chu, nash, olson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Belanoff 10519008 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Pazos et al 10788066 - (D) KRATZ 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC COONEY, JOHN M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Famolari et al 10144717 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Woods et al 11470060 - (D) NAPPI 103 DAVID PRESSMAN, ESQ. KHAN, SUHAIL

2646 Ex Parte Brown et al 10882389 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. TAYLOR, BARRY W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Ujhazy et al 10467601 - (D) MORRISON 102/103 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2188 Ex Parte Nishihara et al 11251867 - (D) BUI 103 103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC ROJAS, MIDYS

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Stolyar 11073513 - (D) FISHMAN 103 103 PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN, PLLC SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Burgermeister et al 11172527 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 Dergosits & Noah LLP OU, JING RUI

See In re Nash, 230 F.2d 428, 431 (CCPA 1956) (“[I]t is well settled that the drawings of patent applications are not necessarily scale or working drawings....”); In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954) (“Ordinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability.”) ...

See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function).

Chu, In re, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 201.11, 716.02(f), 1504.20, 2145,

3777 Ex Parte Field et al 10803882 - (D) GRIMES 103 102/103 LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO ROY, BAISAKHI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Wallen 10991878 - (D) HOMERE 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC YU, LIHONG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Moffatt 11326887 - (D) HOMERE 112(2)/103 Bryan Cave LLP THOMAS, LUCY M

2887 Ex Parte Singleton et al 11455936 - (D) Per Curiam 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP FRECH, KARL D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Colburn et al 11473285 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 Covidien LP SKORUPA, VALERIE LYNN  

REHEARING  

GRANTED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Kawakami 10711702 - (R) RICE 103 103 DELAND LAW OFFICE LUONG, VINH

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte Bentwich 10536560 - (D) WALSH 102 ROSETTA-GENOMICS c/o POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC CALAMITA, HEATHER

reuter, aristocrat, katz interactive, olson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Msika 10808701 - (D) FREDMAN 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP JUSTICE, GINA CHIEUN YU

See In re Reuter, 670 F.2d 1015, 1023 (CCPA 1981) (expert's opinion on ultimate legal issue entitled to no weight).

1635 Ex Parte Bentwich 10536560 - (D) WALSH 112(2)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 ROSETTA-GENOMICS c/o POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC SHIN, DANA H

1652 Ex Parte Koizumi et al 10940026 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Sexton et al 11697695 - (D) OWENS 112(1)/103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP CHEN, KEATH T

1777 Ex Parte Kopperschmidt et al 10580869 - (D) NAGUMO 102/112(6)/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP GIONTA, ALLISON

When a claim is drawn to a computer implemented function invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, a general purpose computer is usually sufficient for the corresponding structure for performing a general computing function, but the corresponding structure for performing a specific function is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer. In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The structure needed to transform a general purpose computer into a specific purpose computer is an algorithm. Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008). An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 23 (5th ed. 2002).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Adendorff et al 10663345 - (D) FETTING 103 Walder Intellectual Property Law PC PARKER, BRANDI P

3646 Ex Parte Harris et al 10529055 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Flynn et al 10245193 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C FRIDIE JR, WILLMON

3731 Ex Parte Gellman et al 10325125 - (D) SCHEINER 102/103 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP NGUYEN, TUAN VAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Osawa et al 11286356 - (D) NAGUMO 103 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. IP, SIKYIN

1746 Ex Parte Varaprasad 12222071 - (D) GARRIS 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BLADES, JOHN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Syed et al 12817703 - (D) McKONE 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL BERHANU, SAMUEL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Koyata et al 11121937 - (D) GREEN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. DO, PENSEE T

“Ordinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability.” In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954).
 
