syntex, Phillips, openwave, omega, schindler, poly-america

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte WILLIAMS et al 12764002 - (D) HUME 102 Sheridan Ross P.C. HUYNH, KIM T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2877 Ex Parte Chen et al 13900465 - (D) DELMENDO 112(1) Entropy Matters LLC TON, TRI T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Lewis 13253122 - (D) WARNER 103 PAULEY ERICKSON & KOTTIS GARFT, CHRISTOPHER

3675 Ex Parte Litis et al 13566431 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. BYRD, EUGENE G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Gale et al 13618300 - (D) CAPP 102/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL PAIK, SANG YEOP

3744 Ex Parte Kanemaru et al 13030465 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Rankin Hill & Clark LLP FURDGE, LARRY L

3754 Ex Parte Van Der Straaten 12162289 - (D) McCARTHY 103 BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP WEISS, NICHOLAS J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte CHAN et al 13688887 - (D) MORGAN 103 103 41.50 112(2)/103 International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C. BORROMEO, JUANITO C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Chebiyyam et al 14289859 - (D) BENNETT 102 102 41.50 102/103 Blank Rome. LLP - McAfee TRUVAN, LEYNNA THANH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Palushaj 14062550 - (D) HOELTER 103 112(2)/103 Bejin Bieneman PLC NGUYEN, DUNG V

3742 Ex Parte Forrest et al 11675455 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 103 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP ROSS, DANA

3775 Ex Parte Carr et al 13440406 - (D) SMITH 103 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN) KU, SI MING

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Maitra et al 13178899 - (D) MILLS 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON STEVENS, MARK V

1617 Ex Parte LOUPENOK 13553036 - (D) NEWMAN 103/double patenting NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER Glaxco Smith Kline PIPIC, ALMA

Under the proper legal standard, a reference will teach away when it suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant’s invention. ... A statement that a particular combination is not a preferred embodiment does not teach away absent clear discouragement of that combination. . . .

Syntax (U.S.A.) LLCv. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).

1655 Ex Parte Fabris et al 12387694 - (D) LEBOVITZ 101 101/103 Abel Law Group, LLP TATE, CHRISTOPHER ROBIN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Othman 13802285 - (D) JIVANI 103 Law Office of Kenneth C. Brooks AZAD, MD ABUL K

2132 Ex Parte Sela et al 12775962 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 BGL/ MERCADO, RAMON A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Ryann 14223660 - (D) CUTITTA 103 Law Office of William F. Ryann SIVJI, NIZARN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Chancey et al 12546841 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED TRAN, NGUYEN

2895 Ex Parte Gohla et al 13883415 - (D) DENNETT 102/103 Fox Rothschild LLP PETERS, CHARLES R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Abdul Karim et al 12877796 - (D) SILVERMAN 101/103 ALLIANCE DATA C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP DESAI, RESHA

3625 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11351881 - (D) FRAHM 101 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. LEVINE, ADAM L

3628 Ex Parte COHEN 13630181 - (D) SILVERMAN 101 DOCKET CLERK HARRINGTON, MICHAEL P

3629 Ex Parte BORDEAUX et al 13796086 - (D) CRAIG 101/103/double patenting Greg Goshorn, P.C. FLEISCHER, MARK A

3654 Ex Parte WHITE 13276130 - (D) WARNER 103 SINORICA, LLC MANSEN, MICHAEL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Ainsworth et al 13843651 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP YANG, ANDREW

3781 Ex Parte Rees 13138666 - (D) KINDER 103 Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. CASTRIOTTA, JENNIFER

3786 Ex Parte ROBERTS et al 12868768 - (D) TOWNSEND 112(2) 103 SHAY GLENN LLP AKAR, SERKAN

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Koehler et al 13381441 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/103 Abel Law Group, LLP ALLEY, GENEVIEVE S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2152 Ex Parte Peters et al 13838731 - (R) COURTENAY 101/103/double patenting Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC HO, BINH VAN

Because of the contradictory, ambiguous language in paragraph 12 of  Appellants’ Specification, we find no clear and unequivocal disclaimer. As explained by our reviewing court, even under the narrower Phillips standard of claim construction applied in infringement proceedings:

