lowry, ngai

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Ellers-Lenz et al 12733646 - (D) TOWNSEND 103/double patenting THE FIRM OF HUESCHEN AND SAGE N ANOV A, SVETLANA M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte Muralimanohar et al 13092912 - (D) KHAN 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise GEBRIL, MOHAMED M

2184 Ex Parte Grohman et al 12603468 - (D) DIXON 103 Betty E. Ungerman MAMO, ELIAS

As such, the Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582- 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious).

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.05

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2112.01

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2668 Ex Parte THOMA et al 13547195 - (D) KUMAR 103 KEATING & BENNETT, LLP SCHOPPE, ZIMMERMANN , STOCKELER & ZINKLER LESNICK, ALEXANDER J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Karlsson 13679948 - (D) MacDONALD 101/251 Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook CARLSON, JEFFREY D

OPQA Ex Parte OKIGAMI 13907583 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP GUILLERMETY, FRED

ngai, gulack, lowry, curry, mathias

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Morgan 10979014 - (D) WIEDER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Kallio et al 13411189 - (D) COURTENAY 102 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP MONIKANG, GEORGE C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Zuge et al 12010930 - (D) BROWNE 103 Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP DICKSON, PAUL N

3682 Ex Parte Stefanik et al 12235159 - (D) BAHR 103 AT&T Legal Department - G&G MYHRE, JAMES W

Our reviewing court has held that nonfunctional descriptive material cannot lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability). ...

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2112.01

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2112.01

Unlike the data structures in In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the user information of Appellants’ invention does not “provide increased efficiency in computer operation[s].” See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1580, 1584; cf. Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274–75 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (discussing computer-related situations involving nonfunctional descriptive material); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (same).

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.05

3686 Ex Parte Jung et al 11906112 - (D) PRAISS 112(1)/112(2)/101/102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC PATEL, NEHA

3686 Ex Parte Jung et al 11904016 - (D) PRAISS 112(2)/101/102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC PATEL, NEHA

3686 Ex Parte Jung et al 11524084 - (D) PRAISS 101/102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC PATEL, NEHA

lowry

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Strang 10469592 - (D) HANLON 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. MOORE, KARLA A

1735 Ex Parte Kolbeck et al 12742760 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. GAMINO, CARLOS J

1782 Ex Parte Iwasa et al 11700050 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 SUGHRUE-265550 YAGER, JAMES C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte CONROY et al 12057146 - (D) CHEN 102/103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BARTELS, CHRISTOPHER A.

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Lakshman et al 11147768 - (D) REIMERS 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. FAN, HUA

2484 Ex Parte Blattman et al 11445659 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY SHIBRU, HELEN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Desgranges et al 11419017 - (D) SMITH 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION PRENDERGAST, ROBERTA D

2647 Ex Parte Roufoogaran et al 11753626 - (D) HUGHES 102/103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP (Broadcom) HSIEH, PING Y

2671 Ex Parte Enomoto et al 10384657 - (D) ADAMS 103 OLIFF PLC DHINGRA, PAWANDEEP

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2800 Ex Parte Ijzerman et al 11995574 - (D) WARREN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS FINEMAN, LEE A

2828 Ex Parte Zhang et al 12593431 - (D) PAK 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C HAGAN, SEAN P

2833 Ex Parte WEI 12502933 - (D) BEST 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. KAYES, SEAN PHILLIP

2843 Ex Parte Puzella et al 12694450 - (D) WARREN 103 RAYTHEON COMPANY C/O DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP JONES, STEPHEN E

2851 Ex Parte Cote et al 12352538 - (D) OWENS 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 BEVER HOFFMAN & HARMS, LLP AISAKA, BRYCE M

2854 Ex Parte Kiemele et al 10554276 - (D) KAISER dissenting WARREN 103 Cozen O'Connor EVANISKO, LESLIE J

2866 Ex Parte Owens et al 12271533 - (D) NAGUMO 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(b) Rankin, Hill & Clark LLP BALDRIDGE, BENJAMIN M

2875 Ex Parte Purchase et al 12506915 - (D) WARREN 102(e)/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC GRAMLING, SEAN P

