animal, santarus, inphi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Marvin et al 13808920 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS BERHANE, ADOLF D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Memmott et al 13495069 - (D) JESCHKE 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC DAVIS, SHARON M

3657 Ex Parte Reinke et al 13090872 - (D) JESCHKE 103 Walter Ottesen, P.A. MOMPER, ANNA M

3669 Ex Parte Aixala et al 13130712 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 WRB-IP LLP CASS, JEAN PAUL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Giuliani 11916066 - (D) BROWN 103 41.50 112(2) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC COMINGS, DANIEL C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte Joshi 13279174 - (D) WINSOR 103 112(1) Hewlett Packard Enterprise MORLAN, ROBERT M

We agree with the Examiner. The limitation “only” idle voice clients does not appear in the claims as originally filed, but rather was added during prosecution. Compare Spec. 5—6 (original claims), with Amendment after Final Rejection 2—5 (Jan. 26, 2015) (amended claims). The language at lines 2—3 of claim 28 recites “to send the transition management message only to voice clients that are idle and not to voice clients that are not idle” (Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added)). The ordinary meaning of “only,” which is consistent with claim 28, is “adverb ... 1 a : as a single fact or instance and nothing more or different. . . b : solely, exclusively.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 812 (10th ed. 1999). Sending a transition management message to “only” voice clients that are idle is sending the transition management message exclusively to idle voice clients, and not to voice clients that are not idle — a negative limitation.

It is well settled that negative limitations are permissible forms of expression to define the scope of a claimed invention. See generally Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 923 (Fed. Cir. 1991). But the mere absence of a positive recitation in the original disclosure is not basis to exclude the limitation. MPEP § 2173.05. Rather, “[n]egative 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, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added). “The ‘reason’ required by Santarus is provided, for instance, by properly describing alternative features of the patented invention.” Inphi v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte SANTINATO et al 12886618 - (D) MEYERS 103 101 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 ALLEN, AKIBA KANELLE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte McCulloch et al 13252072 - (D) TOWNSEND 101/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY HARWARD, SOREN T

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Taniguchi et al 13616317 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP MALLOY, ANNA E

1768 Ex Parte BARNES et al 13937317 - (D) ROSS 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY FIGUEROA, JOHN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Sinnema et al 10559360 - (D) KERINS 112(2) 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DEXTER, CLARK F

3771 Ex Parte Fine et al 12541148 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP WOODWARD, VALERIE LYNN

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF LLC Requester, Respondent v. PPC BROADBAND, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8192237 et al 95/002,400 13/033,127 95002400 - (S) SONG 103 Barclay Damon, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC ANDUJAR, LEONARDO original CHAMBERS, TRAVIS SLOAN

santarus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Eller et al 12628594 - (D) BROWNE 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. FLANIGAN, ALLEN J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte KERTH et al 12907645 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 103 103 Dilworth IP - SAP NGUYEN, QUANG N

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Bower et al 11854398 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP LENOVO COMPANY (LENOVO-KLS) CONNOLLY, MARK A

However, we find the portions of the Specification (id.) cited by Appellants (App. Br. 2) do not identify a description of "a reason to exclude the relevant limitation." Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer. In fact, it is possible for the patentee to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same material."). See also Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP) 2173.05(i) (9th Ed., Mar. 2014) ("Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion").

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2483 Ex Parte Segall 11535800 - (D) CRAIG 103 Kristine Elizabeth Matthews BAILEY, FREDERICK D

2488 Ex Parte Pandit et al 10542668 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 THOMSON Licensing LLC PONTIUS, JAMES M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2657 Ex Parte Tiitola 12432952 - (D) BEAMER 103 Core Wireless Licensing Ltd SPOONER, LAMONT M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Schnabel et al 12252762 - (D) McMILLIN 103 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY CULLER, JILL E

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex parte ALLIED MACHINE & ENGINEERING CORP. Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7942616 et al 12/623,061 90012666 - (R) SONG 103 HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: HAMILTON IP LAW, PC Karma, INC. FETSUGA, ROBERT M original HOWELL, DANIEL W

santarus, bimeda, howmedica

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Gvirtsman et al 13192382 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BLAIR, DOUGLAS B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Abshire 12513833 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 HolzerIPLaw, PC MOHANDESI, JILA M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Ho et al 12823976 - (D) McSHANE 103 Arent Fox LLP PARSONS, THOMAS H

1784 Ex Parte Hongoh 12850877 - (D) GAUDETTE 112(1)/102/103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. LANGMAN, JONATHAN C

