rowe

custom search

Reversed
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Andrew Philip. Woodfield et al. 13950883 CASHION 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GE Aviation Patent Operation YANG, JIE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2855 Thomas Heinke et al. 15208986 DELMENDO 103 Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. Intellectual Property Group, Fluke Patents KAPLAN VERBITSKY, GAIL

2871 Rong Liu et al. 14943202 REN 103 41.50 112(2) Treyz Law Group LAU, EDMOND C

Affirmed-in-Part
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3791 Nicholas Pergola 12268247 REIMERS 112(2)/101/102/103 112(1)/102/103 Pilloff & Passino LLP REDDY, SUNITA

See Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d  473, 478 (“[W]here a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.”) 

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 , 2303

Affirmed
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Wei Zhang et al. 11856109 KUMAR 112(1)/112(2)/101 SIEMENS CORPORATION RIFKIN, BEN M

2128 David Brett. Currin et al. 14793652 SHAW 103 PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP SAXENA, AKASH

2487 Christopher A. Segall 15351366 CUTITTA 103 Brooks Acordia IP Law, A Professional Corporation WERNER, DAVID N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Richard K. Macwilliams et al. 12703073 MEYERS 101 eBond Advisors LLC BARTLEY, KENNETH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Geoffrey William. Hall 14865628 CAPP 101 TRASKBRITT, P.C. /Bally Gaming, Inc. DENNIS, MICHAEL DAVID

3724 Xiandong Wang et al. 13655318 PESLAK 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR

bell comm, rowe, corning glass, kropa

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Narayanan et al 10990995 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PURDY, KYLE A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1758 Ex Parte Casali et al 12972007 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 102 Streets & Steele - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. DAM, DUSTIN Q

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Ungureanu et al 12669393 - (D) NEW 103 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA RICCI, CRAIG D

We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the language of the preamble is a limitation on the claim. “[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.” Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In instances where a patentee uses the claim preamble to recite structural limitations of his claimed invention, the PTO and courts give effect to that usage. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation. Id. (citing Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 (1951).

Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 2111.02 ,   2163

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 , 2303

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2111.02 , 2163

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

K-2, rowe, catalina

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Keranen 11793028 - (D) GREENHUT 102 INSKEEP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP, INC SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

Although these limitations are set forth in terms of function or use in claim I (Ans. 5), they "tell[] us something about the structural requirements of the [device]." See K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999); accord Rowe v. Dror, 112 F. 3d 473, 479-80 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Clearly, the use of manipulative language does not similarly demonstrate breadth in method claims 17 and 22, as it is well-settled that the novelty of the device used is not dispositive as to the patentability of method claims. See, e.g., Catalina Marketing Int'l. v. Coolsavings.com, 289 F. 3d 801, 809-810 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 , 2303

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02


AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Sivaram et al 13009944 - (D) NAPPI 102 102/103 Siemens Corporation TRAN, BAO G

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Kim et al 12745167 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. LIU, JUNG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Fack et al 11589214 - (D) FREDMAN 103 The Marbury Law Group, PLLC KARPINSKI, LUKE E

1619 Ex Parte Gaucheron et al 12307849 - (D) FREDMAN 103 American Air Liquide, Inc. ALAWADI, SARAH

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1736 Ex Parte JANSEN et al 12974435 - (D) ANKENBRAND 102/103 Albemarle Netherlands B.V. ZIMMER, ANTHONY J

1767 Ex Parte Jennissen 11631231 - (D) KAISER 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC HEINCER, LIAM J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2143 RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. NVIDIA, CORP. Requester (Withdrawn) Ex Parte 6591353 et al 09/561,868 95001169 - (S) EASTHOM 102/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP original RAMBUS INC. ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

ariad, rowe, texas instruments

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Murphy et al 10989721 COLAIANNI 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYDE, P.C. EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN 

Ex Parte Tsai et al 10382032 PAK 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L 

Ex Parte Maydan et al 10867591 COLAIANNI 103(a) MOSER IS LAW GROUP APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. EXAMINER KUNEMUND, ROBERT M 

Ex Parte Burns et al 11108274 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) FLETCHER YODER (CHEVRON PHILLIPS) EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K 

As stated in Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,

the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. . . . The term "possession," however, has never been very enlightening. It implies that as long as one can produce records documenting a written description of a claimed invention, one can show possession. But the hallmark of written description is disclosure. Thus, "possession as shown in the disclosure" is a more complete formulation. Yet whatever the specific articulation, the test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.

