mostafazadeh, youman

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1745 Ex Parte Winter et al 11316077 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP CAILLOUET, CHRISTOPHER C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Snyder 11513423 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ALAM, SHAHID AL

The recapture test was recently clarified by the Federal Circuit. See In re Shahram Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335 (Fed Cir. 2012).
Mostafazadeh HARMON 18:23

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Usuda et al 12202484 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 CERMAK NAKAJIMA LLP ACS LLC PARAS JR, PETER

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1789 Ex Parte Shannon et al 11848953 - (D) TIMM 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. COLE, ELIZABETH M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Cheng et al 11388084 - (D) BROWNE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2621 HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K.K. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. APERIO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000517 6917696 10/798,457 COCKS 103 112(1)/103 37 C.F.R. 41.77(b) 103 Procopio / Leica Biosystmes Imaging, Inc. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original LU, TOM Y

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex parte I-WITNESS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 90011951 6,389,340 09/405,857 09/020,700 WHITE 103 VAN PELT, YI & JAMES LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JONES DAY CABRERA, ZOILA E original CHIN, GARY

mostafazadeh, meyers

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Davidson et al 11/243,302 HANLON 103(a) Eddie E. Scott EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

1727 Ex Parte Kanasugi 11/396,620 COLAIANNI 103(a) Squire Sanders (US) LLP EXAMINER ARCIERO, ADAM A

1735 Ex Parte Abell et al 12/278,901 DELMENDO 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC EXAMINER SAAD, ERIN BARRY

1783 Ex Parte Mead et al 10/357,162 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP EXAMINER SIMONE, CATHERINE A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Arvin 10/657,427 FRAHM 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk EXAMINER KE, PENG

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte An 10/847,469 HOFF 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER FEILD, JOSEPH H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Searfoss 10/664,806 ASTORINO 102(e)/103(a) MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE EXAMINER GUTMAN, HILARY L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Guenther et al 10/625,325 ASTORINO 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting Wilson Sporting Goods Co. EXAMINER WONG, STEVEN B

3734 Ex Parte Ortiz et al 11/197,544 WALSH 103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

3748 Ex Parte Yezerets et al 11/613,760 STAICOVICI 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) CUMMINS, INC. EXAMINER TRAN, BINH Q

3763 Ex Parte Southam et al 11/456,952 HORNER 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) Incline / Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati EXAMINER VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Popp 12/313,804 KRIVAK Dissenting-In-Part BAUMEISTER 103(a) 103(a) SMP Logic Systems EXAMINER GARLAND, STEVEN R

2184 Ex Parte Bohrer et al 10/948,407 WINSOR 103(a) 103(a) IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C. EXAMINER MAMO, ELIAS

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Regnier et al 10/461,296 HAHN 103(a) 103(a) MOLEX INCORPORATED EXAMINER HARVEY, JAMES R

2878 Ex Parte Broude et al 12/589,296 KRIVAK 103(a) 103(a) LEON D. ROSEN FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN EXAMINER LEE, JOHN R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Mann 10/861,436 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 112(2) RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER KENNEDY, JOSHUA T

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Dysard et al 11/448,205 SMITH 103(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER DAHIMENE, MAHMOUD

1736 Ex Parte Dai et al 11/588,873 SMITH 103(a) CRAWFORD MAUNU PLLC EXAMINER MCCRACKEN, DANIEL

1746 Ex Parte Bogard et al 11/041,323 NAGUMO 103(a) Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C. EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L

1765 Ex Parte Bauer et al 10/524,039 HASTINGS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

1767 Ex Parte Wang 11/132,604 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) Steptoe & Johnson LLP EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

1767 Ex Parte Zahora et al 11/667,725 SMITH 103(a) Nixon & Vanderhye PC / DSM Desotech Inc. EXAMINER MCCULLEY, MEGAN CASSANDRA

1782 Ex Parte Hansborough 11/370,529 HASTINGS 103(a)/112(1) ROETZEL & ANDRESS EXAMINER WOOD, ELLEN S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Fernandez et al 10/437,230 WINSOR 103(a)/112(1) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER VU, KIEU D

2174 Ex Parte Vienneau et al 11/039,524 ROBERTSON 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk EXAMINER JOHNSON, GRANT D

