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