Under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, negative claim limitations are “adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Appellant argues “[i]t is clear from page 4, lines 12 - 25 of the originally filed application that Appellant, at the time of filing the instant application, understood that the reactive layer composition does not need to contain yttria.” Reply Br. 3. The referenced portion of the Specification describes a single embodiment of the reactive layer composition. We do not find, and Appellant has not identified, any disclosure in the Specification indicating that the inventors intended to limit the reactive layer composition to this specific embodiment or to a composition that is free of components other than those explicitly listed. In other words, the disclosure of a particular composition which excludes a broad genus of components does not amount to a disclosure of a composition that excludes one particular compound. See In re Bimeda Research & Dev. Ltd., 724 F.3d 1320, 1323–24 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that “claim 32 failed the written description requirement because the disclosure did not describe[ ] a formulation excluding a specific species of the antiinfective genus, while permitting others to be present” (internal citations and quotations omitted)); cf. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he fact that the specification describes only a single embodiment, standing alone, is insufficient to limit otherwise broad claim language.”).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Consuegra et al 12566919 - (D) ENGELS 103 Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC HARPER, ELIYAH STONE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Pafumi et al 12849655 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 J.B. KRAFT ATTORNEY CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2672 Ex Parte Noel et al 11164351 - (D) HUME 102 Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC BECKLEY, JONATHAN R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Binmore 12580154 - (D) WARREN 102/103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. TAYLOR, APRIL ALICIA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Steinberg et al 10977194 - (D) OSINSKI 103 101 FAY SHARPE LLP CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

3748 Ex Parte MYERS et al 12389854 - (D) BROWNE 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC ESHETE, ZELALEM

soni, santarus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Chen et al 11373054 - (D) HOUSEL 103/double patenting FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER

The Examiner further finds Amine Declarant's statement that the synergy between the anion receptor and the electrode stabilizer as evidenced by Figures 6 and 7 was suprising and unexpected "is not evidence of unexpected results."  Ans. 10.  However, while we agree that the statement alone is not evidence of unexpected results, it is an essential component of Appellants' evidentiary showing.  In re Soni, 54 F.3d 745, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("Mere improvement in properties does not always suffice to show unexpected results.  In our view, however, when an applicant demonstrates substantially improved results ... and states that the results were unexpected, this should suffice to establish unexpected results in the absense of evidence to the contrary.")

Soni, In re, 54 F.3d 746, 34 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 707.07(f) , 2145

1746 Ex Parte Zhu et al 12249030 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Dobrusin Law Firm PC The Dow Chemical Company LEE, DANIEL H.

1747 Ex Parte Thiebaud 11988209 - (D) HASTINGS 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC DYE, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Graefe et al 12364063 - (D) ZADO 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MUELLER, KURT A

2169 Ex Parte McLain et al 12276577 - (D) STRAUSS 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. HUTTON, NAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Hardacker 11786066 - (D) EVANS 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES KHALID, OMER

2454 Ex Parte Boss et al 11381434 - (D) CRAWFORD 102/103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC WU, TSUNG YIN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Fitzgibbon 11670221 - (D) MANTIS MERCADOR 102/103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP NGUYEN, HAI V

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Kline et al 12946140 - (D) GUIJT] 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY DO, ROWLAND

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Hesselink et al 10988280 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 103 WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION CHEEMA, AZAM M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Mishra 12011931 - (D) KRIVAK 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MOORAD, WASEEM

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2864 Ex Parte Kar et al 12503783 - (D) PAK 102/103 101 HONEYWELL/MUNCK HWANG, TIMOTHY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Clauser et al 12493637 - (D) KINDER 102 102/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION FLEMING, FAYE M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Bandholz et al 12393614 - (D) MARSCHALL 102 102/103 41.50 102/103 STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION (ROC) SPURLOCK, BRETT SHANE

3768 Ex Parte Schmidt 10708723 - (D) HARLOW 103 103 ZIOLKOWSKI PATENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, SC (GEMS) WEATHERBY, ELLSWORTH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Sumcad et al 12234284 - (D) STRAUSS 103 REISING ETHINGTON P.C. General Motors Corporation KIM, TAELOR

2157 Ex Parte Krishnamurthy 12668815 - (D) HUDALLA 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HUANG, MIRANDA M

2173 Ex Parte Sankaranarayan 12056728 - (D) WIEKER 112(2)/102/103 VERIZON ULRICH, NICHOLAS S

2185 Ex Parte Bolderl-Ermel et al 12224484 - (D) HOMERE 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION MYERS, PAUL R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Molaro 11895870 - (D) HOMERE 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

2493 Ex Parte Chow et al 12351193 - (D) HUGHES 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT LESNIEWSKI, VICTOR D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Bian et al 11456188 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT GAO, JING

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2898 Ex Parte Hosking 11110112 - (D) HOUSEL 102 Maschoff Brennan MOVVA, AMAR

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Graziano et al 13224196 - (D) BAHR 102/103 SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP WILKENS, JANET MARIE

3693 Ex Parte Debonnett 10985744 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1)/103 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP MERCHANT, SHAHID R

See Santaurus, Inc. v. ParPharm., Inc. 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant information.) 