2886 Ex Parte Lewis et al 12775582 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 AT & T Legal Department - WS LAPAGE, MICHAEL P

2886 Ex Parte Hayward et al 12795114 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 AT & T Legal Department - WS LAPAGE, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Aviv et al 11775997 - (D) MOHANTY 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD DELICH, STEPHANIE ZAGARELLA

3633 Ex Parte Zirbel et al 11943954 - (D) JUNG 103 Monahan & Company, LLC IHEZIE, JOSHUA K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 Ex Parte Eisenhut 11294331 - (D) KERINS 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC LE, HUYEN D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Dai et al 11787381 - (D) POLLOCK 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 WYETH LLC PFIZER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BROWE, DAVID

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Liberty et al 11820515 - (D) FRAHM 112(2)/103 102 Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC SITTA, GRANT

2666 Ex Parte Binnig et al 11807096 - (D) DIXON 103 102/103 IMPERIUM PATENT WORKS NAKHJAVAN, SHERVIN K

The informational content of non–functional descriptive material is not entitled to weight in the patentability analysis. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Lowry does not claim merely the information content of a memory. . . . Nor does he seek to patent the content of information resident in a database.”).

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.05

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Furman 11550120 - (D) REIMERS 103 103 HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN MAYE, AYUB A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Brady et al 12168619 - (D) POLLOCK 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP TRAN, SUSAN T

Thus, although we consider all claim limitations when determining patentability, Appellants’ non-functional descriptive designations are not entitled to weight in the analysis. Cf. In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Lowry’s data structures are physical entities that provide increased efficiency in computer operation. They are not analogous to printed matter.”)

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.05

1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11487180 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 Dorsey & Whitney / INVENTION SCIENCE FUND BORIN, MICHAEL L

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Brownell et al 12011619 - (D) NAGUMO 103 Ronald Bakule - The Dow Chemical Company WALTERS JR, ROBERT S

1718 Ex Parte Buhay et al 10422096 - (D) GARRIS 103 PPG Industries, Inc. TUROCY, DAVID P

1726 Ex Parte Kejha et al 10552114 - (D) DELMENDO 112(2)/103 RATNERPRESTIA DOVE, TRACY MAE

1735 Ex Parte Chen et al 12250750 - (D) SMITH 103 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. GAMINO, CARLOS J

1762 Ex Parte Chakravarti et al 11782668 - (D) McGRAW 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - SABIC (CPP) YOON, TAE H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Headd et al 11137888 - (D) FISHMAN 103 DUNLAP CODDING, P.C. OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE

2158 Ex Parte Tripathi 11597674 - (D) STRAUSS 102(e)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HASAN, SYED HAROON

2159 Ex Parte Alexander et al 11770978 - (D) YANG 103 Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Oracle) BURKE, JEFF A

2184 Ex Parte Kale et al 12049440 - (D) DIXON 103 STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION RHU, KRIS M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Erlingsson 10456805 - (D) DIXON 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. ALMEIDA, DEVIN E

2433 Ex Parte Maitland et al 10762364 - (D) DIXON 103 Wolff & Samson (ALU) TRAN, ELLEN C

2454 Ex Parte Brown et al 12324183 - (D) BAYAT 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP PATEL, CHIRAG R

2466 Ex Parte McGee et al 11320649 - (D) CHUNG 103 CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC OH, ANDREW CHUNG SUK

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Kim et al 10813280 - (D) DIXON 102(e)/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. RICHER, AARON M

2643 Ex Parte Tenny 11673532 - (D) BUI 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED TAYLOR, NATHAN SCOTT

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2800 Ex Parte Haran et al 12575026 - (D) KRATZ 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY TAMAI, KARL I

2814 Ex Parte Jung 11987998 - (D) WARREN 103 ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM WEISS, HOWARD

2828 Ex Parte Oron et al 12159412 - (D) BEST 103 OLIFF PLC CARTER, MICHAEL W

2829 Ex Parte Andrews et al 11563840 - (D) HOUSEL 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. CHI, SUBERR L

2829 Ex Parte Sun 12540517 - (D) HOUSEL 102/103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP MAI, ANH D

2837 Ex Parte BATES et al 12202854 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 GRIFFITHS & SEATON PLLC (IBM) RO, BENTSU

