tomtom, seattle box

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 13140608 - (D) ROESEL 112(2)/103 112(2) Abel Law Group, LLP STACHEL, KENNETH J

Appellants emphasize that the term, "improving," appears in the preamble, but that alone is not a sufficient basis for concluding that the term is not a limitation of the claim. See Tom Tom, Inc. v. Michael Adolph, 790 F.3d 1315, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Whether to treat a preamble as a claim limitation is determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent."). Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's determination that "improving" is a word of degree for which a standard must be provided in the Specification. See Seattle Box Company, Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F .2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("When a word of degree is used the district court must determine whether the patent's specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.").

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2173.05(b)

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2682 Ex Parte OHKI 12855339 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Paratus Law Group, PLLC AKHTER, SHARMIN

seattle box

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Rhoads et al 12244531 - (D) FRAHM 103 Foley & Lardner LLP TANK, ANDREW L

2174 Ex Parte Jain 12142591 - (D) FRAHM 103 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Adobe Systems Incorporated) VARGA, WILSON V

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Heebner et al 12718179 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 LLNL/John P. Wooldridge KIANNI, KAVEH C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3675 Ex Parte Pawl et al 12469195 - (D) GUIJT 103 FREUDENBERG-NOK GENERAL PARTNERSHIP FOSTER, NICHOLAS L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Ruppert 11938121 - (D) BROWNE 102 Seed IP Law Group/Bally (110184) SUHOL, DMITRY

3744 Ex Parte Jager 12375552 - (D) SHAH 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY RAYMOND, KEITH MICHAEL

3763 Ex Parte Amisar et al 11884140 - (D) BROWN 103 41.50 112(2) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC MEDWAY, SCOTT J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Smith et al 12713410 - (D) GARRIS 103 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY KHAN, AMINA S

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Hasirci et al 10886851 - (D) POLLOCK 103 Pabst Patent Group LLP WESTERBERG, NISSA M

1627 Ex Parte Schmelzer et al 12299535 - (D) NEW 103 Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation KAROL, JODY LYNN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Wang et al 12357296 - (D) GUPTA 102/103 Duane Morris LLP (10/11) Seagate JELSMA, JONATHAN G

1744 Ex Parte Borgsten et al 12952635 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(1) 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP GUPTA, YOGENDRA N

1766 Ex Parte George et al 13364385 - (D) KUMAR 103 Covestro LLC WASHVILLE, JEFFREY D

1776 Ex Parte Rasmussen et al 13258018 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY SMITH, DUANE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Weaver et al 12239714 - (D) FRAHM 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC SAX, STEVEN PAUL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte CHEN et al 13188521 - (D) HAGY 102/103 RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP JOSHI, SURAJ M

2472 Ex Parte Athas et al 12028319 - (D) MORGAN 103 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP MUSA, ABDELNABI O

2484 Ex Parte Atkins et al 12574903 - (D) HOMERE 103 Edell, Shapiro, & Finnan, LLC DANG, HUNG Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte IMAI et al 13173411 - (D) SMITH 103/double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. CHEN, FRANK S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Ng et al 13047293 - (D) KUMAR 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D

2842 Ex Parte MORII 12271463 - (D) FISHMAN 103 ARENT FOX LLP O TOOLE, COLLEEN J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Kelly 13231204 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz, LLP VANAMAN, FRANK BENNETT

3649 Ex Parte Gerszberg et al 13661914 - (D) THOMAS 103 Nicholas R. Lewis, P.A. WONG, ALBERT KANG

When a word of degree is used in a claim, it is incumbent upon Appellants to provide, in the specification, some standard for measuring that degree. Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packaging, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, Appellants fail to provide a standard for measuring the range of communication.

Therefore, we find that the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claimed "venue" and "limited range of communication" is any location that is associated with an event, and any range that covers that particular venue, respectively.

