gerber, symbol tech.

custom search

Reversed
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Jingwen Yao 14471825 HARDMAN 101 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC DEJONG, ERIC S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Jinman Kang et al. 15500657 NAPPI 103 HP Inc. NATNAEL, PAULOS M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 O'DELL, Sean et al. 14059306 BELISLE 101 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. c/o Patterson & Sheridan, LLP SAINT CYR, LEONARD

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 BAKER, Randal S. et al. 14518414 OSINSKI 102/103 Gardner, Linn, Burkhart & Ondersma LLP DAVID, SHAUN L

 Appellant maintains that the claims of the present application “are indeed consonant with the line of demarcation set forth in the restriction requirement and species election requirement so the non-statutory double patenting rejection is improper and should be reversed.”  Id. at 21. 

Consonance requires that the line of demarcation between the “independent and distinct inventions” that prompted the restriction requirement be maintained.  Though the claims may be amended, they must not be so amended as to bring them back over the line imposed in the restriction requirement.  Where that line is crossed the prohibition of the third sentence of Section 121 does not apply.

Gerber Garment Technology, Inc. v. Lectra Systems, Inc., 916 F.2d 683, 688 (Fed.Cir.1990).  “The corollary to this Court’s statement in Gerber Garment is that new or amended claims in a divisional application are entitled to the benefit of § 121 if the claims do not cross the line of demarcation drawn around the invention elected in the restriction requirement.”  Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

Affirmed-in-Part
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 14158994 LEE 103 Kraguljac Law Group/Oracle HACKENBERG, RACHEL J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3792 Bernd Edler et al. 12067222 DOUGAL 103 112(2) SCHOPPE, ZIMMERMANN , STOCKELER & ZINKLER C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP WEHRHEIM, LINDSEY GAIL

Affirmed
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 MOLECULAR REBAR DESIGN, LLC 15482304 HASTINGS 103 Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP/HAK TX GREGORIO, GUINEVER S

1743 ESSENTRA FILTER PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT CO. PTE. LTD 14403364 RANGE 103 FLYNN THIEL, P.C. DARNELL, BAILEIGH K

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Thorben Christopher. Primke et al. 15289711 MCKONE 103 OTDP Jordan IP Law, LLC ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

2166 Christopher Beard et al. 13155166 STRAUSS 101 S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. HARPER, ELIYAH STONE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Aissi, Selim 14012597 DIRBA 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP/VISA BEHESHTI SHIRAZI, SAYED ARESH

2461 QUALCOMM Incorporated 14738598 MORGAN 102/103 Loza & Loza, LLP/Qualcomm BEDNASH, JOSEPH A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3683 Lindsay, Robert Taaffe. et al. 13533625 HAGY 112(1)/103 101/103 Facebook/Fenwick TORRICO-LOPEZ, ALAN

3691 Edmund H. Louie et al. 12549577 STRAUSS 101 JPMorgan Chase / Greenblum & Bernstein AKINTOLA, OLABODE

3693 John S. Eberhardt et al. 12895598 STRAUSS 101 ARENT FOX LLP MERCHANT, SHAHID R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 15011762 PESLAK 112(2)/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY CHENG, STEPHANIE S

3793 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V 14415825 CAPP 112(2)/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MATTSON, SEAN D

Rehearing

Denied
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3785 John Power et al. 12583256 WOOD 103 NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS LOUIS, LATOYA M

amgen3, symbol tech.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Collins et al 11891812 - (D) MAJORS Concurring ADAMS 112(1)/OTDP 41.50 OTDP DAVIS, BROWN, KOEHN, SHORS & ROBERTS, P.C. CHESTNUT, BARRY A

See, e.g., Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("[A] patent need not have issued directly from a divisional application to receive § 121 protection. . . . [I]ntervening continuation applications do not render a patent ineligible for § 121 protection so long as they descended from a divisional application filed as a result of a restriction requirement"). To clarify, insofar as the Examiner is suggesting on the present record that § 121 does not apply, the Examiner may be correct, and this remand should not be understood as indicating otherwise. But the record is wanting for a sufficient analysis on that question.
...

