princeton biochemicals

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Nataraj et al 12827896 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Bozicevic, Field & Francis Baxter Healthcare Corporation (BFF LLP) NGUYEN, QUANG

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 12271507 - (D) KUMAR 102 BGL/Broadcom MIRZA, ADNAN M

2485 Ex Parte PANDIT et al 12497226 - (D) SILVERMAN 102/103 Brokaw Patent Law, PC CARTER, RICHARD BRUCE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2621 Ex Parte WESTERMAN et al 12479573 - (D) SILVERMAN 102/103 APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA SIM, YONG H

2656 Ex Parte Kong 12248567 - (D) WINSOR 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. MCCORD, PAUL C

However, considering the claim as a whole, see Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005), claim I is not directed to audio sampling, right shifting, or adding; rather, in pertinent part, claim I is directed to "adding said audio sample to one or more right shifted versions of said audio sample." ... Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner has pieced together individual elements from the prior art using only Appellant's disclosure and claim as a roadmap, an exercise in impermissible hindsight. See Princeton, 411 F.3d at 1337.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Bateni 12649072 - (D) WARNER 103 TERADATA US, INC. CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N

3628 Ex Parte Brandt et al 13415140 - (D) MOHANTY 103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP ERB, NATHAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Insepov et al 12706896 - (D) SILVERMAN 102 102/103 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS, LLP MACKES, KRIS E

2197 Ex Parte Fischer et al 13411577 - (D) HOMERE 102 103/double patenting CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG COYER, RYAN D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Morgan 11694040 - (D) SCHOPFER 102 102/103 PAUL HASTINGS LLP MCEVOY, THOMAS M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Stopek 12446844 - (D) FREDMAN 103/double patenting Covidien LP ALLEY, GENEVIEVE S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Slama et al 12298629 - (D) KENNEDY 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY SCHIFFMAN, BENJAMIN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Montemurro et al 12615528 - (D) PINKERTON 103 Conley Rose - BlackBerry Files YOUNG, STEVE R

AFG, xiao, chef america, princeton, dystar

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Liu et al 10/920,915 HUGHES 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, SON T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Kobayashi et al 11/204,038 HORNER 102(b) KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP EXAMINER LE, TAN

3684 Ex Parte Hicks et al 11/159,914 TURNER 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Costea et al 10/346,898 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3761 Ex Parte King 10/704,860 GREEN 112(1)/102(b) Susan Clark King EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

“Consisting of” is a closed transitional phrase that is “understood to exclude any elements, steps, or ingredients not specified in the claim.” AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., Inc., 239 F.3d 1239, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

AFG Industries, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Company, Inc., 239 F.3d 1239, 57 USPQ2d 1776 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . 2111.03

3777 Ex Parte Mathew 10/681,634 ASTORINO 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER RAMIREZ, JOHN FERNANDO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Saito et al 10/315,583 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER STACE, BRENT S

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Nowlin et al 09/991,089 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER PEACHES, RANDY
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Koningstein et al 10/750,451 PETRAVICK 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) Straub & Pokotylo EXAMINER BEKERMAN, MICHAEL

In re Xiao, No. 2011-1195, 2011 WL 4821929, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2011) (non-precedential) (non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight)

3654 Ex Parte Duke et al 11/446,005 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) THE GATES CORPORATION EXAMINER REESE, ROBERT T

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Westervelt et al 10/837,787 BEST 103(a) Gesmer Updegrove LLP EXAMINER MENDEZ, ZULMARIAM

1731 Ex Parte Kolodziej et al 11/592,589 GAUDETTE 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER WOOD, JARED M

1771 Ex Parte De Rezende Pinho et al 10/480,966 TIMM 103(a) Albemarle Netherlands B.V. EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Roy et al 12/698,671 SIU 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER TRAN, TUNG Q

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Ugail 11/072,065 SIU 103(a)/101 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP EXAMINER REPKO, JASON MICHAEL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Schaepkens et al 10/817,531 STRAUSS 102(e)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER CHU, CHRIS C

Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning, are construed to mean exactly what they say.)

Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Fransen et al 11/087,631 FREDMAN 112(1)/103(a) HOYNG MONEGIER LLP EXAMINER VALENTI, ANDREA M

3687 Ex Parte Thoren 10/843,304 TURNER 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Solem et al 11/343,382 WALSH 103(a) Edwards Lifesciences LLC EXAMINER MCEVOY, THOMAS M

See Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming obviousness where motivation was found in the knowledge of those skilled in the art at the time, and where the nature of the problem also supplied a motivation). “In other words, the nature of the problem called for exactly the solutions in the prior art.” Id. at 1339. Accord, DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied”).

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

3733 Ex Parte Myint et al 11/268,786 FREDMAN 102(a)/103(a) STOEL RIVES LLP - SLC EXAMINER CARTER, TARA ROSE E

3767 Ex Parte Peterson et al 11/247,436 LEE 112(2)/103(a) Faegre Baker Daniels LLP EXAMINER HALL, DEANNA K

3774 Ex Parte Hlavka et al 10/622,207 BAUMEISTER 112(1) Leason Ellis LLP EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

REHEARING
 
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Chandler 11/401,198 SMITH 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER WARDEN, JILL ALICE

fritch, princeton biochemicals, gechter, pullman-standard

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Hsu 12/156,687 NAGUMO 103(a) PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Shepard 11/541,354 DESHPANDE 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP EXAMINER LE, DIEU MINH T

2165 Ex Parte Armanino et al 11/130,773 STEPHENS 101/103(a) AT & T Legal Department - BK EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Neo et al 11/164,204 SAADAT 103(a) NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION EXAMINER MALDONADO, JULIO J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 11/302,162 COCKS 112(2)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

A patent examiner evaluating the patentability of a claimed invention must take care when assessing the teachings of the prior art to refrain from impermissible reliance on hindsight using the inventor’s own disclosure in concluding obviousness. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The record must show that a skilled artisan confronted by the problems faced by the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention would have selected the various elements of the prior art and combined them in the manner claimed. Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Mellott et al 11/514,320 GARRIS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER VETERE, ROBERT A
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Nelson 11/337,098 BAHR 103(a) Jonathan A. Bay EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3671 Ex Parte 6,336,311 et al 95/000,245 THE TORO COMPANY Requester v. TEXTRON INNOVATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant SONG 102/103(a)/112(1) Patent Owner: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. Third Party Requestor James W. Miller EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original EXAMINER PEZZUTO, ROBERT ERIC
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Aitken et al 11/270,818 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER TABONE JR, JOHN J

2186 Ex Parte Arndt et al 11/066,487 STEPHENS 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Novack et al 10/887,807 GONSALVES 101/103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB EXAMINER SHAN, APRIL YING
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Gotsick et al 11/592,680 KRIVAK 103(a) John L. Cordani Carmody & Torrance, LLP EXAMINER YAN, REN LUO

2858 Ex Parte Lubcke et al 10/694,349 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER KOVAL, MELISSA J
REHEARING

DENIED - VACATED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES Concurring BLANKENSHIP 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N

As explained by the Gechter court (supra), vacatur is appropriate when the decision under review “lacks adequate fact findings [and] meaningful review is not possible.” Gechter, 116 F.3d at 1457. The federal circuit courts of appeal vacate trial court decisions “[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291 (1982). See 9 Moore’s Federal Practice § 52.12[1] (3d ed., Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. 1997) (“When the trial court completely fails . . . to make findings on a material issue, the appellate court is entitled to vacate the judgment and remand the action to the district court . . . .” (footnotes omitted)).

hoffer, gartside, princeton biochemicals, dystar, merck2, gechter, champagne

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1615 Ex Parte Ahlgren et al 11/057,480 MILLS 103(a) Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. EXAMINER SASAN, ARADHANA

07/25/2011 1624 Ex Parte Pathi et al 11/574,642 WALSH Concurring FREDMAN 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER WILLIS, DOUGLAS M

07/25/2011 1628 Ex Parte Bieringer et al 10/198,580 MILLS 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2161 Ex Parte Rath et al 11/388,012 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

See Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.”).

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04

07/25/2011 2168 Ex Parte Idicula et al 11/014,442 DIXON 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER MOBIN, HASANUL

07/25/2011 2179 Ex Parte Uotila et al 11/124,651 GONSALVES 102(b)/103(a) HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3624 Ex Parte Fama et al 11/478,714 PETRAVICK 103(a) SETTER ROCHE LLP EXAMINER WALKER III, GEORGE H

07/25/2011 3634 Ex Parte Rieder et al 11/288,682 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/25/2011 3767 Ex Parte Torris et al 10/419,934 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO EXAMINER GRAY, PHILLIP A
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1626 Ex Parte Almirante et al 10/566,292 WALSH 103(a) ARENT FOX LLP EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R

“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references. . . is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Motivation to apply prior art teachings may be found when “the nature of the problem called for exactly the solutions in the prior art.” Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming obviousness). Accord, DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied”). The prior art’s disclosure of a multitude of combinations does not necessarily render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. .716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

07/25/2011 1637 Ex Parte Park et al 11/965,687 ADAMS 103(a) MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. EXAMINER TUNG, JOYCE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/25/2011 1763 Ex Parte Gestermann et al 11/709,411 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

07/25/2011 1787 Ex Parte NOWAK et al 09/178,329 KRATZ 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2166 Ex Parte Kreulen et al 10/851,754 DANG 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2436 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos et al 10/810,025 DROESCH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, DANIEL L

07/25/2011 2464 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 10/354,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) EXAMINER HAN, CLEMENCE S

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Smith 10/658,896 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Nakhjiri et al 11/169,406 DANG 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

2600 Communications
07/26/2011 2617 Ex Parte Heaven et al 11/239,346 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3621 Ex Parte Goodwin III 12/128,694 KIM 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E
REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2187 Ex Parte Lake 10/960,184 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N

Our reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has had occasion to analyze the word “review” as it is used in its jurisdictional statutes – 35 U.S.C. § 144.3 See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1458, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (discussing the scope of review, and vacating a Board decision that omits several crucial findings); accord Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir 1998) (J. Michel concurring) (citing Gechter). We find the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the term “review,” in the context of the Federal Circuit’s review of Board decisions, to be particularly helpful in determining the meaning of the word “review” in the context of our statutory duty to review adverse decisions of examiners.