1649 Ex Parte SCHAEBITZ et al 11931326 - (D) PRATS 102/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. BORGEEST, CHRISTINA M
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1735 Ex Parte Burns et al 10606436 - (D) KIMLIN 112(2)/103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global IP, SIKYIN

1747 Ex Parte Thielen et al 11930805 - (D) METZ 103 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1763 Ex Parte Kawaguchi et al 12520913 - (D) TIMM 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC USELDING, JOHN E

1791 Ex Parte Cupp et al 10945768 - (D) KRATZ 103 K&L Gates LLP SAYALA, CHHAYA D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Yeh et al 11285614 - (D) NEW 103 MACRONIX C/O HAYNES BEFFEL & WOLFELD LLP DUONG, KHANH B

2854 Ex Parte Schmitt 11528928 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP BANH, DAVID H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Katzman et al 11190347 - (D) FETTING 101/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS ADE, OGER GARCIA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Herzog et al 10415195 - (D) GREENHUT 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

3735 Ex Parte Bauman 11516388 - (D) FREDMAN 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. DORNA, CARRIE R

3737 Ex Parte Schwartz 10574184 - (D) GREEN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SANTOS, JOSEPH M

3763 Ex Parte Nishikawa et al 10520180 - (D) McCARTHY 103 Burns Doane Swecker & Mathis BOUCHELLE, LAURA A

samour, KCJ, harari, wyer, nystrom, olson

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Watkinson 10/598,398 KRATZ 103(a) EDWIN D. SCHINDLER EXAMINER FRANKLIN, JODI C

1787 Ex Parte Fugitt et al 12/326,430 WARREN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION EXAMINER ROBINSON, ELIZABETH A

While it is entirely appropriate to rely on another reference to clarify a fact in the anticipating reference, see, e.g., In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562, 197 USPQ 1, 4 (CCPA 1978), the supporting reference must in fact accomplish that purpose.

Samour, In re, 571 F.2d 559, 197 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131.01

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Reese et al 10/458,888 RUGGIERO 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MCLEAN, NEIL R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Rosset 10/363,261 NAGUMO 103(a) 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Banfield et al 11/366,397 JEFFERY 112(2)/103(a) 103(a) NEIFELD IP LAW, PC EXAMINER PAULS, JOHN A

It is well settled that where, as here, the indefinite article “a” or “an” means “one or more” in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We recognize, however, that “[w]hen the claim language and specification indicate that ‘a’ means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open-ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Babb et al 11/605,381 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, DONGHAI D
REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2827 Ex Parte 6504103 et al 90/008,306 08/821,760 COOPER TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY Patent Owner, Appellant EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) Larson Newman, LLP Abel Law Group, LLP Third Party Requester: Kevin W. Jakel Kaye Scholer, LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER PALADINI, ALBERT WILLIAM

The new products in the field or otherwise displayed or marketed would have served as a guide to the brochure in an analogous fashion to a card catalog, leading “persons interested” in the product to the brochure. Cf. In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1981) (properly classified, indexed or abstracted document renders it sufficiently accessible to “persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art”).

Wyer, In re, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901.05, 2127, 2128
Appellant also complains that the Examiner relies on “speculative modeling premised on unstated assumptions in drawings.” (App. Br. 16 (citing, inter alia, Nystrom v. Trex Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1148-49 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .) But Application of Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954) indicates that if a prohibitive scaling rule does apply, it normally applies to patent drawings, and not “shop drawings,” because “[o]rdinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability.”
AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2831 Ex Parte 6984791 et al 95/000,208 10/412,683 COOPER TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY Patent Owner, Appellant v. THOMAS & BETTS CORP. Requestor EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) Larson Newman, LLP Abel Law Group, LLP Third Party Requester: Kevin W. Jakel c/o Kaye Scholer, LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER NINO, ADOLFO

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3301 Ex Parte 5417691 et al Ex parte SMITH AND NEPHEW, INC. Appellant 90/009,307 08/048,922 SONG 102(b)/ obviousness-type double patenting FOR PATENT OWNER: HANCOCK HUGHEY, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: STEPHEN A. SOFFEN DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO, LLP EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN original EXAMINER BROWN, MICHAEL A

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Okamoto et al 10/548,541 FREDMAN 112(2)/112(1) Cheng Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER SAUCIER, SANDRA E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Eriksson et al 11/596,256 GAUDETTE 103(a) Novak Druce + Quigg LLP EXAMINER ORLANDO, MICHAEL N

1775 Ex Parte Deblois et al 10/488,110 GAUDETTE 103(a) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

1789 Ex Parte Goedeken et al 10/677,029 McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) KAGAN BINDER, PLLC EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/807,636 DANG 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER HUYNH, NAM TRUNG