The Examiner should address the Office's prior position in the Restriction as compared with the Examiner's position on appeal that the pending claims are "not patentably distinct" from the patent claims cited in support of the double patenting rejections. See, e.g., Ans. 6, 8. Lastly, the Examiner should determine whether the claims remain in consonance. See Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("Consonance requires that the line of demarcation between the 'independent and distinct inventions' that prompted the restriction requirement be maintained .... Where that line is crossed the prohibition of the third sentence of Section 121 does not apply.")

35 USC 121 third sentence:

A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application.

Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 92 USPQ2d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 2113

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Jones et al 14032560 - (D) ENGLE 103 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, LLP/Walmart Apollo TERRELL, EMILY C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex Parte PODROG 13466125 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 NOVA IP LAW, PLLC GONZALEZ, JULIO CESAR

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Trowbridge et al 14505408 - (D) BAHR 102/103 DISNEY ENTERPRISES INC. c/o Patent Ingenuity, P.C. BALDOR!, JOSEPH B

3735 Ex Parte Moon et al 13292923 - (D) BAYAT 103 41.50 112(2) Acuity Law Group, P.C. BLOCH, MICHAEL RYAN

3737 Ex Parte Amthor et al 14349333 - (D) FREDMAN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS KINNARD, LISA M

3765 Ex Parte Yeung et al 13342872 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(1)/112(2)/103 TI Law Group, PC ANNIS, KHALED

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Hosein et al 12353840 - (D) POTHIER 103 103 Slater Matsil, LLP/HW/FW/HWC TRAN, THINHD

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Pimenta et al 13997344 - (D) NEW 103/OTDP COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY CHANG, KYUNG SOOK

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Busing et al 12933092 - (D) WILSON 103 BSH Home Appliances Corporation BELL, SPENCER E

1791 Ex Parte Arora et al 13691176 - (D) ROSS 103 Diederiks & Whitelaw, PLC LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Jun et al 14814738 - (D) REN 102/103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED GANNON, LEVI

2864 Ex Parte BØ 13325708 - (D) NAGUMO 101 SCHLUMBERGER INFORMATION SOLUTIONS LIAO, CHRISTINE Y

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Volnak 12422055 - (D) BEAMER 101/103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP ELCHANTI, TAREK

3628 Ex Parte Peltz et al 12251259 - (D) KIM 101 41.50 101 Hewlett Packard Enterprise ALLEN, AKIBA KANELLE

3643 Ex Parte Shigyo et al 14236192 - (D) CAPP concurring STEPINA 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC TOPOLSKI, MAGDALENA

3689 Ex Parte Raikula 14102389 - (D) CUTITTA 112(1)/101/103 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP MINCARELLI, JAN P

3692 Ex Parte Zhou et al 11965636 - (D) BAYAT 101 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP MADAMBA, CLIFFORD B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Perez-Cruet et al 14211802 - (D) HOSKINS 103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC LEGETTE-THOMPSON, TIFFANY

symbol tech.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2145 Ex Parte Chen et al 13422737 - (D) BENNETT 102/103 IBM CORPORATION ORR, HENRY W

2168 Ex Parte Peterson et al 13531316 - (D) POTHIER 103 Kunzler Law Group GORTAYO, DANGELINO N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2676 Ex Parte Gelphman 12722445 - (D) McNEILL 103 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner / /APPLE MCLEAN, NEIL R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Burchett et al 12865428 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 VOLVO GROUP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ALSOMIRI, MAJDI A

3673 Ex Parte Fan et al 12788700 - (D) GUIJT drawings/112(1)/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Burckart et al 10733658 - (D) FRAHM 103 101 CRGO LAW LONG, ANDREA NATAE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Fletcher-Price 13407134 - (D) BUI dissent CUTITTA 103 103 RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP SASINOWSKI, ANDREW

2693 Ex Parte CHAJI 13470059 - (D) FISHMAN 103 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP EURICE, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3669 Ex Parte Harris 12402199 - (D) MURPHY 103 103 Matheson Keys Daffer & Kordzik PLLC KISWANTO, NICHOLAS

