REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kish 11/654,431 ROBERTSON 103(a)/112(2) CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY EXAMINER GRESO, AARON J
“Such broadening usages as ‘about’ must be given reasonable scope; they must be viewed by the decisionmaker as they would be understood by persons experienced in the field of the invention. Although it is rarely feasible to attach a precise limit to ‘about,’ the usage can usually be understood in light of the technology embodied in the invention.” Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. ITC, 75 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted).
1777 Ex Parte Sirkar et al 11/189,213 NAGUMO 103(a) MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP STAMFORD EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kaminsky et al 10/321,356 DROESCH 102(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A
2494 Ex Parte Kruse 10/571,955 STEPHENS 101/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco PL EXAMINER ABRISHAMKAR, KAVEH
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lowe 10/847,542 NAPPI 103(a) Sheridan Ross P.C EXAMINER BROWN, VERNAL U
2614 Ex Parte Bruelle-Drews 10/528,870 HAHN 102(e) HARMAN - BRINKS HOFER INDY Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione EXAMINER LAO, LUN S
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Nevill-Manning 10/608,270 JEFFERY 103(a) 103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 12/104,068 GARRIS obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER DOTE, JANIS L
1722 Ex Parte Shirasagi et al 10/579,211 PAK GAUDETTE HASTINGS PER CURIAM 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER VERDERAME, ANNA L
1723 Ex Parte Maruyama 10/790,759 OWENS 103(a)/112(1) McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER MOWLA, GOLAM
1734 Ex Parte Takada et al 10/509,156 SMITH 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING
1745 Ex Parte Sias et al 11/015,845 SMITH 102(a)/102(b)/103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R
1762 Ex Parte Miller et al 11/129,121 HASTINGS 103(a)/112(1) BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD. EXAMINER NERANGIS, VICKEY MARIE
1781 Ex Parte Ootsuka et al 10/472,033 OWENS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER STULII, VERA
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/992,398 ROBERTSON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU N
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Barth et al 11/932,170 WINSOR 103(a) PATTERSON THUENTE CHRISTENSEN PEDERSEN, P.A. EXAMINER STULTZ, JESSICA T
2834 Ex Parte Zafferri 11/558,274 BAUMEISTER 103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER DESAI, NAISHADH N
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Naas et al 10/828,497 KIM 103(a) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER MERCHANT, SHAHID R
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Yamamoto et al 11/352,357 COCKS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER BASTIANELLI, JOHN
REHEARING
DENIED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Chane et al 10/306,752 POTHIER 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD EXAMINER AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K
Showing posts with label modine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label modine. Show all posts
Friday, January 20, 2012
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
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
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
Friday, July 8, 2011
modine, pall corp
REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/11/2011 2111 Ex Parte Barzaghi et al 10/006,583 POTHIER 102(e)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER KNOLL, CLIFFORD H
07/08/2011 2128 Ex Parte Walacavage et al 09/966,121 DANG 102(e) Daniel H. Bliss Bliss McGlynn P.C. EXAMINER GEBRESILASSIE, KIBROM K
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/11/2011 2437 Ex Parte Evans et al 10/178,804 NAPPI 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER ABYANEH, ALI S
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/11/2011 3687 Ex Parte ZHANG 12/100,139 KIM 102(b) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd EXAMINER PARIKH, HARSHAD R
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/07/2011 1611 Ex Parte Uchida et al 11/731,595 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA
However, “[s]uch broadening usages as ‘about’ must be given reasonable scope; they must be viewed by the decisionmaker as they would be understood by persons experienced in the field of the invention.” Modine Manufacturing Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm., 75 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
“The use of the word ‘about,’ avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter. Its range must be interpreted in its technologic and stylistic context…. It is appropriate to consider the effects of varying that parameter, for the inventor’s intended meaning is relevant.” Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/11/2011 1796 Ex Parte Chatterji et al 11/698,615 KRATZ 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/08/2011 3682 Ex Parte Nakamura 11/455,371 KIM 102(b)/103(a) Perman & Green, LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL
REHEARING
GRANTED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/08/2011 2186 Ex Parte Becker 10/975,760 LUCAS 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER TSAI, SHENG JEN
GRANTED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/11/2011 3688 Ex Parte Robb et al 10/127,726 FETTING 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER VIG, NARESH
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/11/2011 2111 Ex Parte Barzaghi et al 10/006,583 POTHIER 102(e)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER KNOLL, CLIFFORD H
07/08/2011 2128 Ex Parte Walacavage et al 09/966,121 DANG 102(e) Daniel H. Bliss Bliss McGlynn P.C. EXAMINER GEBRESILASSIE, KIBROM K
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/11/2011 2437 Ex Parte Evans et al 10/178,804 NAPPI 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER ABYANEH, ALI S
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/11/2011 3687 Ex Parte ZHANG 12/100,139 KIM 102(b) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd EXAMINER PARIKH, HARSHAD R
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/07/2011 1611 Ex Parte Uchida et al 11/731,595 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA
However, “[s]uch broadening usages as ‘about’ must be given reasonable scope; they must be viewed by the decisionmaker as they would be understood by persons experienced in the field of the invention.” Modine Manufacturing Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm., 75 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
“The use of the word ‘about,’ avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter. Its range must be interpreted in its technologic and stylistic context…. It is appropriate to consider the effects of varying that parameter, for the inventor’s intended meaning is relevant.” Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/11/2011 1796 Ex Parte Chatterji et al 11/698,615 KRATZ 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/08/2011 3682 Ex Parte Nakamura 11/455,371 KIM 102(b)/103(a) Perman & Green, LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL
REHEARING
GRANTED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/08/2011 2186 Ex Parte Becker 10/975,760 LUCAS 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER TSAI, SHENG JEN
GRANTED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/11/2011 3688 Ex Parte Robb et al 10/127,726 FETTING 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER VIG, NARESH
Thursday, May 20, 2010
modine, rinehart, syntex, gurley, fulton,
REVERSED
Ex Parte Ware et al 11/142,651 GRIMES 112(2)/102(b)/102(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER CHEN, SHIN LIN
“Such broadening usages as ‘about’ must be given reasonable scope; they must be viewed by the decisionmaker as they would be understood by persons experienced in the field of the invention. Although it is rarely feasible to attach a precise limit to ‘about,’ the usage can usually be understood in light of the technology embodied in the invention.” Modine Manufacturing Co. v. U.S. ITC, 75 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Lawrence et al 10/399,797 TIMM 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNENHULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Kelly 10/820,484 BAUMEISTER 103(a) Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER ANDUJAR, LEONARDO
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Peart et al 10/759,280 ADAMS obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY
Obviousness does not require absolute predictability; however, at least some degree of predictability is required. Evidence showing there was no reasonable expectation of success can support a conclusion of non-obviousness. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1053-54 (CCPA 1976).
Rinehart, In re, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2142, 2143.02, 2144.04
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte McElroy 10/368,425 LANE 103(a)/102(e) Foley and Lardner, LLP EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D
When a reference teaches away
it suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant's invention. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A statement that a particular combination is not a preferred embodiment does not teach away absent clear discouragement of that combination.In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1199-1200.Syntex LLC v. Apotex, Inc. 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145
Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . 2123, 2141.02, 2143.01, 2145
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)