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2173.05(b)

3692 Ex Parte Allen et al 12944375 - (D) MOHANTY 103 112(b) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP BAIRD, EDWARD J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Tahara 10928344 - (D) CALVE 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC D'AGOSTINO, PAUL ANTHONY

3766 Ex Parte KAST et al 13012957 - (D) ASTORINO 103 MEDTRONIC, INC. (NEURO/MRG) MORALES, JON ERIC C

seattle box

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2411 Ex Parte DeJana et al 13152090 - (D) McMILLIN 103 CAHN & SAMUELS, LLP NGUYEN, CHUONG M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Brown 11119335 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. REYES, REGINALD R

3696 Ex Parte Brady 10103818 - (D) MOHANTY 103 DLA PIPER US LLP TROTTER, SCOTT S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1785 Ex Parte Herslow 12006168 - (D) HOUSEL 112(1)/112(2)/103 103 HENRY I. SCHANZER, ESQ REDDY, SATHAVARAM I

“When a word of degree is used the [fact-finder] must determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packaging,Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2173.05(b)

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Ledlie et al 12980864 - (D) McCARTNEY 102 102/103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. SAMS, MATTHEW C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Albrecht et al 12558517 - (D) JENKS 102/103 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP WEST, THEODORE R

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Stute et al 12653731 - (D) DELMENDO 103 KLAUS J. BACH CREPEAU, JONATHAN

1735 Ex Parte Bausch et al 13181719 - (D) DELMENDO 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB YUEN, JACKY

1777 Ex Parte Rohde et al 12200488 - (D) SMITH 103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago ZALASKY, KATHERINE M

1789 Ex Parte Verreet 10547992 - (D) SMITH 103 LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP WYROZEBSKI, KATARZYNA 1

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte BHATNAGAR et al 12551737 - (D) FENICK 112(1)/112(2)/103 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP KUDIRKA, JOSEPH R

2159 Ex Parte Pierce et al 12748284 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 Orthosensor, Inc. VU, THONG H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Purpura et al 11390657 - (D) JIVANI 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. SCHNURR, JOHN R

2441 Ex Parte King 12820839 - (D) JIVANI 103 BlackBerry Limited (CRGO Cases) KATSIKIS, KOSTAS J

2481 Ex Parte BEKIARES et al 12648274 - (D) FENICK 103 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. PEREZ FUENTES, LUIS M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Weiler 12086439 - (D) KRIVAK 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 Ex Parte Nakagawa et al 11092881 - (D) KHAN 112(1)/103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL BEDTELYON, JOHN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Hoyos et al 11456189 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Haynes & Boone, LLP ABDI, KAMBIZ

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
BIOTAGE AB Requester v. PATENT OF SCIENTIFIC PLASTIC PRODUCTS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8066875 et al 12/152,165 95001985 - (D) ROBERTSON 112(1)/103 41.77 103 DAVID M. QUINLAN, P.C. KUGEL, TIMOTHY J

AFFIRMED
BIOTAGE AB Requester v. Patent of SCIENTIFIC PLASTIC PRODUCTS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8070957 et al 12/152,166 95001986 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 41.77 103 DAVID M. QUINLAN, P.C. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: FOLEY AND LARDNER, LLP XU, LING X

wrigley, seattle box, planet bingo

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Shives et al 11223804 - (D) PAK 103 WADDEY & PATTERSON, P.C. RUDE, TIMOTHY L

2871 Ex Parte Shives et al 11167935 - (D) PAK 103 WADDEY & PATTERSON, P.C. RUDE, TIMOTHY L

2871 Ex Parte Shives et al 11225491 - (D) PAK 103 WADDEY & PATTERSON, P.C. RUDE, TIMOTHY L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Disse et al 11468871 - (D) POLLOCK 103 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA CORPORATION SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L

1655 Ex Parte Sun 11726603 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

In other words, Appellant has not demonstrated that the addition of phytoestrogen to the prior art mung bean/Lentinus edodes extract composition resulted in an unexpected improvement in the treatment of NSCLC. See Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Evidence that a combination of known components results in an effect greater than the predicted additive effect of the components can support a finding of nonobviousness.”)(Emphasis added.)