3671 Ex Parte Stubler et al 13026152 - (D) BROWNE 103 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP ADDIE, RAYMOND W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Schierstedt 13817539 - (D) SMITH 103 Clements Bernard Walker PLLC ALAWADI, SARAH

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Delacourt et al 11993925 - (D) PAK 103 BGL/Research Triangle Park LI, JUN
AFFIRMED 1791 Ex Parte Lenzi et al 13254480 - (D) PAK 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP DEES, NIKKI H

However, these arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. First, “a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under § 103.” Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Hoppe et al 13285888 - (D) HUME 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

2172 Ex Parte Katis et al 12883116 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 BEYER LAW GROUP LLP / VOXER IP GREENE, SABRINA LETICIA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Lee 13905165 - (D) MacDONALD 101/103 Chiou-Haun Lee ZHAO, DON GORDON

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2669 Ex Parte Sebastian et al 13673052 - (D) DANG 112(1)/103 General Electric Company NIU, FENG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Sherman et al 13003208 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY MAY, ROBERT J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Hamilton 11416281 - (D) WORTH 101/103 DOWELL & DOWELL, P.C. HUNTER, SEAN KRISTOPHER

3628 Ex Parte Ebersberger et al 12306783 - (D) MOHANTY 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) ERB, NATHAN

3633 Ex Parte Boland 12666901 - (D) KINDER 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC MATTEI, BRIAN DAVID

3645 Ex Parte RICKERT et al 13073832 - (D) BROWNE 112(2)/102/103 Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. BAGHDASARYAN, HOVHANNES

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Israr et al 12976193 - (R) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 Ference & Associates LLC DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. NWUGO, OJIAKO K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Desbrandes et al 11569357 - (R) SAADAT 112(1) E-QUANTIC COMMUNICATIONS IGYARTO, CAROLYN

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC. Requester and Appellant v. NUVASIVE, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7691057 et al 10/759,811 95001888 - (D) GUEST 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG LLP FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original PATEL, YOGESH P

reading and bates, beckman, symbol tech.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Beaurain et al 10498234 - (D) SHAH 102/103 Denko Coburn Lauff LLP BOLES, SAMEH RAAFAT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Roth 12004172 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 103 THE LAW OFFICES OF DONNA L. ANGOTTI EBNER, KATY MEYER

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether enablement is a requirement for a reference cited in an obviousness rejection and determined the following: 

While a reference must enable someone to practice the invention in order to anticipate under §102(b), a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under § 103. Reading & Bates Constr. Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp., 748 F.2d 645, 652, 223 USPQ 1168, 1173 (Fed.Cir. 1984) (reference that lacks enabling disclosure is not anticipating, but “itself may qualify as a prior art reference under § 103, but only for what is disclosed in it” (emphasis in original)); see Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551, 13 USPQ2d 1301, 1304 (Fed.Cir. 1989) (“[e]ven if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches”). 

Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Atala et al 11083602 - (D) MILLS 103 41.50 103 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP SCHLIENTZ, LEAH H

1618 Ex Parte Draper 11684666 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 Blue Filament Law VU, JAKE MINH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Tienor 12032868 - (D) SMITH 103 PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. WOODALL, MARK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3647 Ex Parte Glomset et al 12639435 - (D) SMEGAL 103 The BOC Group, Inc. EVANS, EBONY E

mannesmann, berenter, geneva, symbol techonologies, pfizer3

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Hedstrom et al 11052886 - (D) OWENS 103 WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

1735 Ex Parte Fukaya et al 12152505 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP IP, SIKYIN

1762 Ex Parte Schorm et al 12279444 - (D) McKELVEY 102 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. NGUYEN, VU ANH

The fact that the overall process is defined by the transitional term “comprising” does not broaden the type of emulsifiers which are recited in the Markush Group. See (1) Mannesmann Demag Corp. v. Engineered Metal Products Co., Inc., 793 F.2d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (cited by applicant at Brief, page 11) and (2) Berenter v. Quigg, 737 F. Supp. 5 (D. D.C. 1988) (a § 145 civil action in which the Commissioner was a party, applying Mannesmann).

