scott, IPXL, liebel-flarsheim

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Evans 11/612,152 GREENHUT 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER PATEL, KIRAN B

3671 Ex Parte Dumlao et al 10/858,254 O’NEILL 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER HARTMANN, GARY S

The Examiner’s reliance on In re Scott, 323 F.2d 1016 (CCPA 1963) appears to lack a full appreciation of the case. The CCPA disagreed with the Patent Office’s logic that if there appears to exist a “functional equivalence,” it follows that the claim is obvious. Id. at 1019. The CCPA held that it does not follow that the use of one core over the other core would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in view of the references before the Examiner, even though the expedients could be considered functionally equivalent to each other. Id. at 1019-20. The CCPA found that the Patent Office’s logic appears to be based on hindsight of the art after having the full benefit of the Appellant’s disclosure. Id. at 1020.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Saho 10/754,742 O’NEILL 103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER TRINH, MINH N

3761 Ex Parte Felt et al 11/530,131 O’NEILL 103(a) CaridianBCT, Inc. EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Ueda et al 10/771,309 O’NEILL 103(a) 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/637,616 FREDMAN 103(a) Constellation Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE

IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(“Because claim 25 recites both a system and the method for using that system, it does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and it is invalid under section 112, paragraph 2.”)

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 77 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . . . . . 2173.05(p)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Lehto 10/978,598 KRIVAK 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HUTTON JR, WILLIAM D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Waugh 11/458,407 GREENHUT 103(a) MAIER & MAIER, PLLC EXAMINER WENDELL, MARK R

3677 Ex Parte Detsis 11/220,209 BAHR 102(b) ROGER M. RATHBUN EXAMINER LAVINDER, JACK W
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Leung et al 11/206,245 GARRIS 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT

DENIED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Grunschlager et al 11/171,122 KAUFFMAN 102(e)/103(a) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER LARYEA, LAWRENCE N

See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim).

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 69 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2004). .2111.01