lovin, borden

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Erhan et al 11/717,524 WALSH 103(a) USDA-ARS-OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NATIONAL CTR FOR AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH EXAMINER CARR, DEBORAH D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Yilmaz et al 11/397,974 FREDMAN 103(a) Casimir Jones, S.C. EXAMINER YAO, LEI

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Dinger et al 10/711,956 KOHUT 102(b)/103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC For IBM EXAMINER REYES, MARIELA D

See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that interpreting 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) to require a more substantive argument than a naked assertion that the prior art fails to teach limitation in order to address a claim separately, is not an unreasonable interpretation of the rule). Additionally, any arguments not presented are waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative).
REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Morsa 09/832,440 CRAWFORD 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Steve Morsa EXAMINER OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

sullivan, rishoi, otto, ludtke, yanush, lovin

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1646 Ex Parte Tang et al 11/594,148 GREEN dissenting FREDMAN 101/112(1) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SEHARASEYON, JEGATHEESAN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11/478,401 COLAIANNI 103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER KUNEMUND, ROBERT M

1723 Ex Parte Thielert 10/520,853 HANLON 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER MERKLING, MATTHEW J

1727 Ex Parte Gao et al 11/106,225 COLAIANNI 112(2)/102(b) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M

“[W]hen an applicant puts forth relevant evidence . . . the Board must consider such evidence.” In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

1734 Ex Parte Irie et al 10/244,010 COLAIANNI 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

1761 Ex Parte Greene et al 11/427,944 COLAIANNI 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES INC EXAMINER AHVAZI, BIJAN

1789 Ex Parte O'SULLIVAN et al 11/388,857 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) Annette M. Frawley, Attorney General Mills EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Jeong et al 10/982,560 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T

2186 Ex Parte Nevill 10/781,867 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Boudreau et al 10/318,116 MORGAN 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2451 Ex Parte NISHIMURA et al 11/844,182 HUGHES 102(e) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Vega et al 10/697,010 DANG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ZHU, RICHARD Z

2628 Ex Parte LAMPING et al 09/124,805 STEPHENS 102(b) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C. EXAMINER WANG, JIN CHENG

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Gore et al 11/426,677 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a)/102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAM, THANH V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Hazama 09/817,123 KIM 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION EXAMINER MOSSER, ROBERT E

3764 Ex Parte Loyd et al 11/322,443 SAINDON 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Kazi et al 10/376,902 HOMERE 103(a) 102(e)/103(a) SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP EXAMINER PARDO, THUY N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Peterson et al 10/903,121 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 112(2) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER LUONG, VINH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Matos 10/841,326 SPAHN 112(2)/102(b)/102(e) 102(b)/102(e) INNOVAR, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIEN T

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Lizio et al 10/564,096 ADAMS 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER WESTERBERG, NISSA M

1638 Ex Parte Hillebrand et al 10/593,181 PRATS 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER WORLEY, CATHY KINGDON

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1742 Ex Parte Benavitz et al 11/757,143 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER HAUTH, GALEN H

1745 Ex Parte Harding et al 11/787,260 GUEST concurring TORCZON 103(a) The Jackson Patent Group EXAMINER BELL, WILLIAM P

Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).

Otto, In re, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2115

Ludtke, In re, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112.01

1798 Ex Parte Polat et al 10/740,261 GUEST 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2129 Ex Parte Vilalta et al 09/906,168 COURTENAY 112(1)/101/102(e) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER STARKS, WILBERT L

See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately.”).

2167 Ex Parte Bergholz 11/222,881 GONSALVES 103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER EXAMINER BADAWI, SHERIEF

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Washino 10/418,341 DANG 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P

2453 Ex Parte Issa 11/234,493 DANG 103(a) FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Toyozawa et al 10/541,092 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER CHOW, YUK

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Santurkar et al 11/244,572 DANG 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MAXIMILIAN R. PETERSON EXAMINER TAN, VIBOL

2855 Ex Parte Meinlschmidt et al 10/381,038 DANG 103(a) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER VERBITSKY, GAIL KAPLAN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Ledger et al 11/549,354 HOELTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER PHAN, HAU VAN

3635 Ex Parte Baratuci et al 11/305,041 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/490,165 BARRETT 103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3754 Ex Parte Dux et al 10/149,988 SPAHN 102(b) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER NICOLAS, FREDERICK C

3788 Ex Parte Mitten et al 11/025,743 ASTORINO 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

lockwood, advanced display, zenon, modine, festo, lovin

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Wiley 10/622,634 PAK 103(a) Oyen Wiggs Green & Mutala EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I

1785 Ex Parte Hsia et al 11/265,031 GARRIS 102(b) PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP EXAMINER RICKMAN, HOLLY C

1785 Ex Parte Poncelet et al 10/521,898 NAGUMO 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER JOY, DAVID J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Burdick et al 10/386,097 MORGAN 102(b) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Hakala et al 10/492,045 KIM 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) ERICSSON INC. EXAMINER ZIEGLE, STEPHANIE M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Almberg 10/225,203 BAHR 103(a) Ronald L. Grudziecki BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Curtius et al 10/583,636 HANLON 101/103(a) 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3713 Ex Parte 6344791 et al 95/000,217 and 95/000,222 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA First Requester and Respondent and MICROSOFT CORPORATION Second Requester v. Patent of ANASCAPE, LTD. PATENT OWNER: LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON THIRD PARTY REQUESTERS: NINTENDO COMPANY OF AMERICA MICHAEL J. KEENAN NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C. MICROSOFT CORPORATION KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original EXAMINER JONES, SCOTT E
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/375,657 WALSH 112(1)/103(a) Patricia A. Sweeney EXAMINER WORLEY, CATHY KINGDON

Where a textual description of an embodiment is absent, a showing that the missing description would have been obvious does not suffice. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.”).

“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 various documents.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The standard is whether one reasonably skilled in the art would understand the application as describing with sufficient particularity the material to be incorporated. Zenon Environmental, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (applying the Advanced Display standard and concluding that the material incorporated by reference was not the detail at issue but a separate and distinct element of the invention from that argued). Every concept of the incorporated patent is not necessarily imported. See Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[I]ncorporation by reference does not convert the invention of the incorporated patent into the invention of the host patent”), overruled on other grounds by Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Chou et al 11/157,893 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER NEGRELLI, KARA B

1781 Ex Parte Bijl et al 10/343,863 FREDMAN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

We are not persuaded. Appellants have not specifically identified which limitations of claim 24 are not taught by the prior art. See In re Lovin, 2011 WL 2937946, at *6 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2011) (appellant waived arguments for separate patentability by merely pointing out claim limitations and asserting the prior art did not disclose the limitations).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Ellson et al 11/198,045 ADAMS 103(a) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU

lantech, robertson, lovin

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Weber 10/928,999 SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Lee 11/025,123 GARRIS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW D. FORTNEY, PH.D., P.C. EXAMINER RAYMOND, BRITTANY L

1742 Ex Parte Funaoka et al 10/973,392 WARREN 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER HUSON, MONICA ANNE

1767 Ex Parte Herbiet et al 11/573,581 SCHEINER 103(a) ALBEMARLE CORPORATION EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Ferren et al 11/223,898 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL

When a claim requires two separate elements, mapping one disclosed element to both recited elements is improper. See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing only two means using one element twice).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)
2187 Ex Parte Kreuchauf et al 10/911,319 STEPHENS 102(e)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER THAMMAVONG, PRASITH

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Larson 10/449,025 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, MADELEINE ANH VINH

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Hunter et al 11/337,783 SAADAT 103(a) LARSON NEWMAN, LLP EXAMINER HUR, JUNG H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Batke et al 09/967,124 HOFF 103(a) ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./BF EXAMINER EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

3677 Ex Parte Tolan et al 10/688,032 ASTORINO 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BATSON, VICTOR D

3679 Ex Parte Maciag 10/839,079 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Rankin, Hill & Clark LLP EXAMINER DUNWOODY, AARON M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Zwilling et al 10/833,541 BLANKENSHIP 101/103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER LY, ANH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Burak et al 10/400,239 ASTORINO 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER COBURN, CORBETT B

3736 Ex Parte Ehrenberger et al 11/002,955 BAHR 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T

These vague statements do not constitute separate arguments for patentability of the dependent claims pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See In re Lovin, No. 2010-1499, 2011 WL 2937946, at *7
(Fed. Cir. Jul. 22, 2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Appellants have waived any argument for separate patentability of these dependent claims. See id.

3753 Ex Parte Schafer et al 10/697,376 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and Schoenebaum, P.L.C EXAMINER PRICE, CRAIG JAMES
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2875 Ex Parte 6830358 et al FIBER OPTIC DESIGNS, INC. and HOLIDAY CREATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. SEASONAL SPECIALTIES, LLC Requestor 95/000,137 EASTHOM 102(e)/103(a)/305 Liniak Berenato Longacre & White Third Party Requester: Patterson, Thuente, Skaar & Christensen, PA Attn: Bradley J. Thorson, Esq. EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER HUSAR, STEPHEN F
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Birke et al 11/352,845 COLAIANNI 102(b) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, REBECCA Y

1761 Ex Parte Morgan 11/506,064 SMITH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R

1771 Ex Parte Koshima et al 10/515,822 HANLON 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GOLOBOY, JAMES C

The Appellants do note that Tipton “fails to disclose or suggest the more specific succinimide compounds/compositions encompassed by claims 2, 3, 9 and 11.” App. Br. 7. However, this general assertion does not constitute a separate argument under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010). In re Lovin, No. 2010-1499, slip op. at 16 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 22, 2011)

1781 Ex Parte Skjervold et al 10/276,065 PAK 103(a)/112(1) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

1792 Ex Parte Nihei et al 11/063,572 PAK 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte LeCrone et al 10/955,470 HOMERE 103(a)/provisional obviousness double patenting MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC EXAMINER RUTZ, JARED IAN

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Sablak et al 10/306,509 KRIVAK 103(a) BAKER & DANIELS LLP EXAMINER PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Furry 11/298,862 KOHUT 112(1)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K
REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Stumvoll et al 10/027,625 GRIMES 103 PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP EXAMINER ROONEY, NORA MAUREEN