researchcorp

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1639 Ex Parte Johnston et al 13624332 - (D) JENKS 112(1)/102/103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI BUNKER, AMY M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Ritterbush et al 14341523 - (D) CASHION 102 KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP KWAK, DEAN P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2483 Ex Parte NGUYEN et al 13930089 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 Grable Martin Fulton (Marconi) AN, SHAWN S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3668 Ex Parte Garrett et al 14604577 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/102 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP REFAI, RAMSEY

 Cf Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("[T]his court notes that inventions with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace are not likely to be so abstract that they override the statutory language and framework of the Patent Act."). Claim 1, in our view, thus, provides a "functional and palpable" application within the field of the invention, cf Research Corp., 627 F.3d. at 868, i.e., a technological improvement in the integration of wireless computing devices with POS computer systems. 

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Branyon et al 13950596 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 Plaster/Greenberg, P.C. POON, ROBERT

3736 Ex Parte Oakes 14242475 - (D) CALVE 103 Georgia-Pacific L STEVENS, ALLAN D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Stille 14853366 - (D) FITZPATRICK 112(2)/102/103 103 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. KIM, CHRISTOPHER S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Shi 13561999 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. KASSA, TIGABU

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte DETERING et al 15022007 - (D) CASHION 102/103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) MRUK, BRIAN P

1766 Ex Parte Rogunova et al 12565167 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 Covestro LLC RODD, CHRISTOPHER M

1789 Ex Parte HOMOELLE et al 13298437 - (D) McGEE 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. WORRELL, KEVIN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Wolchok et al 13601666 - (D) CHUNG 101/103 Baker Botts L.L.P./Facebook Inc. JACOBS, EDWARD

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Parsa et al 14541477 - (D) CUTITTA 103 ADELI LLP CAIRNS, THOMAS R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte SPITZER et al 14094291 - (D) McMILLIN 103 NVIDIA C/O MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP RICHER, AARON M

2625 Ex Parte Takala et al 11786680 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP PARKER, JEFFREY ALAN

2687 Ex Parte Lamb et al 13941519 - (D) DIRBA 103 Greenberg Traurig, LLP KINGSTON, SHAWNAM

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Rau et al 11880598 - (D) HUTCHINGS 112(1) 101 Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP/JPMorgan Chase ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E

3626 Ex Parte Yu et al 13665855 - (D) GALLIGAN 101 Patent Law Works/Ricoh TIEDEMAN, JASON S

3663 Ex Parte Bryan et al 14800061 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 41.50 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford NGUYEN, CUONG H

3682 Ex Parte Fieldman et al 12718253 - (D) SILVERMAN 101/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP BROWN, LUIS A

3687 Ex Parte Ginsberg et al 11830585 - (D) CALVE 101 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. GOYEA, OLUSEGUN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Navarrete 13788079 - (D) HUTCHINGS 101 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./Gaming Arts, Z4 Poker SKAARUP, JASON M

3715 Ex Parte Clark et al 14584128 - (D) HUTCHINGS 101 IBM Corp - Rochester Drafting Center BULLINGTON, ROBERT P

3745 Ex Parte Suciu et al 14695578 - (D) PLENZLER 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY BEEBE, JOSHUA R

3747 Ex Parte Hagen 13102568 - (D) HOSKINS 103 HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC HAMAOUI, DAVIDE

3771 Ex Parte Shiuey 13189337 - (D) CALVE 103 Goldberg Cohen LLP SIMPSON, SARAH A

3793 Ex Parte Gupta et al 14364360 - (D) GUIJT 101 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BOR, HELENE CATHERINE

researchcorp, grams

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Anderson et al 12205330 - (D) McSHANE 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP MCCLAIN-COLEMAN, TYNESHA L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Knowles et al 10930739 - (D) McMILLIN 103 PERRY + CURRIER INC. (OR RIM) HOANG, HIEU T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte Schulte et al 12069024 - (D) KRIVAK 102 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. JOSEPH, JAISON

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte Yakovleva et al 13151371 - (D) KRATZ 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC FERRE, ALEXANDRE F

1791 Ex Parte Jani et al 11710830 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP BEKKER, KELLY JO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte You et al 11966722 - (D) SMITH 103 Chevron Corporation WARTALOWICZ, PAUL A

2176 Ex Parte Rees et al 11927036 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MARRERO, ZAIDA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kriegmair 12040384 - (D) WEINBERG 103 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD LOPEZ ALVEREZ, OLVIN

2421 Ex Parte Hawkins et al 12321791 - (D) EVANS 103 Allen D. Brufsky, PA NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A

2444 Ex Parte CRIPE et al 12687642 - (D) CHUNG 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PAPPAS, PETER

2449 Ex Parte Anschutz 11437016 - (D) BOUDREAU 103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ ABEDIN, NORMIN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte MOODY 11958156 - (D) HORNER 101 JOHN EDWARD ROETHEL DEODHAR, OMKAR A

Appellant challenges the Examiner’s determination that “a set of rules qualifies as an abstract idea.” Br. 6 (citing Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). See also id. at 8 (arguing that “the Examiner has not identified clearly what the ‘abstract idea’ is” and that “[g]ame rules are submitted to be concrete, rather than abstract, because game rules set out how the game is to be played by all of the players.”).
...
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s admission that the method of claim 1 sets out physical steps and the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 is claiming an abstract idea are contradictory. Br. 4. See also id. at 8 (arguing that because claim 1 contains physical steps, this should end the inquiry into whether claim 1 claims an abstract idea). We find no contradiction in the determination that a method claim which includes physical steps is wholly directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea. See, e.g., In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“The presence of a physical step in the claim to derive data for the algorithm will not render the claim statutory.”). Further, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed physical method steps are not tied to a particular machine and do not transform the cards into a different state or thing.

researchcorp, cybersource

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 
2163 Ex Parte Satagopan et al 10/693,516 GIANNETTI 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT) EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D

2184 Ex Parte Paulson et al 11/147,855 STRAUSS 103(a) COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC LSI CORPORATION EXAMINER TSENG, CHENG YUAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2471 Ex Parte Demaria et al 10/109,643 DANG 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER WONG, WARNER

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Kelly 11/079,323 KRIVAK 112(2)/102(a)/103(a) MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. EXAMINER MAI, ANH D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Daniels et al 10/985,314 FRAHM 112(1)/103(a) 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HAILU, TESHOME

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Ford et al 10/736,854 ZECHER 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER CLEARY, THOMAS J

2127 Ex Parte Sato et al 11/437,233 McNAMARA 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER NORTON, JENNIFER L

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2483 Ex Parte Amielh-Caprioglio et al 10/324,814 DANG 102(e) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER VO, TUNG T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Beaman et al 11/553,498 DIXON 103(a) IBM Corporation EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRUC T

2887 Ex Parte THORSEN et al 11/470,880 JEFFERSON 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER MARSHALL, CHRISTLE I

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Skyba et al 10/984,320 BONILLA 101/obviousness-type double patenting 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LAURITZEN, AMANDA L

The Federal Circuit has since stated that “inventions with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace are not likely to be so abstract that they override the statutory language and framework of the Patent Act.” Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

In CyberSource, the court noted that the method recited in Research Corp. “required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure (a halftoned digital image).” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The method in that case “could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human‟s mind.” Id. By contrast, in CyberSource, “one could mentally perform the fraud detection method” recited in the claims and therefore the claims in that case attempted to “capture unpatentable mental processes (i.e., abstract ideas).” Id. at 1376-77.

3762 Ex Parte Torgerson et al 11/184,718 FREDMAN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER DIETRICH, JOSEPH M

ultramercial, researchcorp, farrenkopf, cybersource, dealertrack

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte GOLDENBERG et al 11/745,692 GRIMES 103(a) IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. EXAMINER KINSEY WHITE. NICOLE ERIN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3658 Ex Parte Thoma 10/647,912 HOELTER 102(b) O'Shea Getz P.C. EXAMINER BOES, TERENCE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Brissette 11/090,861 SAINDON 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER EKIERT, TERESA M

3748 Ex Parte Goulette et al 11/453,352 SAINDON 102(b) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER TRAN, BINH Q

3761 Ex Parte Pfeifer et al 10/231,151 BONILLA 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Sparr et al 10/122,762 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) MOSER TABOADA EXAMINER MATTIS, JASON E

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Svendsen 11/403,597 KIM 101/103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA CT EXAMINER UBER, NATHAN C

However, the Federal Circuit has held that Section 101 is “merely a threshold check” and “no more than a ‘coarse eligibility filter’” that “are certainly not substitutes for the substantive patentability requirements set forth in § 102, § 103, and § 112.” See Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2011), (citing Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Webb 11/485,413 KIM 101/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DENNIS, MICHAEL DAVID

3783 Ex Parte Moskun 11/434,429 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER COLEMAN, KEITH A

While Springer criticizes the use of a wireless radio connection for remote monitoring as complex and costly (id.), the cost of a particular modification in and of itself is not typically presumed sufficient to discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from adopting the modification. See In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Farrenkopf, In re, 713 F.2d 714, 219 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11/260,678 NAGUMO 103(a) Rahman LLC EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Edelson 11/101,436 FETTING 112(2)/101/103(a) PATTON BOGGS LLP EXAMINER SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY

As to the “computer-implemented method,”

even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from the database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2011). Simply using some computer-implemented method in some undefined manner alone cannot confer patentability. More recently, claims were held to be non-statutory where

the claims here recite only that the method is “computer aided” without specifying any level of involvement or detail. The fact that certain algorithms are disclosed in the specification does not change the outcome. In considering patent eligibility under § 101, one must focus on the claims. This is because a claim may “preempt” only that which the claims encompass, not what is disclosed but left unclaimed.