Mannesmann Demag Corp. v. Engineered Metal Products Co., 793 F.2d 1279, 230 USPQ 45 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2111.03

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Brock et al 11475603 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 Anova Law Group, PLLC SINGH, AMRESH

2162 Ex Parte Kelley et al 11621238 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - IBM Endicott ALAM, SHAHID AL

2166 Ex Parte Liu et al 10810152 - (D) CHEN 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Shuman et al 10798632 - (D) SPAHN 103 Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/Nokia AHMED, MASUD

3721 Ex Parte Smith et al 12034320 - (D) GROSSMAN 102/103 MAYBACK & HOFFMAN, P.A. CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

3723 Ex Parte Duescher 11029761 - (D) SPAHN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. ELEY, TIMOTHY V

3729 Ex Parte Faatz et al 11958064 - (D) CAPP 103 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION TRINH, MINH N

3731 Ex Parte Hartley 10962766 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

3767 Ex Parte Rioux et al 10392545 - (D) HORNER 102/103 Vista IP Law Group LLP GILBERT, ANDREW M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Endepols et al 10513525 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC PURDY, KYLE A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Fujikawa et al 11396655 - (D) KIMLIN 103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP MOHADDES, LADAN

1761 Ex Parte Mitchell et al 12834131 - (D) KIMLIN 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1762 Ex Parte Seidel et al 11633972 - (D) McKELVEY 103 Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC YOON, TAE H

1785 Ex Parte Tanahashi et al 12218683 - (D) HASTINGS 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT CHAU, LISA N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Godlewski 11612524 - (D) PARVIS 102 MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY MIAN, OMER S

2481 Ex Parte Cronin 10680830 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/102 101 Timothy Raymond Cronin HARVEY, DAVID E

2486 Ex Parte Banerji et al 10074765 - (D) HOFF 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. VO, TUNG T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2659 Ex Parte Tischer et al 11267092 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ GUERRA-ERAZO, EDGAR X

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte Robinson 11418756 - (D) DANIELS 103 Dorr, Carson & Birney, P.C. BREIER, KRYSTINE E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Kaufman et al 11042312 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HOEY, ALISSA L

3778 Ex Parte Jordan 10522721 - (D) FREDMAN obviousness-type double patenting ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE

The "United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals... fashioned a doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting (also known as "obviousness-type" double patenting) to prevent issuance  of a patent on claims that are nearly identical to claims in an earlier patent. This doctrine prevents an applicant from extending patent protection for an invention beyond the statutory term by claiming a slight variant. Geneva Pharmaceuticals v. GlaxoSmithKline, 349 F. 3d 1373, 1377-1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

With regard to double patenting, we recently explained that 35 U.S.C. § 121 (1988) will not apply to remove the parent as a reference where the principle of consonance is violated: Consonance requires that the line of demarcation between the "independent and distinct inventions" that prompted the restriction requirement be maintained. Though the claims may be amended, they must not be so amended as to bring them back over the line imposed in the restriction requirement. Where that line is crossed the prohibition of the third sentence of Section 121 does not apply. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F. 2d 1569, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1991)

There is no suggestion, however, in the legislative history of section 121 that the safe-harbor provision was, or needed to be, directed at anything but divisional applications. The commentary and materials published since section 121's enactment similarly contain no suggestion that section 121 was meant to cover any applications other than divisionals. Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 518 F. 3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) We conclude that the protection afforded by section 121 to applications (or patents issued therefrom) filed as a result of a restriction requirement is limited to divisional applications. Id. at 1362

Geneva Pharms. Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 68 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 804.01, 814

Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found., 422 F.3d 1378, 76 USPQ2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2190

3779 Ex Parte Gazdzinski 09817842 - (D) KERINS 112(2)/102/103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC LEUBECKER, JOHN P

3788 Ex Parte De Laforcade 10914168 - (D) SAINDON 103 Oliff & Berridge, PLC (with Nony) REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

elan pharm., beckman, symbol tech.