2183 Ex Parte Chauvel et al 10/631,939 THOMAS 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

2193 Ex Parte Baker et al 10/099,508 JEFFERY 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER MITCHELL, JASON D

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Rick et al 10/120,329 JEFFERY 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU

2629 Ex Parte Stewart 11/146,773 DANG 103(a)/112(1) IBM CORPORATION (RVW) EXAMINER SIM, YONG H

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Ha et al 11/536,502 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D

2829 Ex Parte Forbes et al 11/091,285 HAHN 103(a) ROUND LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP EXAMINER MAI, ANH D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Krueger 12/356,660 7,360,846 McCARTHY 251/103(a) HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP EXAMINER BELLINGER, JASON R

Nevertheless,

the recapture rule is violated when a limitation added during prosecution is eliminated entirely, even if other narrowing limitations are added to the [reissue] claim. If the added limitation is modified but not eliminated, the claims must be materially narrowed relative to the surrendered subject matter such that the surrendered subject matter is not entirely or substantially recaptured.

In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

In Mostafazadeh, our reviewing court acknowledged that the recapture rule may not be triggered if the subject matter of the reissue claim is “wholly unrelated” to the subject matter surrendered during prosecution. Id., 643 F.3d at 1360. The court suggested that such a situation might arise if the reissue claim recites additional inventions, embodiments or species not originally claimed, that is, overlooked aspects of the invention as disclosed. Id. (construing MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) 5 § 1412.02(I)(C)).

See, e.g., B.E. Meyers & Co. v. United States, 56 USPQ2d 1110, 1116 (Ct. Fed. Cls. 2000)(example of a case, cited in § 1412.02 of the MPEP, illustrating when the subject matter of the reissue claim might be “wholly unrelated” to the subject matter surrendered during prosecution).

3636 Ex Parte Dwire et al 11/088,457 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) Chrysler Group LLC EXAMINER DUNN, DAVID R

3636 Ex Parte Hoffman et al 11/291,662 ASTORINO 103(a)/112(2) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER NELSON JR, MILTON

3657 Ex Parte Bates 10/381,031 PER CURIAM 103(a) NIXON PEABODY, LLP EXAMINER KING, BRADLEY T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Sun 11/833,342 ASTORINO 103(a)/112(1)/112(2) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER TRIEU, THERESA

3752 Ex Parte Thompson 11/425,494 ASTORINO 103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER GORMAN, DARREN W

3779 Ex Parte Horne et al 10/766,295 CLARKE 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN

clement, mostafazadeh, north american container, clement, ariad

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Rubin et al 10/341,526 MILLS 103(a) MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Tamura et al 11/783,590 PRATS 251/103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN

The recapture rule “prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue the subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims.” In re Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468.

Application of the recapture rule is a three step process. . . . The first step is to determine whether and in what aspect the reissue claims are broader than the patent claims. . . . [A] reissue claim that deletes a limitation or element from the patent claims is broader with respect to the modified limitation. . . . Next, the court must determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to surrendered subject matter. . . . To determine whether an applicant surrendered particular subject matter, we look to the prosecution history for arguments and changes to the claims made in an effort to overcome a prior art rejection. . . . [In] the third step of the recapture analysis . . . the court must determine whether the surrendered subject matter has crept into the reissue claim.

In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

“In discussing this third step, it is important to distinguish among the original claims (i.e., the claims before the surrender), the patented claims (i.e., the claims allowed after surrender), and the reissue claims.” Id. Thus, “recapture may be avoided under this final step of the analysis if the reissue claims "materially narrow" the claims relative to the original claims such that full or substantial recapture of the subject matter surrendered during prosecution is avoided.” Id. (quoting N. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

However, “if the reissue claim is as broad as or broader [than the canceled or amended claim] in an aspect germane to a prior art rejection, but narrower in another aspect completely unrelated to the rejection, the recapture rule bars the claim . . . .” In re Clement, 131 F.3d at 1470.