2848 Ex Parte Rendek et al 12016089 - (D) FRANKLIN dissenting NAGUMO 103 ADDMG - 27975 SEMENENKO, YURIY

2853 Ex Parte Nielsen et al 11505258 - (D) WARREN 112(1) 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LEGESSE, HENOK D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Cohn et al 11684004 - (D) MEDLOCK 102(e) WHITHAM, CURTIS, CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Kludjian et al 12898605 - (D) MURPHY 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN PAYER, HWEI-SIU C

3734 Ex Parte Nishiki 10687748 - (D) JENKS 102(e)/103 Clyde I. Coughenour OBU, KENDRA NNEAMAKA

3773 Ex Parte Meade et al 11993003 - (D) McCOLLUM 102/103 Rutan & Tucker, LLP. TYSON, MELANIE RUANO

3773 Ex Parte Cauldwell et al 12120293 - (D) LaVIER 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Takahashi et al 12093568 - (R) SMITH 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC MULLINS, BURTON S

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 SYMED LABS LIMITED Requester and Respondent v. GRÜNENTHAL GMBH Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7417170 et al 11/294,449 95002077 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2)/314(a) 103/112(2) Patent Owner and Third Party Requester: HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP HUANG, EVELYN MEI original DAVIS, BRIAN J

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. MICHELLE K. LEE, Deputy Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office Ex Parte 6260097 et al 09/514,872 95001134 - (D) EASTHOM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(f) 103 Paul M. Anderson, PLLC Third Party Requester: HAYNES AND BOONE LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 QUEST SOFTWARE, INC. Requester and Respondent v. CENTRIFY CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,591,005 et al 11/262,000 95001434 - (D) McKEOWN 102/103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: COOLEY LLP RIMELL, SAMUEL G original SONG, HOSUK

gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Burgess et al 11272764 - (D) HASTINGS 103 GENERAL MILLS, INC. LEFF, STEVEN N

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte Szczesniak et al 11199938 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP PREVAL, LIONEL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Pasqualino et al 12034327 - (D) BOUDREAU 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation MEHRA, INDERP

2691 Ex Parte Lagnado 11249594 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY JOHNSON, ALLISON WALTHALL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Sundstrom 11424019 - (D) KATZ 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG SANDVIK, BENJAMIN P

2859 Ex Parte Ghabra et al 12415164 - (D) GARRIS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION TORRESRUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Kogan et al 11320028 - (D) FETTING 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG ROTARU, OCTAVIAN

In a non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969), and In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) decisions. We have held that patent applicants cannot rely on printed matter to distinguish a claim unless “there exists [a] new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 ([Fed. Cir. 1983]) . . . .
. . . .
. . . [T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.” . . . ; [see] In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 ([Fed. Cir. 1994]) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, . . . 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).

In re Xiao, 462 Fed. Appx. 947, 950–52 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential). Thus, non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight. 

gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao, king, ngai

the blogger search function has been broken for months, google knows this, to search for names (ie examiner's name or a company) use custom search (google cse) below.  to search for cases use tabs above

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Gadkaree et al 12599896 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CORNING INCORPORATED SAHA, BIJAY S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Ha et al 11307382 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP ULLAH, ELIAS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Ryan et al 12070387 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 Medtronic CardioVascular WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Potekhin et al 10144561 - (D) KOHUT 112(1)/103 101 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. TANG, KAREN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Xu et al 11707812 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 112(2)/obviousness-type double patenting GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC LEUNG, WAI LUN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Yamashita et al 12217899 - (D) GARRIS 102 102 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. DUNLAP, JONATHAN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Fitzpatrick 11213577 - (D) FETTING 103 102 MACCORD MASON PLLC IWARERE, OLUSEYE

Finally, while claim 1 does recite “transaction data that represents a single client expenditure with a merchant in exchange for a plurality of products,” the manner or degree of representation is unspecified, and there is no recital of a sale, only an expenditure in exchange for products. Thus, this limitation is aspirational instead of functional or structural, and is perceptible only in the mind of the beholder.