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Liu et al 11/343,012 ZECHER 102(b) EMC CORPORATION c/o DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIM T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Petersen 10/762,643 BONILLA 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Berson et al 12/420,117 HOMERE Concurring JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC EXAMINER WILENSKY, MOSHE K
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Dzenitis et al 11/000,491 LANE 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER EDWARDS, LYDIA E

A reference that is not enabled may not act as anticipatory prior art. Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. For Med. Educ. & Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir 2003). However, “[e]ven if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches.” Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produckter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1989). "While a reference must enable someone to practice the invention in order to anticipate under §102(b), a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under § 103." Symbol Tech. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Foundation For Medical and Education Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 68 USPQ2d 1373
(Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2121.01

Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 13 USPQ2d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1989). . . . . . . .2121.01

Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 19 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . . . . 804.01, 2121.01
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Seifert et al 10/357,940 FRANKLIN 103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TUAN VAN

symbol tech., beckman, festo, lockwood

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/18/2011 1618 Ex Parte Inosaka et al 11/113,969 FREDMAN 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/16/2011 1724 Ex Parte Peragine et al 10/519,691 OWENS 103(a) Charles Muserlain EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/19/2011 2173 Ex Parte Ackley 10/960,385 DILLON 102(b) DISNEY ENTERPRISES C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/18/2011 2816 Ex Parte Krug et al 11/286,562 KRIVAK 103(a) ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES LLC EXAMINER LAM, TUAN THIEU

07/19/2011 2823 Ex Parte Shiraiwa et al 11/469,164 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER NGUYEN, KHIEM D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3654 Ex Parte Fargo et al 10/564,873 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/18/2011 3742 Ex Parte Newman et al 10/842,788 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

07/18/2011 3761 Ex Parte Ellingboe et al 11/333,671 HORNER 103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3685 Ex Parte Koppen et al 10/868,299 MOHANTY 103(a) AlbertDhand LLP EXAMINER WINTER, JOHN M
REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/18/2011 3714 BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Third Party Requestor, Appellant v. IGT Patent Owner, Respondent, Appellant 95/000,277 6,431,983 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103(a) PATENT OWNER: WEAVER AUSTIN VILLENEUVE & SAMPSON LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER ROBERT L. KOVELMAN STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER MENEFEE, JAMES A original EXAMINER WHITE, CARMEN D

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/18/2011 3749 TECPHARMA LICENSING AG Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. Patent of NOVO NORDISK A/S Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95/000,288 6,547,764 SONG 103(a) cc Patent Owner: Marc A. Began, Esq. Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc. cc Third Party Requester: Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLPEXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAMTU TRAN

In particular, "a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purposed of determining obviousness under § 103." Symbol Techs. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In this regard, "[e]ven if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches." Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed.Cir.1989).

Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 19 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . . . . 804.01, 2121.01

Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 13 USPQ2d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1989). . . . . . . 2121.01
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/18/2011 1616 Ex Parte Volgas et al 09/916,611 McCOLLUM 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

07/18/2011 1628 Ex Parte Meythaler 10/885,175 FREDMAN 103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER KIM, JENNIFER M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/18/2011 1767 Ex Parte Dallavia 11/701,217 WALSH 103(a) Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

2600 Communications
07/18/2011 2624 Ex Parte Albertelli et al 11/685,338 KRIVAK 101 BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER SETH, MANAV

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3682 Ex Parte Minifie et al 11/352,895 LORIN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BOVEJA, NAMRATA

“What is claimed by the patent application must be the same as what is disclosed in the specification; otherwise the patent should not issue.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 736 (2002). Here the claimed “kit” is not the same as the co-package disclosed in the specification. At best, the disclosed co-package renders the “kit” obvious. But “[o]ne shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (Emphasis original).

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 62 USPQ2d 1705 (2002) . . 1302.14, 2173.02

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/18/2011 3742 Ex Parte Toida 10/853,116 O’NEILL 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HEINRICH, SAMUEL M
REHEARING

GRANTED AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/18/2011 2857 Ex Parte Moessner et al 11/021,591 JEFFERY 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER SUGLO, JANET L

See Supp. Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 Fed. Reg. 7,162, 7,168 (Feb. 9, 2011) (noting that Examiners should not construe means-plus-function limitations as covering pure software implementations when the supporting disclosure discusses implementing the invention via hardware and software).