598 F. 3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

Ex Parte Bernard et al 10873887 SMITH 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Mane et al 10654137 JEFFERY 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN 

Ex Parte Robinson et al 10633804 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KIM, PAUL 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Nakaoka et al 09958885 MARTIN 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER NANO, SARGON N 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Linzer 11122426 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) CHRISTOPHER P MAIORANA, PC LSI CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOW, JEFFREY J 

Ex Parte Turetzky et al 10154138 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) THE ECLIPSE GROUP LLP EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA 

Ex Parte Endoh et al 10239188 SAADAT 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLANDMAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER AGUSTIN, PETER VINCENT 

Ex Parte Shiono 10882316 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER HSU, JONI 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Lee et al 11033845 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ARORA, AJAY 

Ex Parte Iwamoto et al 10543051 KERINS 103(a)/112(1)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E 

Ex Parte Tsukagoshi 10796394 HAIRSTON 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER LAVARIAS, ARNEL C 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Joye et al 10867986 McCARTHY 112(1)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRATT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Hathaway 10636128 SIU 102(e) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER THERIAULT, STEVEN B 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Lubbers et al 10043924 BARRETT 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TANG, KAREN C 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Adams et al 11191006 HAHN 101/102(b) OGILVY RENAULT LLP EXAMINER RAMPURIA, SHARAD K 

Ex Parte Joshi et al 11251674 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC EXAMINER THIER, MICHAEL 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Mutchler 10761185 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER CUMBERLEDGE, JERRY 

REEXAMINATION 

inter parties

EXAMINER AFFIRMED 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) SHIMANO, INC. Requester and Respondent v. ROLF DIETRICH Patent Owner and Appellant 95000008 6,428,113 LEBOVITZ 120 Priority/112(1)/103(a)/305 314(a) Enlarging the scope of the claims PURDUE LAW OFFICES THIRD PARTY REQUESTER David L. Tarnoof Global IP Counselors, LLP EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C 

When a claim term merely states a purpose, an intended use, or a result, the term may not be considered a limitation of the claim. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Texas Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303 

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04

pitney bowes, paulsen, marrin, bell comm, kropa, corning glass, rowe

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Dobler et al 10/258,006 MILLS 103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SHEIKH, HUMERA N 

Ex Parte Selvin et al 10/976,546 SPIEGEL 103(a) RICHARD ARON OSMAN EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Giffin 10/629,094 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP EXAMINER DEUBLE, MARK A 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Kuivasto et al 10/572,393 BARRETT 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER MILLER, BENA B 

Ex Parte Ma et al 11/390,978 O’NEILL 102(b)/nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER GIMIE, MAHMOUD 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Sakata et al 10/518,814 GREEN 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER JAVANMARD, SAHAR 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Vizzini et al 11/472,153 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER RABAGO, ROBERTO 

Ex Parte Berkowitz et al 10/306,765 DELMENDO 103(a) FRANK J. BONINI, JR. EXAMINER JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN 

REEXAMINATION 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex parte REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY 90/006,283 6,283,044 LEBOVITZ Opinion Dissenting SONG 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester UNGARETTI & HARRIS LLP EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ANDRES

Precedent establishes that the preamble limits the claims when it distinguishes the use of the claimed article from the prior art . . . . [Internal citations omitted] The preamble limits the claimed invention if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . .

Generally stated, “terms appearing in a preamble may be deemed limitations of a claim when they give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . .

Marrin v. Griffin, 94 USPQ2d 1140, 1143-44 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (dissent by J. Newman).

[W]here a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation. See Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 (1951).

The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d [1251] at 1257 [(Fed. Cir. 1989)]. The inquiry involves examination of the entire patent record to determine what invention the patentee intended to define and protect. [Internal citations omitted.]

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02

Paulsen, In re, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . .716.03, 2106, 2144.08

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2163

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303

suitco surface, dunbar, rowe

REVERSED 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Ho et al 10/646,289 JEFFERY Dissenting DANG 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M 

“[W]ith original examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” In re Suitco, No. 2009-1418, 2010 WL 1462294, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted). When a claim uses the open-ended term, “comprising,” “this court has instructed that any such construction be consistent with the specification . . . and that the claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at *4 (citations, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted). 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Imura et al 10/697,041 COURTENAY 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER KIM, ANDREW

Invention or discovery is the requirement which constitutes the foundation of the right to obtain a patent . . . unless more ingenuity and skill were required in making or applying the said improvement than are possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there is an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute the essential elements of every invention.

Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 197 (1876) (citing Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248, 267 (1850)) 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Lamont et al 10/491,811 GRIMES 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J 

“Where . . . a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303 

REEXAMINATION 

EXAMINER REVERSED 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte MERITOR LIGHT VEHICLE SYSTEMS 6,273,501 90/008,657 SONG 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY, & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester: Webasto AG EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C