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Buckley et al 12264156 - (D) HOFFMANN 112(2) 102/103 SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP YUSUF, MOHAMMAD I

3742 Ex Parte Huang et al 12222658 - (D) SMEGAL 103 CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P. HEINRICH, SAMUEL M

3771 Ex Parte Kressierer / Huber et al 12068901 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC YOUNG, RACHEL T

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

animal, santarus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Hansen 12664070 - (D) GARRIS 103 FLSMIDTH MARCANTONI, PAUL D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Osterloh et al 11115068 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC HTUN, SAN A

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 INPHI CORPORATION Requester and Appellant v. NETLIST, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001381 7,532,537 11/335,875 JEFFERY 112(1)/102/103 The Law Office of Jamie Zheng, Ph.D Esq. PEIKARI, BEHZAD original SOFOCLEOUS, ALEXANDER

Here, it is undisputed that the negative limitation, “DDR chip selects that are not CAS, RAS, or bank address signals,” was added by amendment Appeal 2013-009066 during reexamination. It is likewise undisputed that this particular phrase is not expressly stated in the ’537 patent’s original disclosure.

Nevertheless, it is well settled that negative limitations are permissible forms of expression to define the scope of a claimed invention. See generally Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 923 (Fed. 
Cir. 1991). But the mere absence of a positive recitation in the original disclosure is not basis to exclude the limitation. MPEP § 2173.05. Rather, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added).

animal DONNER 6: 202; 8: 1501; 10: 418; 14: 574

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

Morris, santarus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Collins et al 12185575 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 SUMMA, ADDITON & ASHE, P.A. GAKH, YELENA G

1782 Ex Parte Takahashi 11470098 - (D) TIMM 103 YAMAHA C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP PATTERSON, MARC A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Heynemann et al 11938116 - (D) KRIVAK 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CLEARY, THOMAS J

2141 Ex Parte Jha et al 11559639 - (D) DIXON 102/103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP SONG, DAEHO D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Marel et al 10693679 - (D) CURCURI 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NANO, SARGON N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Seo et al 11378799 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Innovation Counsel LLP PHAM, THANH V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Paraschac et al 11820174 - (D) SAINDON 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BROWN, MICHAEL A

3772 Ex Parte Nelson et al 11592529 - (D) SAINDON 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BROWN, MICHAEL A

3772 Ex Parte Falco 11270053 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY PATEL, TARLA R

[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by … the applicant's specification.

In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 904.01, 2111, 2111.01, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Mackles et al 12905803 - (D) TORCZON 103 OMRI M. BEHR DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Hirsch et al 11194086 - (D) BRADEN 102 IBM ZILKA-KOTAB, PC PHAM, KHANH B

2169 Ex Parte Chu et al 11499701 - (D) DIXON 112(1)/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC WEINRICH, BRIAN E

We disagree with Appellants and note that more than mere silence is required. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). ("Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer. In fact, it is possible for the patentee to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same material.") Appellants have not identified any reason to exclude the identified limitation.

2172 Ex Parte Chidlovskii et al 11156776 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 FAY SHARPE LLP WRIGHT, ELIZABETH G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2687 Ex Parte Badillo et al 11264064 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TWEEL JR, JOHN ALEXANDER

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Sugg 10540026 - (D) ARPIN 102 GREIGG & GREIGG P.L.L.C. GORDON, BRYAN P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Boyle et al 11877168 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting McDermott Will & Emery LLP DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

3788 Ex Parte Slomski 10836016 - (D) POWELL 102/103 ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. TAYLOR IP, P.C. PICKETT, JOHN G

classen, cybersource, research corp., santarus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Robert et al 10984252 - (D) SCHEINER 103 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Karve et al 11931565 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. LI, MEIYA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte King et al 11810943 - (D) PLENZLER 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. LEE, ERICA SHENGKAI

Although it is acknowledged that patent eligibility under § 101 is a course filter and that disqualifying abstractness of a claim must be manifest, that does not compel a conclusion that there is never a valid basis to hold that a claim is simply too abstract to qualify as patent eligible. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Research Corp. Techs, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec et al., 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Lubbers et al 11479365 - (D) DILLON 102 102/103 Seagate Technology LLC Hall Estill Attorneys at Law DOAN, DUC T

Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer. In fact, it is possible for the patentee to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same material.”).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Hung et al 09761893 - (D) ADAMS 103 Shih-Chieh Hung Dept. of Orthop. and Traumetology, Vet. General Hospital-Taipei DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Wu 11855243 - (D) METZ 103 Becton, Dickinson and Company YAGER, JAMES C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Rudolph et al 10936254 - (D) BENOIT 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Kuhl et al 11498758 - (D) DILLON 102/103 CROWELL & MORING LLP MORTELL, JOHN F

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Friedl et al 11797836 - (D) GONSALVES 102/103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC BUI, BRYAN
 
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2153 FACEBOOK, INC. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. PRAGMATUS AV, LLC Patent Owner and Respondent 95001715 7421470 10/721,905 ZECHER 102/103 Reed Smith LLP CHOI, WOO H original STRANGE, AARON N

2153 FACEBOOK, INC. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. PRAGMATUS AV, LLC Patent Owner and Respondent 95001716 7433921 10/722,051 ZECHER 102/103 Reed Smith LLP CHOI, WOO H original STRANGE, AARON N

2181 NVIDIA CORPORATION Requester and Appellant v. RAMBUS INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001472 6,715,020 10/037,171 SIU 103 Paul M. Anderson, PLLC ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN