pfizer

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Fernsler et al 11865153 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC MERANT, GUERRIER

Still further, dependent claim 26 does not further limit parent claim 17 because claim 26 fails to specify a further limitation of the subject matter of claim 17.  A computer program product is completely outside the scope of multi-core processor. As such, claim 26 does not appear to meet the requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph ("a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed"). See also Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Gardner 11240548 - (D) CALVE 103 ADDMG - BlackBerry HWANG, JOON H

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Kim 11840939 - (D) PER CURIAM concurring MacDONALD 251 Pearne & Gordon LLP LEE, TING ZHOU

2173 Ex Parte Kim 11859491 - (D) PER CURIAM concurring MacDONALD 251 Pearne & Gordon LLP LEE, TING ZHOU

saab, pfizer, pharmastem

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Guldberg 10/399,899 ADAMS 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 10/984,355 SMITH 103(a) BURR & BROWN EXAMINER CROUSE, BRETT ALAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte E et al 10/202,312 STEPHENS 102(e)/103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

A prima facie case is established when the party with the burden of proof points to evidence that is sufficient, if uncontroverted, to entitle it to prevail as a matter of law. See Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. United States, 434 F.3rd 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir 2006)

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Hoffman et al 10/799,961 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/112(4) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KRAIG, WILLIAM F

A dependent claim in a patent that fails to “‘specify a further limitation of the subject matter’ of the [independent] claim to which [the dependent claim] refers” is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Casco-Arias et al 10/439,570 KIM 103(a) MARCIA L. DOUBET LAW FIRM EXAMINER KARDOS, NEIL R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Halliburton et al 10/777,770 STAICOVICI 103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER PANDYA, SUNIT

3751 Ex Parte Helmetsie et al 10/774,339 SONG 102(b)/103(a) Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Ahmed et al 11/862,475 TIMM 103(a) H.B. FULLER COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2771 Ex Parte 6076094 et al Ex parte IO RESEARCH PTY. LIMITED, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,058 TURNER 103(a) PATENT OWNER: GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Richard Kim MORRISON & FOESTER LLP EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER HO, RUAY L

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex Parte 7000325 et al Bunzl Processor Distribution LLC, Requester and Appellant, v. Patent of Bettcher Industries, Inc., Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,130 ROBERTSON 103(a) PATENT OWNER: TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: CLYDE L. SMITH THOMPSON COBURN LLP EXAMINER WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original EXAMINER CHOI, STEPHEN

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1651 Ex Parte 5741705 et al Ex parte KERRY GROUP, PLC Appellant 90/010,527 LEBOVITZ 103(a)/112(1)/305 FOR PATENT OWNER: IAN McLEOD FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WEINGARTEN, SCHURGIN, GAGNEBIN & LEBOVICI, LLP EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K

To decide whether a composition, device, or process would have been obvious in light of the prior art, it must be determined whether, at the time of invention, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to attempt to make the composition or device, or carry out the claimed process, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1723 Ex Parte 7281842 et al Vita-Mix Corporation Requester v. K-TEC, Inc. Patent Owner 95/000,339 ROBERTSON 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: HOLLAND & HART THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER COOLEY, CHARLES E
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kramer et al 10/981,663 MILLS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M

1644 Ex Parte Ringler et al 10/118,600 ADAMS 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery EXAMINER SCHWADRON, RONALD B

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Strebelle 10/567,263 WARREN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LORENGO, JERRY A

1762 Ex Parte Vandaele 11/498,336 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Ahmed 10/353,110 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER JARRETT, RYAN A

2161 Ex Parte Aman et al 10/428,893 DANG 103(a) Richard Lau INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

2169 Ex Parte Kwon 11/193,347 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(e) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER VO, CECILE H

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Murphy et al 10/408,365 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP EXAMINER AILES, BENJAMIN A

2445 Ex Parte Li et al 10/025,790 MORGAN 103(a) David T. Nikaido RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, PLLC EXAMINER JOO, JOSHUA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Forbes et al 10/225,605 ROBERTSON 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER NADAV, ORI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Eason et al 10/477,055 SCHAFER 103(a) Davidson Davidson & Kappel EXAMINER DEMILLE, DANTON D

porter2, kuehl, blattner, pfizer, steele, kropa

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Burkart et al 11/401,558 GREENHUT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(4) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph four, requires that a dependent claim specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Claim 6 recites in its entirety, “An electric belt retractor with a control arrangement to carry out the method of claim 1.” Reciting that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is “to carry out” a particular method does not further limit that method. Intent relates to a state of mind and there is nothing in claim 6 actually requiring performance of the steps recited in claim 1. See, e.g., In re Hansen, 99 USPQ 319, 321 (BPAI 1953); compare In re Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1147 (BPAI 1992) (citing In re Kuehl, 475 F.2d 658 (CCPA 1973) and In re Blattner, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (BPAI 1987)); See also MPEP § 608.01(n)(III).

Claims 7-13 depend from claim 6. Only claim 6 contains a reference to claim 1. Accordingly, we find claims 6-13 fail to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph four. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We recognize that the Appellants could have drafted claims 6-13 as properly depending from claim 1 or could have written claim 6 in independent form. However, we decline to speculate about what the Appellants intend to claim and reverse, pro forma, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6-13 without opinion on the merits thereof. See id.; see also In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962).

Kuehl, In re, 425 F.2d 658, 177 USPQ 250 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2116.01

Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06

Porter, Ex parte, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) . . . .608.01(n), 2173.05(e), 2173.05(f), 2173.05(q)

Blattner, Ex parte, 2 USPQ2d 2047 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.09
3673 Ex Parte Kavounas 11/248,929 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) KOLISCH HARTWELL, P.C. EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G

See Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951) (A preamble reciting “‘An abrasive article’” was deemed essential to point out the invention defined by claims to an article comprising abrasive grains and a hardened binder and the process of making it. The court stated “it is only by that phrase that it can be known that the subject matter defined by the claims is comprised as an abrasive article. Every union of substances capable inter alia of use as abrasive grains and a binder is not an ‘abrasive article.’” Therefore, the preamble served to further define the structure of the article produced.).

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Rice 11/003,199 KAUFFMAN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER BRINSON, PATRICK F
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Tsang et al 11/169,095 HOMERE 101/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER TANG, JIEYING

2186 Ex Parte Rau 11/021,707 DANG 103(a) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D

REHEARING

GRANTED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Fernald et al 10/755,708 FRAHM 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER EL SHAMMAA, MARY A

NEW

REVERSED

1729 Ex Parte Drake et al 10/664,822 TIMM 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2165 Ex Parte Buros et al 11/268,931 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 112(2)/112(4) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER HOANG, SON T

AFFIRMED

2815 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/230,772 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER CLARK, JASMINE JHIHAN B

2448 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/675,653 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N

2425 Ex Parte Kelly 10/515,696 FRAHM 101/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LEWIS, JONATHAN V

2453 Ex Parte Shalabi et al 10/984,090 CHEN 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T

2166 Ex Parte Stecker 10/918,520 MORGAN 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B

1761 Ex Parte Trinh 11/059,078 HASTINGS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R