1662 Ex Parte Carozzi et al 10782141 - (D) GRIMES 103 Bayer CropScience LP Athenix Corp. KUBELIK, ANNE R

1662 Ex Parte Carozzi et al 10782096 - (D) GRIMES 103 Bayer CropScience LP Athenix Corp. KUBELIK, ANNE R

1662 Ex Parte Carozzi et al 10783417 - (D) GRIMES 103 Bayer CropScience LP Athenix Corp. KUBELIK, ANNE R

1662 Ex Parte Carozzi et al 10782570 - (D) GRIMES 103 Bayer CropScience LP Athenix Corp. KUBELIK, ANNE R

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte MUELLER et al 12061832 - (D) ROESEL 112(2)/103 Pearne & Gordon LLP CHOI, PETER Y

When a word of degree, such as “substantially,” is used in a claim, we must determine whether the Specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. Seattle Box Company, Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (addressing whether claim term “substantially equal” is indefinite).

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2173.05(b)

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2198 Ex Parte Galli 09870223 - (D) MacDONALD 112(1)/102/103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS KANG, INSUN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Kuraoka et al 11245356 - (D) SAADAT 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. YODICHKAS, ANEETA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Hackitt et al 11440609 - (D) LEBOVITZ obviousness-type double patenting/102/103 INTEL CORPORATION c/o CPA Global LAURENZI, MARK A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Struecker 12708198 - (D) BAHR 103 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. MATTEI, BRIAN DAVID

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Knight 10861849 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101/112(2) Andrew Knight COBURN, CORBETT B

see also Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claims ineligible even though they “require[d] ‘a computer with a central processing unit,’ ‘a memory,’ ‘an input and output terminal,’ ‘a printer,’ [and] in some cases ‘a video screen’”).16

16 Although nonprecedential, Planet Bingo is persuasive. Fed. Cir. R. 32.1; see Fed. R. App. Pro. 32.1(a).

3714 Ex Parte Knight 10869082 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101/112(2) Andrew Knight COBURN, CORBETT B

3714 Ex Parte Knight 10846544 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101/112(2) Andrew Knight COBURN, CORBETT B

3714 Ex Parte Knight 10722473 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101/112(2) Andrew Knight COBURN, CORBETT B

3746 Ex Parte Wagner 11800092 - (D) GOODSON 102/103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB LETTMAN, BRYAN MATTHEW

clay, antor media, datamize, seattle box

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Dao et al 11347404 - (D) BUI 102 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC TRAN, BAO G

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Erceg et al 12264472 - (D) COURTENAY 103 GARLICK & MARKISON BAIG, ADNAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Cruz-Hernandez et al 10926644 - (D) STRAUSS 103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP ZHOU, HONG

To be considered in an obviousness analysis the art must be analogous “prior art” which means the prior art must be in either the same field of Appellants’ endeavor or reasonably pertinent to Appellants’ problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Whether a prior art reference is “analogous” is a question of fact. Id. at 658. The Examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Parmater’s exercise device providing adjustable head resistance as being in the same field of endeavor as Appellants’ apparatus.

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08
DONNER 8: 262, 267, 275, 283
HARMON 4: 162; 20: 163

2659 Ex Parte Wu 11558145 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) GUERRA-ERAZO, EDGAR X

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Kouvetakis et al 11969689 - (D) GARRIS 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP GUPTA, RAJ R

The Examiner is correct that the prior art printed publications Roucka and Jorgenson are presumptively enabling. In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, when an applicant challenges enablement of a reference, applicant's evidence and argument must be thoroughly reviewed to determine if the reference is enabling. Id., 689 F.3d at 1292.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Schwan 10518369 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. PAINTER, BRANON C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Ingram et al 11860994 - (D) ABRAMS 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) EDWARD S. WRIGHT LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN

The term “enhanced” is a word of degree, and “when a word of degree is used [a court] must determine
whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). ... Thus, an unrestrained, subjective construction of “strands having enhanced gripping properties” “would not notify the public of the
patentee’s right to exclude since the meaning of the claim language would depend on the unpredictable vagaries of any one person’s opinion . . . . While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a claim term, to be definite, requires an objective anchor.” Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1350.

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)
Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2173.05(b)
DONNER 10: 290, 292, 566; 14: 31, 53, 54, 442
HARMON 5: 272, 274; 13: 235; 18: 289, 307, 314

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Schmidl et al 11360654 - (D) SHIANG 103 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED HSIUNG, HAI-CHANG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Huck 11717701 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC TSVEY, GENNADIY

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Wan et al 10906513 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC CHOI, YUK TING

2193 Ex Parte Harvey et al 11674893 - (D) KUMAR 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller, PLLC VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte CHOI et al 12133946 - (D) KRIVAK 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC LEWIS, JONATHAN V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Amizic et al 12427387 - (D) FISHMAN 102/obviousness-type double patenting Zenith Electronics LLC PUENTE, EVA YI ZHENG

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Daneshvar 11731945 - (R) ADAMS 103 Yousef Daneshvar, MD FACC. SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 SOLVAY S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1660 6,730,817 09/051,746 DYK dissenting NEWMAN 102(g)(2) Williams & Connolly LLP; Kirkland & Ellis LLP original NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP PRICE, ELVIS O

3M, hazani, garnero, seattle box, kao

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/096,820 HOUSEL 102(b)/103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY

1742 Ex Parte Lawton et al 11/931,205 KRATZ 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER THROWER, LARRY W

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Bocionek et al 09/994,184 NAPPI 103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP EXAMINER ENGLAND, SARA M

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Kiuchi et al 10/730,767 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) ALPINE/BHGL EXAMINER WOZNIAK, JAMES S

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Feeney et al 11/738,433 JEFFERY 103(a) JOSEPH SWAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION EXAMINER CHAN, KAWING

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11/930,837 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) David Klein DEKEL PATENT LTD. EXAMINER NGUYEN, SON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Igaki 10/220,472 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) Rader Fishman & Grauer EXAMINER NGUYEN, TUAN VAN

3734 Ex Parte Scheller et al 10/820,330 GRIMES 103(a) Evans & Dixon, LLC EXAMINER DOWE, KATHERINE MARIE

3736 Ex Parte Wollin 10/902,263 SCHEINER 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T

3761 Ex Parte Lam et al 11/155,981 SCHEINER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3761 Ex Parte Wariar 11/345,702 GRIMES 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3656 Ex Parte 7757582 et al Ex parte SHIMANO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 90/011,360 11/641,905 SONG 102(b)/103(a) GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER JOHNSON, VICKY A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Pawlak et al 11/432,692 FRANKLIN concurring NAGUMO 103(a) 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Adams et al 11/158,104 KRIVAK 103(a) 103(a) Borden Ladner Gervais LLP EXAMINER SHEDRICK, CHARLES TERRELL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11/293,178 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) DEKEL PATENT LTD., DAVID KLEIN BEIT HAROF'IM EXAMINER NGUYEN, SON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Kilcoyne et al 10/896,553 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, HUONG Q

3765 Ex Parte Olofsson 10/761,401 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) 112(2) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER SELF, SHELLEY M

If the words of limitation can connote with equal force a structural characteristic of the product or a process used to obtain it, then the limitation is commonly interpreted in its structural sense. See, e.g., 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[E]ven words of limitation that can connote with equal force a structural characteristic of the product or a process of manufacture are commonly and by default interpreted in their structural sense….”); Hazani v. U.S. Int’l. Trade Com’n., 126 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that claims to a plate having a “chemically engraved” surface are best characterized as pure product claims, since the “chemically engraved” limitation, read in context, describes the product more by its structure than by the process used to obtain it); see also In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 278-79 (CCPA 1969) (noting that past-tense verbs such as “ ‘intermixed,’ ‘ground in place,’ ‘press fitted,’ ‘etched,’ and ‘welded,’ all . . . at one time or another have been separately held capable of construction as structural, rather than process, limitations.”).

Garnero, In re, 412 F.2d 276, 162 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Addington et al 11/089,977 PAK 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ABOAGYE, MICHAEL

1774 Ex Parte Farrell 11/046,468 GARRIS 102(b) WALTER A. HACKLER, Ph.D. EXAMINER
COOLEY, CHARLES E

1774 Ex Parte Harms et al 10/539,139 FRANKLIN dissenting NAGUMO 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Jagadeesan et al 11/003,201 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER FARAGALLA, MICHAEL A

2628 Ex Parte Witter et al 11/251,599 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER MARTELLO, EDWARD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Rice et al 10/282,897 PER CURIAM 102(e)/103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

When the term “substantially” is recited by a claim, its meaning is determined from the specification. See Seattle Box Co., v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .2173.05(b)

3674 Ex Parte Merideth et al 11/163,306 PER CURIAM 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER LUGO, CARLOS

3687 Ex Parte Mazzara 10/736,491 FISCHETTI 103(a) Julia Church Dierker Dierker & Associates, P.C. EXAMINER IWARERE, OLUSEYE

3693 Ex Parte Mathews et al 10/453,396 CRAWFORD 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD, LLP EXAMINER KHATTAR, RAJESH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Weber et al 11/280,120 BONILLA 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

“An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut that case.” Id. If the applicant presents rebuttal evidence, such as unexpected results or that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention, the Examiner “must consider the totality of the evidence to determine whether the obviousness rejection should stand.” Id.

3775 Ex Parte Hazebrouck et al 11/241,461 LEE 112(1)/102/103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER RAMANA, ANURADHA

fracalossi, seattle box, york prod., ngai, kohler, mills, bozek, boe

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Alzer et al 11/341,253 SCHEINER 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Lo 11/047,057 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER
SHIN, KYUNG H

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Hild et al 10/775,601 O’NEILL 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3723 Ex Parte Emami et al 11/063,653 O’NEILL 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER GRANT, ALVIN J

3761 Ex Parte Fields 11/124,337 SPAHN 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER
CHAPMAN, GINGER T

3729 Ex Parte Nishii et al 10/517,445 O’NEILL 103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P. EXAMINER NGUYEN, DONGHAI D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Uhlemann 11/039,392 KOHUT 103(a) 103(a) Eschweiler & Associates (Lantiq) EXAMINER ZHOU, YONG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Walker et al 09/939,239 McCARTHY 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER DESANTO, MATTHEW F

In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982)(evidence sufficient to establish lack of novelty also establishes a prima facie case of obviousness)
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Ramberg et al 10/934,064 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER IQBAL, NADEEM

2184 Ex Parte Von Stein et al 10/532,666 JEFFERY 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER MAMO, ELIAS

2188 Ex Parte Bonola 10/980,538 DANG 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE

2829 Ex Parte Krieger et al 11/078,873 MACDONALD 102(b) SPANSION LLC C/O MURABITO , HAO & BARNES LLP EXAMINER TRAN, LONG K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2895 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/274,961 BROCKETTI 102(a)/103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER WOJCIECHOWICZ, EDWARD JOSEPH

Appellants‟ claim language uses the phrase “substantially aligned”. “When a word of degree is used [it is necessary to] determine whether the… specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” See Seattle Box Co.. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We find that nothing in Appellants‟ Specification, except for Appellants‟ own drawings, for providing some standard for measuring that degree. Therefore, we construe the term “substantially aligned” as “substantially” is often construed in patent claims as “largely but not wholly that which is specified.” See York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .2173.05(b)

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . .2181

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Masterson et al 10/334,548 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, VU Q

3671 Ex Parte Kroening 11/029,163 O’NEILL 103(a) 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) ROBERT PLATT BELL EXAMINER HARTMANN, GARY S

Printed matter may patentably distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art when the critical question of whether there is a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate is answered in the affirmative. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To show a new and unobvious functional relationship, it has to be shown that the printed matter would not achieve its purpose without the substrate and the substrate without the printed matter would similarly be unable to produce the desired result. Id. at 1339.

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Wan 11/183,354 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA
REHEARING

GRANTED, 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Ohki 11/118,385 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery LLP EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

Murakami is not limited to its preferred embodiments. See In re Kohler, 475 F.2d 651, 653 (CCPA 1973); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Instead, all disclosures therein must be evaluated for what they would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966).

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Aurenz 11/140,398 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HEFFINGTON, JOHN M