spada, king, ludtke, fresenius, schering

custom search

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Carpenter et al 10271832 - (D) GRIMES 112(1)/102 Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. c/o Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP GUPTA, ANISH

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Luo et al 10996218 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY MENDEZ, ZULMARIAM

1726 Ex Parte Fukumoto et al 11520571 - (D) HOUSEL 103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP RHEE, JANE J

1782 Ex Parte Wang et al 10241278 - (D) BEST 102/103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. PATTERSON, MARC A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Doerfler et al 11213168 - (D) KIM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN JACKSON, ERNEST ADEYEMI

3635 Ex Parte Near et al 11731066 - (D) SAINDON 103 JOHNS MANVILLE KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Clague et al 10694037 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 Medtronic CardioVascular NGUYEN, TUAN VAN

3734 Ex Parte Valencia 11526326 - (D) SCHEINER 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

3739 Ex Parte Scott et al 11238698 - (D) MILLS 112(2)/102/103 PATENT DEPT - INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS GOOD, SAMANTHA M

3763 Ex Parte Kusleika 10825309 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

3773 Ex Parte Vogel et al 11363426 - (D) SAINDON 102/103 Klaus J. Bach MASHACK, MARK F

“[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971)). In this case, however, the Examiner has not shown a sound basis to shift the burden to Appellants.

Spada, In re, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112.01

King, In re, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir.1986) . . . . . . .1206, 2112.02, 2131.01

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

3778 Ex Parte Calvert 11277571 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP HAND, MELANIE JO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Czyzewski et al 11044396 - (D) OWENS 103 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION RIGGLEMAN, JASON PAUL

1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11201767 - (D) PAK 103 103/obviousness-type double patenting MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Schoenfeld 10693423 - (D) GONSALVES 103 103 Fogarty, L.L.C. VU, VIET DUY

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 10925905 - (D) GREEN 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE SKIBINSKY, ANNA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Prohaska et al 11169936 - (D) OWENS 103 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC OLSEN, KAJ K

1774 Ex Parte Martin et al 10006875 - (D) ROBERTSON 102/103 CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. DUONG, THANH P

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Poerner et al 10666227 - (D) McNAMARA 103 Siemens Corporation LO, WEILUN

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Young 10621227 - (D) McNAMARA 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. INGVOLDSTAD, BENNETT

2457 Ex Parte Orhomuru 09862789 - (D) DIXON 102/103 WILLIAMSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, LLC JACOBS, LASHONDA T

We first note that Appellant employs the Markush group format in claim 5 by reciting “selecting an operation from the group consisting of accessing data . . . , posting data . . . , updating data . . . , deleting data . . . , and combinations thereof.” See MPEP § 2173.05(h)(I). Accordingly, Xu discloses the “selecting” step if Xu discloses selecting one of the recited operations in the group. See Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (2009) (“[T]he entire element is disclosed by the prior art if one alternative in the Markush group is in the prior art.”) (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . .2112

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte HASHIGUCHI et al 09166233 - (D) MORRISON 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC MILLER, WILLIAM L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Wilson et al 11606620 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EASTWOOD, DAVID C

3737 Ex Parte Tarakci et al 11189437 - (D) ADAMS 112(2)/103 CARR & FERRELL LLP HUNTLEY, DANIEL CARROLL

3778 Ex Parte Song et al 10902998 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY HAND, MELANIE JO
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Davenport et al 10121325 - (D) WALSH 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY FUBARA, BLESSING M

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

Jung, hyatt, frye, PPG, herz, de lajarte, hoffman, schreiber, ludtke, hallman

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/702,607 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Chalupsky et al 10/656,652 DANG 102(e)/103(a) Caven & Aghevli LLC c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WHIPPLE, BRIAN P
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brady et al 10/217,795 KRIVAK 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - JW EXAMINER TRAN, QUOC DUC
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2163 Ex parte NETAPP, INC. 90/009,129 7,174,352 EASTHOM 112(2)/305/102(b) PATENT OWNER CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER RONALD L. YIN DLA PIPER US LLP EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER LE, UYEN T

By failing to "articulate what gaps, in fact exist" between Gait and these claims, Appellant fails to show error, when as here, the Examiner put Appellant on notice as to how the claims were being treated. See In re Jung, No. 2011-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 * 4, 5 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2011). In Jung, the appellant at least alleged a gap existed, "but chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this difference." Id. at * 7. The failure to allege such a gap exists constitutes an effective waiver. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.")

Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . 2163.04

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Bamba et al 10/182,908 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER VERA AFREMOVA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Guthrie 10/816,403 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) M. P. Williams EXAMINER

WALKER, KEITH D

1761 Ex Parte Yang et al 10/951,849 KRATZ 103(a) ARKEMA INC. EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A

Concerning the first issue and the claim term “consisting essentially of”, it is well settled that the term “consisting essentially of” is interpreted as allowing for the inclusion not only of those ingredients specifically recited, but also those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of a claimed invention. PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52 (CCPA 1976). However, the burden is on Appellants to show what the basic and novel characteristics are and how they would be materially changed by the ingredient of the reference sought to be excluded from inclusion by Appellants’ use of this term. See In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74 (CCPA 1964); Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d 1061, 1063-64 (BPAI 1989).

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . .2111.03, 2163

Herz, In re, 537 F.2d 549, 190 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

Hoffman, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1061 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03
1767 Ex Parte Haider et al 11/315,639 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

1789 Ex Parte De Haan et al 10/380,883 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

Choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk: Where there is reason to conclude that the structure of the prior art is inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

Ludtke, In re, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112.01
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Zilavy 10/984,478 DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J