Disavowal can be effectuated by language in the specification or the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316-17. In either case, the standard for disavowal is exacting, requiring clear and unequivocal evidence that the claimed invention includes or does not include a particular feature. See Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 808 F.3d 509, 513-14 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Omega Eng’g., Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323-26 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Ambiguous language cannot support disavowal. Omega, 334 F.3d at 1324; see also Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co., 593 F.3d 1275, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

omega, grasselli

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte DeJesus-Gaite 11957973 - (D) ROSS 103 FAY SHARPE LLP MCCLAIN-COLEMAN, TYNESHA L.

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Grisenthwaite et al 13064257 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. GIROUX, GEORGE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte EFRATI 14061856 - (D) LENTIVECH 102/103 41.50 102 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. / Vonage ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Limonadi 13763407 - (D) WINSOR 112(1)/101/103 41.50 112(2) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP YU, ROYIT

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3669 Ex Parte De Luca 13774148 - (D) PYONIN 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. WORDEN, THOMAS E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Fischer 13611821 - (D) BAHR 102/103 BGL/Cook - Chicago HIGHLAND, RACHEL S

3748 Ex Parte Darr et al 12832431 - (D) DOUGAL 101/103 Quinn IP Law AYALA DELGADO, ANTHONY

3775 Ex Parte Wright et al 14078808 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP LAWSON, MATTHEW JAMES

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Menschig et al 12932837 - (D) DENNETT 112(1) 112(1) FERRELLS, PLLC HUHN, RICHARD A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte ARORA et al 13709496 - (D) NEW 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. TCHERKASSKAYA, OLGA V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Ylitalo 13718208 - (D) JEFFERY 112(1)/103 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC FANG, PAKEE

Rather, this is a case where Appellant’s excluding emergency calls from association with application views by reciting a negative limitation effectively introduces a new concept that is not reasonably supported by the original disclosure. See, e.g.,Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. RaytekCorp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding no express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description to justify adding negative limitation);Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393, 394 (BPAI 1983), aff'd mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“[T]he express exclusion of certain elements implies the permissible inclusion of all other elements not so expressly excluded. This clearly illustrates that such negative limitations do, in fact, introduce new concepts.”).

Grasselli, Ex parte, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) 2143.03 , 2173.05(i)

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Zhang et al 12743113 - (D) HEANEY 102 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP PARKER, KENNETH

2872 Ex Parte GLASSCO 14018956 - (D) PRAISS 112(2)/103 SINORICA LLC COLLINS, DARRYL J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Cohen et al 11400045 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 Alexander J. Cohen COPPOLA, JACOB C

3625 Ex Parte Schulz 13796982 - (D) THOMAS 101 Haynes & Boone, LLP (70481) AIRAPETIAN, MILA

3627 Ex Parte Dye et al 13155200 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC YU, ARIEL J

3629 Ex Parte Millmore et al 12167661 - (D) CRAIG 112(1) 101/103 MILES & STOCKBRIDGE P.C. Oracle International Corporation JASMIN, LYNDA C

3661 Ex Parte Le et al 13865490 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL THOMAS, ANA D

3665 Ex Parte Matsuda et al 13449715 - (D) MEYERS 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP/VISA SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Knight et al 12968457 - (D) OSINSKI 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
2736 Ex parte MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES LLC Appellant Ex Parte 6069614 et al 08710388 90012469 - (D) HUME 103 41.50 103 TARA CHAND, C/O MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES LLC Third-party requester: DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC SAGER,MARKALAN original TWEEL JR, JOHN ALEXANDER

bond, akzo, standard havens, festo, omega, southwall, clement

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte Bar-Ness et al 13110989 - (D) WINSOR 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP JOSEPH, JAISON

2692 Ex Parte Nakamura et al 11783063 - (D) HOMERE 103 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP MERKOULOVA, OLGA VLADIMIROVNA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Raju et al 12127600 - (D) BARRETT 103 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Mabey et al 12586472 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY BOYLE, KARA BRADY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Udell et al 12197892 - (D) SMITH 103 Mentor Graphics Corporation NGUYEN, STEVE N

2155 Ex Parte Moerchen et al 12072222 - (D) BEAMER 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION HERSHLEY, MARK E

2161 Ex Parte CHAUDHURI et al 12487434 - (D) KUMAR 102 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. LU, CHARLES EDWARD

2164 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12218627 - (D) KIMBERLY J. McGRAW 102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC ADAMS, CHARLES D

We reject Appellants argument that the Examiner must demonstrate that the identical language of claim 75 appears in the cited reference in order for the reference to anticipate. See e.g., App. Br. 26. The test of whether a reference teaches a claim limitation is not whether the exact language of the
limitation is present in the reference. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the limitation is taught or suggested by the prior art when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See e.g., In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (interpretation of references “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test); Akzo N. V. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 & n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(“An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims.”)

Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2131 , 2152.02(b) , 2183 , 2184

Akzo N.V. v. International Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2131.02

2166 Ex Parte LIPPINCOTT et al 12044775 - (D) GALLIGAN 101/103 41.50 103 WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. IBM CORP. (WIP) GMAHL, NAVNEET K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Card et al 12261662 - (D) SHIANG 102/103 Lowe Graham Jones PLLC MONTOYA, OSCHTA I

2424 Ex Parte Hill et al 11937901 - (D) COURTENAY 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES TILAHUN, ALAZAR

2438 Ex Parte Shah et al 11566125 - (D) HOMERE 103 Oblon/Broadcom Corporation JEUDY, JOSNEL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2659 Ex Parte BOO 11837244 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. ARMSTRONG, ANGELA A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Stripling et al 12648899 - (D) HOELTER 103 AT & T Legal Department - FKM GILLS, KURTIS

3624 Ex Parte Ritter et al 11735739 - (D) KIM 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. PRASAD, NANCY N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Nakamura 12374725 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BGL/Panasonic BAYOU, AMENE SETEGNE

3782 Ex Parte Harrelson 12474779 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP ELKINS, GARY E

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex parte LAWRENCE B. LOCKWOOD Ex Parte 7010508 et al 08/418,772 90012671 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Part Requestor: Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/Reexams REICHLE, KARIN M original CHUNG TRANS, XUONG MY

During reexamination before the USPTO, we decline to consider the prosecution history (as a court would in patent infringement litigation) for purposes of claim construction because reexamination is de novo examination without deference to the previous examination which determined patentability in the first instance. See 35 U.S.C. §305. Cf. with prosecution history estoppel which prevents a patentee from recapturing through the doctrine of equivalents the subject matter that the applicant
surrendered during prosecution. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722, 734 (2002). Cf. also with the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer: “[W]here the patentee has unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning to obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches and narrows the ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the surrender.” Omega Engineering, Inc., v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Claims may not be construed one way in order to obtain their allowance and in a different way against accused infringers.” Southwall Technologies, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Thus, we find statements by both Owner and the Examiner that purport to give deference to the prosecution history for purposes of claim construction during reexamination are misplaced. See, e.g., App. Br. 14–15; Final Rejection 14. However, we note that prosecution history is considered by the USPTO for the purpose of determining attempted recapture of surrendered subject matter in reissue examinations. See, e.g., In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 62 USPQ2d 1705 (2002) 1302.14 , 2173.02

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

santarus, omega

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Hielscher et al 11887312 - (D) CHUNG 103(a) Michael Haynes ALAM, MUSHFIKH I

2427 Ex Parte Lee et al 12060944 - (D) HOFF 103(a) THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. KURIEN, CHRISTEN A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Marui et al 11694072 - (D) NEW 103(a) 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(1) RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP HTUN, SAN A

"Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation." Santaurus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed Cir. 2012).  An express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by the negative limitation is required, such as an express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that provides support for the negative limitation.  Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Stitz 12147777 - (D) NAGUMO 103(a) Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP TALPALATSKI, ALEXANDER

2838 Ex Parte Locke et al 10136040 - (D) PAK 103(a) MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. -PHYSIO -CONTROL, INC. VU, BAO Q

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Bugir et al 11305873 - (D) SAADAT 103(a) William E. Curry PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

2169 Ex Parte Dejean et al 11517092 - (D) BOUCHER 103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER HU, JENSEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Dolganow et al 12078700 - (D) BOUDREAU 112(2)/102(e) Kramer & Amado, P.C. GHAFOERKHAN, FAIYAZKHAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Rinne et al 11651012 - (D) BOUCHER 103(a) Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Nokia Corporation HUYNH, CHUCK

2692 Ex Parte Konstas 11709897 - (D) KUMAR 103(a)/102(b) CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION SHAH, PRIYANK J

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Schlichting et al 11778681 - (R) CAPP 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global PRAGER, JESSE M

elkay, pall corp2, omega, spectrum, middleton, saunders

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Tewari et al 11540320 - (D) MEDLOCK 102 ANDRUS, SCEALES, STARKE & SAWALL, LLP MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2825 Ex Parte Nair 11598327 - (D) TORCZON 103 102/103 37 CFR 40.51(b) 103 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) LEVIN, NAUM B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Cloft et al 11754455 - (D) SPAHN 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global PRAGER, JESSE M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Long et al 11303283 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. MEHMOOD, JENNIFER

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OPEN E CRY, LLC, AND OPTIONSXPRESS HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., AND TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND IBG, LLC, THINKORSWIM GROUP, INC., TD AMERITRADE, INC., TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP., AND INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, Defendants Appellees, AND CQG, INC., AND CQGT, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, AND 2 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v. OPEN E CRY, LLC FUTUREPATH TRADING LLC, SUNGARD DATA SYSTEMS, INC., SUNGARD INVESTMENT VENTURES LLC, AND GL TRADE AMERICAS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND STELLAR TRADING SYSTEMS, LTD., AND STELLAR TRADING SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND ESPEED MARKETS, LP, BGC CAPITAL MARKETS, LP, AND ECCOWARE LTD., Defendants-Appellees, AND ROSENTHAL COLLINS GROUP, LLC, Defendant. 2012-1583 7,676,411 11/585,907 7,693,768 11/585,906 7,904,374 11/585,905 7,685,055 11/417,547 LOURIE 112(2)/prosecution history estoppel Trading Technologies International, Inc. McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP; Salans LLP; Greenberg Traurig, LLP; Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione; WEISBERGER, RICHARD C

The court ... concluded that when “‘multiple patents derive from the same initial application, the prosecution history regarding a claim limitation in any patent that has issued applies with equal force to subsequently issued patents that contain the same claim limitation.’” ... (quoting Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
...
Prosecution history estoppel applies as part of an infringement analysis to prevent a patentee from using the doctrine of equivalents to recapture subject matter surrendered from the literal scope of a claim during prosecution. Pall Corp. v. Hemasure Inc., 181 F.3d 1305, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Prosecution disclaimer, on the other hand, affects claim construction and applies where an applicant’s actions during prosecution prospectively narrow the literal scope of an otherwise more expansive claim limitation. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323–24 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Though distinct, both doctrines serve to constrain the enforceable scope of patent claims commensurate with any subject matter surrendered during prosecution to obtain the patent, and a single action during prosecution can engender both a prosecution disclaimer and prosecution history estoppel. See, e.g., Elkay, 192 F.3d at 978–79, 981; Spectrum Int’l, Inc. v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
...
See Middleton, Inc. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 311 F.3d 1384, 1389 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “When the purported disclaimers are directed to specific claim terms that have been omitted or materially altered in subsequent applications . . . those disclaimers do not apply.” Saunders Grp., Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d 1326, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1646 BAYER CROPSCIENCE AG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-1002 6,153,401 07/322,604 TARANTO claim construction summary judgment of non-infringement Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP; original FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG ULM, JOHN D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 COOPER NOTIFICATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND EVERBRIDGE, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND FEDERAL SIGNAL CORP., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1615 7,409,428 10/829,181 LOURIE concurring in part and dissenting in part TARANTO claim construction summary judgment of non-infringement Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP; Fenwick & West LLP WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

