schumer, medline

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte Subramanian et al 12182325 - (D) THOMAS 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP GIARDINO JR, MARK A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Williams 12711288 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 LAUBSCHER, SPENDLOVE & LAUBSCHER, P.C. NGUYEN, SON T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Baverso 11494428 - (D) HILL 103 Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon LLP BAKER, LORI LYNN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Bhagwan et al 12828139 - (D) HOFF 103 101 VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy IBM CORPORATION MENG, JAU SHYA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 Ex Parte Hathaway 12514932 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 102/103 Donald E Schreiber CONNELLY, MICHELLE R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1674 Ex Parte Monahan et al 10782075 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 ROCHE MADISON INC. CHONG, KIMBERLY

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Wiercinski et al 13434157 - (D) HASTINGS 103 W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN SHAH, SAMIR

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 12696340 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 GARLICK & MARKISON CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

Regarding Issue 1a, claim 1 recited "selectively cache first content ... or transmit the first content" (emphasis added), and claims 10 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations.  Our reviewing court has consistently interpreted the word "or" to mean that items in a sequence are alternatives to each other.  Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1311 (Fed. Cir 2002).  Here, "selectively cache first content" is a "disjunctive alternative" to "transmit the first content," and Jorden only needs to show "one of the elements, as opposed to showing all of the recited elements, to render [the] claim unpatentable."  See Medline Indus., Inc. v. Paul Hartmann AG, Case IPR2013-00173, 2013 WL 8595518, at *5 (PTAB June 20, 2013) (non-precential) (citations omitted).

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte KRAH 12687829 - (D) TROCK 103 Fletcher Yoder, PC APPLE INC. PERROMAT, CARLOS

2656 Ex Parte Kole et al 13062662 - (D) NAPPI 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP TIEU, BINH KIEN

2657 Ex Parte Bremner et al 12842211 - (D) HORVATH 101/103 CRGO LAW WOZNIAK, JAMES S

2693 Ex Parte Baillot 11441241 - (D) HOFF 103 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP MA, CALVIN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Kendall et al 12419958 - (D) McSHANE 112(2)/103 Fenwick/Facebook MCCORMICK, GABRIELLE A

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2617 APPLE INC., Third Party Requester v. AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7324833 et al 10/947,755 95001223 - (D) BRANCH 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU P.C. For Third Party Requesters: KENYON & KENYON LLP LAROSE, COLIN M original WASHINGTON, ERIKA ALISE

2617 APPLE INC., Third Party Requester v. AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7440772 et al 10/947,754 95001266 - (D) BRANCH 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU P.C. For Third Party Requesters: Novak Druce & Quigg, LLP LAROSE, COLIN M original GELIN, JEAN ALLAND

schreiber, altenpohl, fessmann, marosi, schumer

US 5,203,346

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte JEONG et al 12720430 - (D) JEFFERY 251/112(2) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP SEFCHECK, GREGORY B

These conversions from active steps to functional language effectively broaden the patented apparatus claims to merely require that the recited apparatus elements (e.g., “connection manager,” “classifier,” “service manager,” etc.) are capable of performing the intended function—not that they actually perform that function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the present reissue application is effectively a broadening reissue application.

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02, 2112, 2114
...

In any event, corrections to claims via reissue to avoid potential indefiniteness have been judicially sanctioned, albeit in another context, to avoid having to rely on implication or litigation. See In re Altenpohl, 500 F.2d 1151, 1156-57 (CCPA 1974) (“Lack of antecedent basis in a claim could render it invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and . . . a patentee should be allowed to correct an error or ambiguity in a claim without having to rely on implication or litigation.” (emphases added)).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Ng et al 11742563 - (D) CALVE 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MCCLAIN, GERALD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2671 Ex Parte Damera-Venkata 10698895 - (D) POTHIER 103 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY VO, QUANG N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ali et al 11437466 - (D) DIXON 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global PHILLIPS, FORREST M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Pechtold et al 10843013 - (D) HOFFMANN 102 102/103 Quinn Law Group, PLLC PETTITT, JOHN F

3777 Ex Parte BLUMHOFER et al 11548848 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 102 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP REMALY, MARK DONALD

3777 Ex Parte Benndorf et al 11724657 - (D) WALSH 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte DiLorenzo 11159842 - (D) FREDMAN 103/obviousness-type double patenting NEUROVISTA / SHAY GLENN SIMS, JASON M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1758 Ex Parte Bianchi 10806710 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1)/103 HUGH P. GORTLER MERSHON, JAYNE L

