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

harza, e-pass, curry, mathias

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Krebs et al 10/845,068 COLAIANNI 103(a) WILSONART INTERNATIONAL, INC. C/O WELSH & FLAXMAN, LLC EXAMINER SAMPLE, DAVID R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Vera 11/244,946 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER WU, YICUN

2161 Ex Parte McAllister et al 10/943,054 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BIBBEE, JARED M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte Boer et al 10/672,657 KRIVAK 101/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER SINKANTARAKORN, PAWARIS

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Scirica 11/580,592 ASTORINO 102(b) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Balthes et al 10/287,250 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Boccasam et al 11/244,060 FISCHETTI 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Steven P. Arnheim Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP EXAMINER WU, YICUN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Rippolone 10/787,429 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER GILBERT, WILLIAM V

The Examiner relies on In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) to provide reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Bortugno’s system to duplicate parts. (Id.). The Examiner does not analogize the facts in Harza to the facts in this appeal.

The Appellant contends the “reasoning for duplication of parts does not apply.” (App. Br. 7). In Harza, the court held that “[i]t is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance.” Harza , 274 F.2d at 671 (italics added). The Appellant points out that the three gutter sections recited in claims 7 and 8 “are different and not duplicates.” (Id.).
...

These modifications are far beyond the holding in Harza, which is limited to a mere duplication of parts.

Harza, In re, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04
3685 Ex Parte Cihula 10/746,077 CRAWFORD 103(a) LAWRENCE CHO ATTORNEY AT LAW C/O CPA GLOBAL EXAMINER WINTER, JOHN M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Kast et al 10/836,127 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER KAHELIN, MICHAEL WILLIAM
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Letant et al 11/140,391 MILLS 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER
LAM, ANN Y

1745 Ex Parte Stull et al 11/157,004 WARREN 103(a) Integrated Turf Solutions, LLC EXAMINER TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1767 Ex Parte Good et al 10/968,658 COLAIANNI 103(a) HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK

1716 Ex Parte Mikhaylichenko et al 10/816,487 COLAIANNI nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) MARTINE PENILLA & GENCARELLA, LLP EXAMINER MACARTHUR, SYLVIA

1796 Ex Parte Adkins et al 10/687,156 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Lin et al 11/398,138 DANG 102(e)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER PHANTANA ANGKOOL, DAVID

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Zafar et al 10/717,242 KOHUT 102(e) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER GESESSE, TILAHUN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Bowers et al 10/365,088 GAY ANN SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) WM. CATES RAMBO EXAMINER SILBERMANN, JOANNE

3621 Ex parte MILLER 10/192,185 PETRAVICK 103(a) Edwin H. Taylor BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J

Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) (“The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”). We decline to read the three criteria argued by the Appellant into the claims.

E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . .2106, 2111.01

See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1275 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (“Common situations involving nonfunctional descriptive material are: - a computer-readable storage medium that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material, such as music or a literary work, encoded on the medium, - a computer that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the machine functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not reconfigure the computer), or - a process that differs from the prior art only with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the process steps are to be performed to achieve the utility of the invention. Thus, if the prior art suggests storing a song on a disk, merely choosing a particular song to store on the disk would be presumed to be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is simply a rearrangement of nonfunctional descriptive material.).” See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative).
3633 Ex Parte Broad et al 10/871,401 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) DOBRUSIN & THENNISCH PC EXAMINER FIGUEROA, ADRIANA

3686 Ex Parte Bocionek et al 10/337,132 FISCHETTI 103(a) Alexander J. Burke Siemens Corporation EXAMINER LE, LINH GIANG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Zander et al 10/749,871 GREENHUT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
REHEARING

DENIED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Sullivan et al 11/517,723 McCARTHY 102(b) Bay Area Technology Law Group PC EXAMINER BUCKLE JR, JAMES J

DENIED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3667 Ex Parte Choban et al 10/130,463 CRAWFORD 103(a) David C Jenkins Eckert Seamans Cherrin & Mellott EXAMINER CHEUNG, MARY DA ZHI WANG

NEW

REVERSED

3781 Ex Parte Borowski et al 11/039,426 STAICOVICI 103(a) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC EXAMINER SMALLEY, JAMES N

1785 Ex Parte Burch et al 11/796,639 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM

1777 Ex Parte Kraft 11/873,117 NAGUMO 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2612 Ex Parte Batra et al 11/423,411 DROESCH 103(a) Zilka-Kotab, PC EXAMINER LU, SHIRLEY

AFFIRMED

1777 Ex Parte Apffel 11/580,857 COLAIANNI 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER XU, XIAOYUN

1613 Ex Parte Bernstein 10/813,760 WALSH 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER KWON, BRIAN YONG S

1731 Ex Parte Braganca et al 10/518,443 WARREN 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

3628 Ex Parte Ogg 10/677,829 LORIN 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER VETTER, DANIEL

REHEARING

3654 Ex Parte Meckler 10/794,872 O’NEILL HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN EXAMINER HAUGLAND, SCOTT J

warmerdam, foster, lowry, ngai, mathias,

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Han et al 11158047 OWENS 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER WEDDLE, ALEXANDER MARION 

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

Ex Parte Davis et al 11086943 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) JACKSON WALKER LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Butzer et al 11062777 HASTINGS 103(a) Mr. Edward J. Timmer EXAMINER D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Heikes et al 11021009 HUGHES 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER TAKELE, MESEKER 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Park 10377746 DIXON 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N 

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

Ex Parte Eisenberg et al 09974321 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER BUCHANAN, CHRISTOPHER R 

According to current Office policy, computer programs per se are not considered patentable subject matter under §101, as they are in themselves purely non-functional descriptive constructs. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 2009, at 2, available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/2009-08-25_interim_101_instructions.pdf. Also see MPEP § 2106.01 (I), citing In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

Ex Parte Foster et al 09931123 LORIN 101/103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP EXAMINER FELTEN, DANIEL S 

Patentable weight need not be given to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate (here the system). See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1338. See also, Ex parte Mathias, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (CCPA sic [Fed. Cir.] 2006). 

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01 

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01