Dealertrack v Huber --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 164439 (Fed Cir 2012). The phrase “computer-implemented” modifier is comparable in scope to “computer-aided” and so its inclusion in the preamble does not change the outcome.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Godley 09/778,543 FETTING 102(b)/103(a) PATENT, COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK LAW GROUP EXAMINER GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A

3729 Ex Parte Yao et al 10/997,183 ASTORINO 102(e)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER KIM, PAUL D

3761 Ex Parte Schneider 10/995,863 PRATS 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

ultramercial, researchcorp

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Cho et al 11/115,529 SMITH 103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER LEE, CYNTHIA K

1765 Ex Parte Kriegel et al 11/119,668 HASTINGS 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER KUGEL, TIMOTHY J

1772 Ex Parte Robotti et al 11/064,575 SMITH 102(a)/103(a) BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. EXAMINER KINGAN, TIMOTHY G

1775 Ex Parte Muller-Hartmann et al 10/475,840 COLAIANNI 103(a) LEYDIG, VOIT AND MAYER EXAMINER BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Betts et al 11/132,648 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R

2166 Ex Parte Pauly 10/432,769 HOFF 103(a) WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. EXAMINER SAEED, USMAAN

2174 Ex Parte Hackworth 09/862,949 HOFF 103(a) CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP EXAMINER KE, PENG

2193 Ex Parte Lutkemeyer 11/029,990 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER NGO, CHUONG D

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Ozen 10/444,337 DANG 102(e) Zenith Electronics Corporation EXAMINER WANG, TED M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte von Blucher 10/834,776 BAHR 103(a) Cozen O'Connor EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M

3775 Ex Parte Schmieding et al 10/357,449 GREENHUT 102(b) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER SCHAPER, MICHAEL T

3781 Ex Parte Lummis et al 10/758,459 HORNER 112(2)/103(a) RUSSELL H. WALKER WALKER, McKENZIE & WALKER, P.C. EXAMINER MAI, TRI M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte McLean et al 11/684,669 HASTINGS 102(b) 102(b) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER ROBINSON, CHANCEITY N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/671,938 ROBERTSON 101/112(2)/103(a) 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER KIM, PAUL

With respect to the judicially created “abstract idea” exception, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently stated that it “does ‘not presume to define ‘abstract’ beyond the recognition that this disqualifying characteristic should exhibit itself so manifestly as to override the broad statutory categories of eligible subject matter and the statutory context that directs primary attention on the patentability criteria of the rest of the Patent Act.’” Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Research Corp. Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
REEXAMINATION

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5631946 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,492 90/006,679 08/442,112 Per Curiam 103(a) 103(a) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER TROST IV, WILLIAM GEORGE

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2744 Ex Parte 6067451 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,494 90/006,681 90/007,726 09/161,462 Per Curiam 103(a)/102(b) 102(e)/103(a)/112(1) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER CRAVER, CHARLES R EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER TROST IV, WILLIAM GEORGE

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5438611 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,676 08/247,466 Per Curiam 102(b)/103(a) 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE J

ON REMAND AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5819172 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,493 90/006,680 90/007,735 08/844,957 Per Curiam 102(b)/103(a) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER CRAVER, CHARLES R EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE J

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5625670 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/007,723 90/006,678 90/006,491 08/443,430 Per Curiam 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) /112(2) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER TROST IV, WILLIAM GEORGE

ON REMAND AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5436960 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,533 90/006,675 90/007,731 07/702,939 Per Curiam 103(a)/112(1)/112(2) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER CRAVER, CHARLES R EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE J

ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex Parte 5479472 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,677 07/702,938 102(b)/103(a)/112(1)/112(2) Per Curiam COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE J
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Krishnan et al 10/980,478 FREDMAN 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER FRAZIER, BARBARA S

1617 Ex Parte Cromack et al 10/526,755 FREDMAN 102(b) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER AZPURU, CARLOS A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/940,538 SMITH 103(a) Cantor Colburn LLP-General Motors EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J

1774 Ex Parte Patch 10/984,154 SMITH 112(1)/103(a) AKERMAN SENTERFITT EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

1788 Ex Parte Melvin 11/508,518 GUEST 102(b)/103(a) Clifford G. Frayne EXAMINER
NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Firman 10/624,160 HUGHES 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - SZ EXAMINER
TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Vaidyanathan et al 10/040,173 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER KIM, KEVIN

2612 Ex Parte Krug et al 11/315,455 DANG 102(b)/103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER MCNALLY, KERRI L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Greer et al 10/908,899 MOHANTY 103(a) SMITH RISLEY TEMPEL SANTOS LLC EXAMINER TRAN, HAI

REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Adachi et al 10/580,248 ADAMS 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER SGAGIAS, MAGDALENE K