1791 Ex Parte Jani et al 11415044 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting Hoffmann & Baron LLP BEKKER, KELLY JO

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Gonzalez 11064490 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 Carlos Gonzalez TELAN, MICHAEL R

2461 Ex Parte Lauber 11757583 - (D) ZECHER 103 Cochran Freund & Young/ AVAYA, Inc. MIAN, OMER S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Dale et al 10340290 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) DANNEMAN, PAUL

3656 Ex Parte Gaechter 10524298 - (D) GREENHUT 103 EGBERT LAW OFFICES PILKINGTON, JAMES

The USPTO bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a prima facie case of obviousness in a product-by-process situation because of its peculiar nature. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974) 2113

Marosi, In re, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 706.02(m), 2111.01, 2113, 2173.05(b)

3671 Ex Parte Suggate 10519546 - (D) CAPP 103 Rankin, Hill & Clark LLP HARTMANN, GARY S

3682 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11712276 - (D) KIM 102/103 YAHOO! OVERTURE BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE MYHRE, JAMES W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Morgenstern et al 10585162 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC PRAGER, JESSE M

3769 Ex Parte Odrich et al 10600027 - (D) PRATS 103 AMO / Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP SHAY, DAVID M

3788 Ex Parte Benson et al 11796384 - (D) PLENZLER 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CHU, KING M

3788 Ex Parte Busch et al 12092646 - (D) KAUFFMAN obviousness-type double patenting 102/103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA

The body of each claim describes a structurally complete invention, and if the preamble were deleted, the structure of the claimed invention would be unchanged. See Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (If the body of the claim “sets out the complete invention,” the preamble is not ordinarily treated as limiting the scope of the claim.).

schumer, spectralytics

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Meerdink et al 10/582,280 FREDMAN 103(a) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON EXAMINER COVINGTON, RAYMOND K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Miller et al 10/188,383 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER PEARSON, DAVID J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Bean et al 10/786,164 O’NEILL 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3663 Ex Parte Hubner et al 11/138,236 O’NEILL 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER PALABRICA, RICARDO J

3689 Ex Parte Iobst et al 10/254,417 CRAWFORD 112(1)/103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER RIVIERE, HEIDI M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Ennis 12/323,709 KAUFFMAN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) MATTINGLY & MALUR, PC EXAMINER SCRUGGS, ROBERT J

The body of claim 1 describes a structurally complete invention, and if the preamble were deleted, the structure of the claimed invention would be unchanged. See Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (If the body of the claim “sets out the complete invention,” the preamble is not ordinarily treated as limiting the scope of the claim.).

3761 Ex Parte Hjorth et al 10/458,651 GREENHUT 103(a) BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Rohwedder et al 10/970,900 ZECHER 101/102(b) Silicon Valley Patent Group LLP Attn: OMKAR - ORACLE EXAMINER CHEEMA, AZAM M

2167 Ex Parte Brendle et al 10/747,033 HUGHES 102(e) SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M

2183 Ex Parte Bradford et al 11/246,820 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Hickson et al 10/016,906 SMITH 102(e) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER WALSH, JOHN B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Lamstein 11/022,198 KAUFFMAN 103(a) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER POLLICOFF, STEVEN B

AFFIRMED

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Luxton 10/649,778 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER SING, SIMON P

See Spectralytics, Inc. v Cordis Corp., 99 USPQ2d 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“It is indeed of interest if the prior art warned against the very modification made by the patentee, but it is not the sole basis on which a trier of fact could find that the prior art led away from the direction taken by the patentee. Instead, the jury could find, based on the expert testimony, that prior Swiss-style machines taught away from embracing vibrations to improve cutting accuracy because all prior machines improved accuracy by dampening vibrations [footnote omitted].”).

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Karpov et al 11/272,208 NAPPI 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER PHAM, LONG

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Stewart et al 10/221,011 KIM 103(a) MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, GREGORY L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Holz et al 11/337,759 LEBOVITZ 103(a) The Gillette Company EXAMINER DEXTER, CLARK F
REHEARING

DENIED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Kenny 11/134,011 McCARTHY 101/112(1) Bernard S. Hoffman EXAMINER SMITH, RUTH S

DISMISSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Sakamoto et al 11/723,822 SHAW RCE EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P