elkay, pall corp2, omega, spectrum, middleton, saunders

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Tewari et al 11540320 - (D) MEDLOCK 102 ANDRUS, SCEALES, STARKE & SAWALL, LLP MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2825 Ex Parte Nair 11598327 - (D) TORCZON 103 102/103 37 CFR 40.51(b) 103 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) LEVIN, NAUM B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Cloft et al 11754455 - (D) SPAHN 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global PRAGER, JESSE M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Long et al 11303283 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. MEHMOOD, JENNIFER

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OPEN E CRY, LLC, AND OPTIONSXPRESS HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., AND TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND IBG, LLC, THINKORSWIM GROUP, INC., TD AMERITRADE, INC., TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP., AND INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, Defendants Appellees, AND CQG, INC., AND CQGT, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, AND 2 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v. OPEN E CRY, LLC FUTUREPATH TRADING LLC, SUNGARD DATA SYSTEMS, INC., SUNGARD INVESTMENT VENTURES LLC, AND GL TRADE AMERICAS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND STELLAR TRADING SYSTEMS, LTD., AND STELLAR TRADING SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND ESPEED MARKETS, LP, BGC CAPITAL MARKETS, LP, AND ECCOWARE LTD., Defendants-Appellees, AND ROSENTHAL COLLINS GROUP, LLC, Defendant. 2012-1583 7,676,411 11/585,907 7,693,768 11/585,906 7,904,374 11/585,905 7,685,055 11/417,547 LOURIE 112(2)/prosecution history estoppel Trading Technologies International, Inc. McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP; Salans LLP; Greenberg Traurig, LLP; Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione; WEISBERGER, RICHARD C

The court ... concluded that when “‘multiple patents derive from the same initial application, the prosecution history regarding a claim limitation in any patent that has issued applies with equal force to subsequently issued patents that contain the same claim limitation.’” ... (quoting Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
...
Prosecution history estoppel applies as part of an infringement analysis to prevent a patentee from using the doctrine of equivalents to recapture subject matter surrendered from the literal scope of a claim during prosecution. Pall Corp. v. Hemasure Inc., 181 F.3d 1305, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Prosecution disclaimer, on the other hand, affects claim construction and applies where an applicant’s actions during prosecution prospectively narrow the literal scope of an otherwise more expansive claim limitation. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323–24 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Though distinct, both doctrines serve to constrain the enforceable scope of patent claims commensurate with any subject matter surrendered during prosecution to obtain the patent, and a single action during prosecution can engender both a prosecution disclaimer and prosecution history estoppel. See, e.g., Elkay, 192 F.3d at 978–79, 981; Spectrum Int’l, Inc. v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
...
See Middleton, Inc. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 311 F.3d 1384, 1389 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “When the purported disclaimers are directed to specific claim terms that have been omitted or materially altered in subsequent applications . . . those disclaimers do not apply.” Saunders Grp., Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d 1326, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1646 BAYER CROPSCIENCE AG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-1002 6,153,401 07/322,604 TARANTO claim construction summary judgment of non-infringement Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP; original FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG ULM, JOHN D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 COOPER NOTIFICATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND EVERBRIDGE, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND FEDERAL SIGNAL CORP., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1615 7,409,428 10/829,181 LOURIE concurring in part and dissenting in part TARANTO claim construction summary judgment of non-infringement Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP; Fenwick & West LLP WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

REHEARING 

GRANTED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3642 SOVERAIN SOFTWARE LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NEWEGG INC., Defendant-Appellant. 2011-1009 5,715,314 08/328,133 PER CURIAM 103 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP; Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP original STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. GREGORY, BERNARR E

barker, ohshiro, sivaramakrishnan, saunders

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Skraly et al 11/072,735 MILLS 103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Hou 10/716,529 HOFF 102(b) BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP c/o CPA Global EXAMINER AHMED, SALMAN

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/034,224 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MILORD, MARCEAU

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Saltykov et al 11/386,063 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER SAN MARTIN, EDGARDO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Shenoy et al 11/070,398 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER PUTTLITZ, KARL J
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2876 Ex Parte 6,164,533 et al Ex parte Barton Patent 533 LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,064 TURNER concurring Easthom 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: MEL BARNES CAPITAL LEGAL GROUP, LLC EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K original EXAMINER LEE, MICHAEL GUNYOUNG

“That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that that step is part of appellants' invention. Such an indication is the least that is required for a description of the invention under the first paragraph of §112.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977). An amendment to a claim which further limits its scope to a species not explicitly disclosed, although covered by the scope of the generic claim, does not comply with the written description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Ex parte Ohshiro, 14 USPQ 2d 1750 (BPAI 1989).

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1651 Ex Parte 6372460 et al Ex parte MARTEK BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION Appellant 90/010,464 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, PLLC FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER WEBER, JON P
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Koverech et al 11/649,796 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M

1638 Ex Parte Sticklen 11/489,234 WALSH 103(a) Ian C. McLeod McLeod & Moyne, P.C. EXAMINER PAGE, BRENT T

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Ohnstad et al 11/411,688 FRANKLIN 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) JON M. DICKINSON, P.C. EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1761 Ex Parte Somerville Roberts et al 11/788,068 NAGUMO 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

In a similar circumstance, the predecessor to our reviewing court remarked, “the fact remains that one of ordinary skill informed by the teachings of [the reference] would not have had to choose judiciously from a genus of possible combinations of resin and salt to obtain the very subject matter to which appellant’s composition per se claims are directed.” In re Sivaramakrishnan, 673 F.2d 1383, 1385 (CCPA 1982) (finding, in that case, anticipation of the claimed compound).

1763 Ex Parte Klesczewski et al 12/070,614 McKELVEY 102(b) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Yuen 11/021,478 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(b)/103(a) ROPES & GRAY LLP EXAMINER COLAN, GIOVANNA B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2472 Ex Parte Sayeed 09/795,726 FRAHM non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHI HO A

See Saunders Group, Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d, 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (stating that where a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, the doctrine of claim differentiation supports the inference that the independent claim encompasses subject matter which does not include the added limitation).

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Suelzle et al 10/848,226 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI