournier et al 10/740,584 GUEST 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHU HOANG

1781 Ex Parte Chang et al 11/338,972 PRATS 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Banavar et al 10/434,815 COURTENAY 102(e) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER VU, THONG H

2159 Ex Parte Brown et al 11/334,615 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION EXAMINER BURKE, JEFF A

2168 Ex Parte Yan et al 11/096,165 DESHPANDE 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER MENG, JAU SHYA

2191 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/870,222 LUCAS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER NAHAR, QAMRUN

“In a series of opinions, both this court and our predecessor court, the United States Court of Customs & Patent Appeals (“Patent Court”), have recognized that if the appellant has not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Board's actual basis of rejection, the administrative validity proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) should be allowed to continue. See In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1367–68 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing numerous Patent Court cases).” In re Stepan Co., 660 F.3d 1341, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Reith et al 10/472,326 DROESCH 103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER REZA, MOHAMMAD W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Agarwal et al 11/228,583 FETTING 103(a) Straub & Pokotylo EXAMINER BROWN, ALVIN L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Huber et al 10/535,067 McCARTHY 103(a) Merchant & Gould, P.C. EXAMINER COMLEY, ALEXANDER BRYANT