In a non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir.1983), In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969) and In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) decisions. We have held that patent applicants cannot rely on printed matter to distinguish a claim unless “there exists [a] new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed.Cir.1983)

[T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.”. . . . see In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1994) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).

In re Xiao, 2011-1195 WL 4821929, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Non-precedential). Thus non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight. “The rationale behind this line of cases is preventing the indefinite patenting of known products by the simple inclusion of novel, yet functionally unrelated limitations.” King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed Cir 2010). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (The relevant inquiry here is whether the additional instructional limitation has a “new and unobvious functional relationship” with the method, that is, whether the limitation in no way depends on the method, and the method does not depend on the limitation).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) , 2112.01
DONNER 7: 153, 175 8: 1000

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
DONNER 6: 179; 8: 395, 1924

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

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) , 2112.01
DONNER 7: 153, 175 8: 1000

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1768 Ex Parte Shiping 11862389 - (D) McKELVEY 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP NERANGIS, VICKEY M

1784 Ex Parte Zhai et al 10912576 - (D) KALAN 103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP SAMPLE, DAVID R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Klein et al 11781374 - (D) HUME 102/103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA TSAI, SHENG JEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Pantalone et al 11469680 - (D) STRAUSS 103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP ZHOU, YONG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Kraufvelin 11436772 - (D) BUI 103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. TORRES, MARCOS L

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Requester, Respondent v. PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001654 6,890,324 09/894,042 MARTIN 305/102/103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P. WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original KIDWELL, MICHELE M

lowry, bernhart, king

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Delvat 11480415 - (D) FISHMAN 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP BUI, THUY T

2183 Ex Parte GSCHWIND 11762137 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. TREAT, WILLIAM M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Kamins et al 11584148 - (D) HOUSEL 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PHAM, LONG

2899 Ex Parte Ruelke et al 11082156 - (D) NAGUMO 102 GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC. c/o Amerson Law Firm, PLLC SNOW, COLLEEN ERIN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Yamamoto et al 11814689 - (D) GREEN 101/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. POON, PETER M

3657 Ex Parte Russell 11837892 - (D) SMEGAL 102/103 LORD CORPORATION WILLIAMS, THOMAS J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte MCCLANAHAN et al 11952548 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 Conley Rose, P.C. KIM,CHONG R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Jung et al 12055204 - (D) COURTENAY 101/112(1)/102/obviousness-type double patenting IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC KYLE, TAMARA TESLOVICH

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Lesieur 11904835 - (D) HASTINGS 103 M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC KOLB, NATHANIEL J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Shastry 11964232 - (D) LORIN 103 Haynes & Boone, LLP FIELDS,BENJAMIN S
AFFIRMED 3626 Ex Parte Gombar 11083438 - (D) KIM 101/103 KELLY & KELLEY, LLP RAPILLO, KRISTINE K

3679 Ex Parte Laible et al 12085642 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION FERGUSON, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Liccardo 11466476 - (D) BAHR 103 Graham Curtin, P.A. GARNER, WERNER G

Citing In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994), Appellant argues that the principle of non-functional descriptive material (i.e., printed matter) is not applicable to the present case because, in the present application, “whatever can be considered printed matter is generated and processed by a computer.” App. Br. 13-14. However, Lowry does not, as Appellant suggests, stand for the proposition that the “printed matter” cases have no application in situations involving computer systems and data stored on a memory. In the Lowry case, the Federal Circuit determined that Lowry’s data structures, a plurality of attribute data objects (ADOs), were not analogous to printed matter because they perform a function and “provide increased efficiency in computer operations.” Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1580, 1584. In determining that the data structures were not analogous to printed matter, the court noted that “Lowry’s ADOs do not represent merely underlying data in a database.” Id. at 1583; see also id. (“Indeed, Lowry does not seek to patent the Attributive data model in the abstract. Nor does he seek to patent the content of information resident in a database. Rather, Lowry's data structures impose a physical organization on the data.”). In the claims before us, the recited rendering of each of the characters “in a uniform representative of a different manual labor trade” is merely the display of underlying graphics data stored in a memory. This uniform data does not functionally affect the operation of the memory or the processor. As noted by the Examiner, the graphics that “decorate the characters” are “purely cosmetic” and do not change the underlying fighting game at all. Ans. 14. Stated differently, this graphics data is “useful and intelligible only to the human mind,” and thus cannot impart patentability to Appellant’s claimed gaming method. Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583 (quoting In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)); see also King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (confirming that the rationale underlying the printed matter cases extends to method claims as well).

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.05
DONNER 6: 282, 283, 345-48, 687, 695, 696, 698-700, 708, 771
HARMON 2: 15, 61; 4: 205

Bernhart, In re, 417 F.2d 1395, 163 USPQ 611 (CCPA 1969) 2173.05(j)
DONNER 2: 469; 6: 282, 346, 392, 698; 10: 1139

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

3724 Ex Parte Roefer et al 11986901 - (D) JUNG 103 Michael J. Bendel, Esq. FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR

gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Rimpler et al 10344884 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C BASQUILL, SEAN M

1655 Ex Parte Morazzoni et al 10587468 - (D) GRIMES 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON MI, QIUWEN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1729 Ex Parte Cartwright et al 11562645 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER

1774 Ex Parte Freeman et al 11893230 - (D) OWENS 103 SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP CLEVELAND, TIMOTHY C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Kashi 11224160 - (D) PRATS 103 Cohen, Pontani, Lieberman & Pavane STORK, KYLER

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte BOUCHAT et al 11943395 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Ogren 10857299 - (D) FETTING 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Dryja Patents SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Raab 11587410 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ALI, MOHAMMAD M

3769 Ex Parte Dai et al 11332824 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 AMO / Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP SHAY, DAVID M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1732 Ex Parte Martin 12260162 - (D) PAK 103 obviousnesstype double patenting MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP BRUNSMAN, DAVID M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Bauman et al 11386280 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. BURCH, MELODY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Albrecht et al 11276042 - (D) McCARTHY 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) JENNISON,BRIAN W

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1765 Ex Parte Ziegler et al 12053822 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC BUTTNER, DAVID J

1765 Ex Parte Gallucci 11744354 - (D) McKELVEY 103 SABIC Innovative Plastics BUTTNER, DAVID J

1767 Ex Parte DAI-ICHI F R Co., LTD. 11398585 McKELVEY 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

1776 Ex Parte Kolesinski et al 11895209 - (D) TIMM 103 Gaetano D. Maccarone THERKORN, ERNEST G

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Brown et al 11751284 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC GOODCHILD, WILLIAM J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2667 Ex Parte Gaukroger 10561495 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP RUSH, ERIC

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Bhan et al 10734811 - (D) FETTING 112(2) 103 WILMERHALE/BOSTON OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

3684 Ex Parte Graff 10885569 - (D) FETTING 112(2) 103/obviousness-type double patenting PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M

In a recent non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969) and In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) decisions.

We have held that patent applicants cannot rely on printed matter to distinguish a claim unless “there exists [a] new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed.Cir.1983). . . .
. . . .
. . . [T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.” . . . ; see In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1994) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, . . . 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).

In re Xiao, 2011-1195 WL 4821929, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Non precedential).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) , 2112.01
DONNER 6: 280, 281, 340-44, 355-57; 7: 763-65
HARMON 2: 15, 46; 3: 21; 4: 199; 6: 74

Bernhart, In re, 417 F.2d 1395, 163 USPQ 611 (CCPA 1969) 2173.05(j)
DONNER 13: 162

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.05
DONNER 6: 282, 283, 345-48, 687, 695, 696, 698-700, 708, 771
HARMON 2: 15, 61; 4: 205

3684 Ex Parte Zellner et al 10750695 - (D) SMEGAL 103 AT&T Legal Department - CC NGUYEN, NGA B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Di Serio 10180878 - (D) TARTAL 103 HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI PC OMGBA, ESSAMA