gaubert, langer

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2165 FACEBOOK, INC. Requester and Appellant v. LEADER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001261 7,139,761 10/732,744 SIU 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102/103 King and Spalding LLP HUGHES, DEANDRA M original MIZRAHI, DIANE D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Beringer et al 10285280 - (D) KIM 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP PATS, JUSTIN

3632 Ex Parte Shevick 10966279 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 HEISLER & ASSOCIATES MARSH, STEVEN M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Blum et al 09994860 - (D) BAHR 101 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP BOECKMANN, JASON J  

The basis of the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is that the disclosed invention is wholly inoperative and therefore lacks credible utility.

As a matter of Patent Office practice, a specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of § 101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope. Assuming that sufficient reason to question the statement of utility and its scope does exist, a rejection for lack of utility under § 101 will be proper on that basis; such a rejection can be overcome by suitable proofs indicating that the statement of utility and its scope as found in the specification are true.

In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391-92 (CCPA 1974).

Langer, In re, 503 F.2d 1380, 183 USPQ 288 (CCPA 1974) 2107.02, 2107.03, 2124

Further, “the PTO must do more than merely question operability it must set forth factual reasons which would lead one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of operability.” In re Gaubert, 524 F.2d 1222, 1224-25 (CCPA 1975).

Gaubert, In re, 524 F.2d 1222, 187 USPQ 664 (CCPA 1975) 2107.03

marzocchi, langer, W.L. Gore

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Borgers et al 12/108,262 GRIMES 103(a) Glaxo Smith Kline c/o The Nath Law Group EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN

However, the Specification’s disclosure is presumed to be accurate, and the burden is on the Examiner to provide evidence that it is not. Cf. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224 (CCPA 1971) (“[It] is incumbent upon the Patent Office, whenever a rejection on this basis is made, to explain why it doubts the truth or accuracy of any statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up assertions of its own with acceptable evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent with the contested statement.”); In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391 (CCPA 1974) (“[A] specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of § 101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope.”).

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164.08

Langer, In re, 503 F.2d 1380, 183 USPQ 288 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2107.03, 2124
1641 Ex Parte Gjerde 12/004,726 WALSH 103(a) PHYNEXUS, INC. EXAMINER SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Schneider et al 10/852,927 FRANKLIN 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R

1715 Ex Parte Hass et al 10/489,090 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER GAMBETTA, KELLY M

1713 Ex Parte Shatwell 10/504,204 PAK 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER TRAN, BINH X

See also, W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (“To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention . . ., when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the invention taught is used against its teacher.”).

W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Swank 10/990,891 HORNER 112(2)/103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3679 Ex Parte Jamison et al 11/256,596 BARRETT 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DUNWOODY, AARON M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Alholm et al 11/510,320 LEBOVITZ 102(b) TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP EXAMINER HAYMAN, IMANI N

3773 Ex Parte Miles et al 10/186,307 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) HOLLAND & HART EXAMINER EREZO, DARWIN P
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Hovey et al 11/472,556 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Gilmour et al 10/135,254 LUCAS Concurring-In-Part THOMAS 101/103(a) BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, CAM Y T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Vernon 11/180,796 KIM 102(e) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

3635 Ex Parte Elliott et al 10/773,757 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) JERRY TURNER SEWELL EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHI Q

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Guthrie 10/816,403 GARRIS 102/103 M. P. Williams EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D

langer, brooktree

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Baldenius et al10/468,610 ADAMS 102(f) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER KOSSON, ROSANNE 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Jiang et al 10/288,225 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Krenn 10/170,190 HOFF 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER MOORE, IAN N

Ex Parte Garrec et al 10/491,057 SIU 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC. EXAMINER MUSA, ABDELNABI O 

Ex Parte Park 09/941,837 HAIRSTON 103(a) KED & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. EXAMINER VAN HANDEL, MICHAEL P 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Kim et al 10/748,168 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER PAN, YUWEN 

Ex Parte Maciocco et al 10/377,580 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER LEUNG, WAI LUN 2800 

Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Ho et al 11/040,493 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER WEST, JEFFREY R 

Ex Parte Ahne et al 10/883,426 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAM S 

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

Ex Parte Pasquale et al 10/436,743 CRAWFORD 112(1)/101/102(b)/103(a) AT&T Legal Department - JW EXAMINER BROOKS, MATTHEW L

As a matter of Patent Office practice, a specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of § 101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope. Assuming that sufficient reason to question the statement of utility and its scope does exist, a rejection for lack of utility under § 101 will be proper on that basis; such a rejection can be overcome by suitable proofs indicating that the statement of utility and its scope as found in the specification are true.

In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391-92 (CCPA 1974) (emphasis added). “To violate [35 U.S.C.] § 101 the claimed device must be totally incapable of achieving a useful result.” Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Langer v. Kaufman, 465 F.2d 915, 175 USPQ 172 (CCPA 1972) . . . . . . . . . . . 2138.04

Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 24 USPQ2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . 2107.01 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Matzdorf et al 11/116,165 COLAIANNI 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Rancien et al 10/312,009 KRIVAK 103(a) Oliff & Berridge, P.L.C. EXAMINER GOINS, DAVETTA WOODS 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Robson et al 10/635,156 KERINS 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T