REHEARING 

GRANTED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3642 SOVERAIN SOFTWARE LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NEWEGG INC., Defendant-Appellant. 2011-1009 5,715,314 08/328,133 PER CURIAM 103 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP; Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP original STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. GREGORY, BERNARR E

donohue, omega, santarus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Perez-Camargo et al 10509951 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 K&L Gates LLP MAEWALL, SNIGDHA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Andreiko 10528036 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP (Sybron) EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte SCHNOEBELEN 12362521 - (D) GARRIS 103 103 FAY SHARPE / SHURTECH THOMAS, ALEXANDER S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Kilkki 10484829 - (D) BENOIT 103 103 Squire Sanders (US) LLP CHEEMA, UMAR

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Forman et al 10636990 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 101 IBM CORPORATION JARRETT, SCOTT L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Taylor 11002382 - (D) WEATHERLY 103 102 HONEYWELL/BARNES RINEHART, KENNETH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Sasmal et al 10898549 - (D) GRIMES 103/obviousness-type double patenting PERGAMENT GILMAN & CEPEDA LLP LOVE, TREVOR M

1613 Ex Parte Zerbe et al 11635361 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 BUTZEL LONG LEA, CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND

1647 Ex Parte Helms et al 12074766 - (D) PRATS 102/103 Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing GAMETT, DANIEL C

However, as our reviewing court has explained, the fact that Matthews did not prepare a working example of its liposomes does not demonstrate that Matthews’ disclosure is non-enabling:

[F]ailures by those skilled in the art (having possession of the information disclosed by the publication) are strong evidence that the disclosure of the publication was nonenabling. By contrast, the fact that the author of a publication did not attempt to make his disclosed invention does not indicate one way or the other whether the publication would have been enabling.

In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (emphasis added).  

Donohue, In re, 766 F.2d 531, 226 USPQ 619 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2121.01, 2121.02, 2131.01

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Alivisatos et al 11056430 - (D) HASTINGS 102 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP TAI, XIUYU

1762 Ex Parte Arendt et al 11949378 - (D) McKELVEY 103 EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY REDDICK, MARIE L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Bright 11286446 - (D) STEPHENS 112(1)/251/103 Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt HAILU, TADESSE

“Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc., 694 F.3d 1344 (Fed Cir. 2012). An express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by the negative limitation is required, such as an express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that provides support for the negative limitation. Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Winget et al 10724995 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Tucker Ellis LLP POPHAM, JEFFREY D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Kim et al 11377288 - (D) BRADEN 112(2)/102/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. MIAH, LITON

2645 Ex Parte Kaplan 11112035 - (D) ARPIN 103 KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC. MANOHARAN, MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Freeouf 11301324 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 Alvin J. Riddles MASKELL, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Grilliot et al 11375735 - (D) HORNER 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS DAVIS, CASSANDRA HOPE

3653 Ex Parte Ong 11848968 - (D) HORNER 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. GOKHALE, PRASAD V

3676 Ex Parte Tooley 11566659 - (D) TARTAL 101/102/103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP THOMPSON, KENNETH L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Keppler et al 11719851 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. BALDORI, JOSEPH B

3767 Ex Parte Van Antwerp et al 11897106 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Minimed PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP

omega, engel2

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Geiner et al 10/818,072 DESHPANDE 101/102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R

2189 Ex Parte Rickard et al 11/145,403 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 (b) 112(2)/112(1) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, P.C. EXAMINER VO, THANH DUC

Silence in the Specification does not meet the written description requirement for a negative limitation. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that an express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by the negative limitation is required, such as an express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that provides support for the negative limitation. Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Dorenbosch et al 10/147,586 DANG 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUONG

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Rudin 10/563,679 CALDWELL 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER VIEIRA, DIANA C

2858 Ex Parte Kinoshita et al 10/934,705 DIXON 102(b)/103(a) KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK EXAMINER FANTU, YALKEW

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Bosma 10/511,582 FREDMAN 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER NGUYEN, SON T

3689 Ex Parte Torrens-Burton 10/045,134 MOHANTY 103(a) IBM Corporation EXAMINER FISHER, MICHAEL J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Danitz et al 10/861,757 MILLS 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. EXAMINER DOWE, KATHERINE MARIE

3742 Ex Parte Schneider 10/905,418 McCARTHY 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) EXAMINER VAN, QUANG T

See Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404-05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (construing separate claim elements as reciting separate structures).

3745 Ex Parte Hoos 11/189,633 ASTORINO 103(a) Michael R. Hull Miller, Matthias & Hull EXAMINER LESLIE, MICHAEL S

3763 Ex Parte Injev et al 11/746,685 GREEN 103(a) ALCON EXAMINER CHANDER, DIVA KAKAR
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Theobald et al 10/564,932 GRIMES 112(1)/103(a) Cathy R Moore Propat EXAMINER RAO, SAVITHA M

1655 Ex Parte Farzin-Nia et al 11/596,395 SCHEINER 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER MI, QIUWEN

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Sansone et al 10/673,794 JEFFERY 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER MEHMOOD, JENNIFER

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Kyle 11/233,847 ASTORINO 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER COOLMAN, VAUGHN

3677 Ex Parte Chase 11/784,356 SPAHN 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER SULLIVAN, MATTHEW J
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Fournier et al 10/740,584 GUEST 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHU HOANG

omega

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Kumar T.K. et al 11/800,317 GRIMES 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Henning 12/124,249 GUEST 103(a) SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC EXAMINER BARCENA, CARLOS

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Han 10/844,817 WINSOR 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER
AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte DaCosta et al 10/723,778 DESHPANDE 112(1)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER LIANG, REGINA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Jeon et al 10/864,499 ROBERTSON 103(a) LEE & MORSE, P.C. EXAMINER
WEISS, HOWARD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Maulden et al 11/688,389 HORNER 103(a) Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP EXAMINER MCPARTLIN, SARAH BURNHAM

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Noyes 11/206,598 FISCHETTI 102(b)/103(a) PATRICK R. SCANLON
PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP EXAMINER DENNIS, MICHAEL DAVID

3715 Ex Parte Bardige et al 11/099,077 KIM 103(a) HOUSTON ELISEEVA EXAMINER
HU, KANG

3777 Ex Parte Oliver et al 10/646,222 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER RAMIREZ, JOHN FERNANDO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Bagley et al 11/314,984 POTHIER 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HOCKER, JOHN P

2183 Ex Parte Jourdan et al 09/749,405 DESHPANDE 102(b)/103(a) Gerbera/BSTZ Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP EXAMINER LI, AIMEE J

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5577100 et al Ex parte TracFone Wireless, Inc. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,064 TURNER 112(1)/102(e)/102(b) PATENT OWNER: GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP (LA) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFERY L. CAMERON BROOKS & CAMERON, PLLC EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER MAUNG, NAY AUNG

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Wijlaars et al 10/564,674 ADAMS 103(a) THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER HELM, CARALYNNE E

1628 Ex Parte Yankner et al 11/232,844 SCHEINER 103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER ZAREK, PAUL E

1636 Ex Parte Gellman et al 11/482,638 PRATS 102(b) Intellectual Property Dept./Dewitt Ross & Stevens EXAMINER GROSS, CHRISTOPHER M

1656 Ex Parte Yang et al 11/095,802 ADAMS 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER TSAY, MARSHA M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Yu et al 10/664,503 HASTINGS 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER AKRAM, IMRAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Errico 09/819,126 COURTENAY 103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER SHEPARD, JUSTIN E

See Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( an express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by the negative limitation is required, such as an express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that provides support for the negative limitation). (citations omitted).

2451 Ex Parte Emerson et al 10/037,501 DILLON 112(1)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PATEL, DHAIRYA A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Fitzpatrick et al 10/675,916 FISCHETTI 102(b)/103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/119,720 BAHR 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) CUMMINS, INC. EXAMINER TRAN, BINH Q