Clement, In re, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . 1412.02

North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . 1412.02

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Szymanski et al 10/947,077 BAHR 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER ILAN, RUTH

In effect, Appellants’ Specification and claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it, covering all potential joints/linkages and sensor configurations later invented and determined to fall within the claims’ functional boundaries. This is not sufficient to satisfy the description requirement. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (stating that a sufficient description of a genus requires disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus to permit one of skill in the art to “‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus”).

fisher, mostafazadeh

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Buckhaults et al 10/487,934 WALSH 101/112(1)/112(2) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER SWOPE, SHERIDAN

“It is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.” In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Gray et al 10/903,585 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) ROBERT M. MCDERMOTT, ESQ. EXAMINER WANG, LIANG CHE A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Joseph et al 09/672,523 FETTING 251 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C

The most recent version of the MPEP now has the following sentence prior to the portion cited by the Examiner.

A statement of "failure to include a claim directed to" and then presenting a newly added claim, would not be considered a sufficient "error" statement because applicant has not pointed out what the other claims lacked that the newly added claim has, or vice versa.

MPEP 1414, II, C. Thus, this portion of the MPEP puts the phrasing regarding hypothetical new claim 10, supra, in context as merely requiring that the Applicants do more than just recite the added claim numbers and contents without regard to the existing claims. Clearly the Appellants’ declaration has pointed out what the original claims lacked and the newly [added] claims have. ...

We are at a loss to see how the Examiner arrived at this finding as to an exception to the case where claiming entirely new inventions does not involve recapture. ... We find no authority in the statutes, case law, or even the MPEP for the Examiner’s finding. Instead, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that no recapture exists in such circumstance.

The Board’s reliance on this portion of the MPEP is misplaced. This portion of the MPEP deals with claims in which there is no need to apply the recapture rule in the first place. The recapture rule is triggered only where the reissue claims are broader than the patented claims because the surrendered subject matter has been re-claimed in whole or substantial part … In contrast, this portion of the MPEP addresses reissue claims directed at “additional inventions/embodiments /species not originally claimed.” Because the subject matter of these claims was “not originally claimed,” it is wholly unrelated to the subject matter that was surrendered during prosecution and the recapture rule is not even triggered. In re Mostafazadeh --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 1642830, Slip Opinion 2010-1260 (Fed Cir 5/3/2011).

3687 Ex Parte Gerzymisch et al 11/541,433 KIM 103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER AN, IG TAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Mathews 10/359,878 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) Wilson Ham & Holman EXAMINER SHIN, KYUNG H

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Dugal et al 11/801,719 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CUTLIFF, YATE KAI RENE

1631 Ex Parte Ledley 10/200,978 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SKIBINSKY, ANNA

1655 Ex Parte Joseph et al 12/136,341 GRIMES 102(b) USDA-ARS-OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NATIONAL CTR FOR AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH EXAMINER HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Thiebes et al 10/847,529 GARRIS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Surles 10/157,126 DIXON 102(b)/103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER ZURITA, JAMES H

3682 Ex Parte Hammond et al 11/691,458 KIM 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Wangler et al 10/961,248 HOELTER 102(b)/103(a) John C. McMahon EXAMINER LANDRUM, EDWARD F

3773 Ex Parte de la Torre et al 11/203,267 SAINDON 103(a) THOMPSON COBURN LLP EXAMINER MASHACK, MARK F

3781 Ex Parte Gilliam et al 11/103,331 SAINDON 103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

NEW

REVERSED

3625 Ex Parte Joseph et al 09/672,523 FETTING 251 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C

3727 Ex Parte Prell et al 11/492,326 BROWN 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

2625 Ex Parte Pruden et al 10/455,097 WINSOR 103(a) HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP EXAMINER VO, QUANG N

3624 Ex Parte Sikes 11/952,490 KIM 102(b)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER JARRETT, SCOTT L

1618 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/431,353 GRIMES 103(a) INNOVAR, LLC EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3689 Ex Parte Baggett 09/877,159 FETTING FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER MOONEYHAM, JANICE A

1733 Ex Parte Jackson et al 10/671,851 GARRIS 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

2156 Ex Parte Keohane et al 11/002,546 BLANKENSHIP 102(e) IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) EXAMINER EHICHIOYA, FRED I

AFFIRMED

3625 Ex Parte Joseph et al 09/903,457 FETTING 251/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV EXAMINER GARG, YOGESH C

2441 Ex Parte Kridner 10/306,493 HUGHES 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER BATURAY, ALICIA

2121 Ex Parte Selim et al 11/790,354 POTHIER 112(2)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER GARLAND, STEVEN R

2882 Ex Parte Sukovic et al 10/914,610 BAUMEISTER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CORBETT, JOHN M