tiffin, merchant

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte WAKE et al 11563895 - (D) SMITH 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Kleve et al 13775697 - (D) FINK 102/103 41.50 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L MULLEN, THOMAS J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Jaffe et al 12304608 - (D) STEPINA 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP LEE, WEI

3731 Ex Parte Porter et al 12462663 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

3777 Ex Parte Mao et al 12116013 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 AKA CHAN LLP LIU, CHU CHUAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte Donovan et al 13077871 - (D) DELMENDO 103 112(2)/double patenting MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP CHEVALIER, ALICIA ANN

Contrary to the Examiner's stated position (Final Act. 14--15), the burden did not properly shift to the Appellants to show that Alexander, when modified in view of the other references, would inherently possess the self-healing performance index of 0.1 as specified in claim 1. That would impermissibly require the Appellants to compare the claimed invention against the claimed invention. In re Tiffin, 443 F.2d 394, 399 (CCPA 1971) ("The examiner's composite process is appellants' process, and thus cannot be compared with it."). 

Rather, the Appellants can effectively rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by comparing the claimed invention against the closest prior art. In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 869 (CCPA 1978).

Tiffin, In re, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971) 716.04 , 2142

Merchant, In re, 575 F.2d 865, 197 USPQ 785 (CCPA 1978) 716.02(e)

1788 Ex Parte Beihoffer et al 11942638 - (D) DELMENDO 103 112(4)/103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP CHEVALIER, ALICIA ANN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Jocha et al 13517281 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 102/103 101 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC MENDAYE, KIDEST H

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Grit et al 13512930 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA FUBARA, BLESSING M

1657 Ex Parte ERICSON 13028819 - (D) FLAX 101/103 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. KELLER, CHRISTOPHER A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Parsons 13347055 - (D) REN 103 BASF Corporation RIETH, STEPHEN EDWARD

1768 Ex Parte Huang et al 13415505 - (D) DENNETT 102/103 Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC BLAND, ALICIA

1785 Ex Parte Hong et al 12077814 - (D) KRATZ 103 Hollingsworth Davis CHAU, LINDA N

1787 Ex Parte Buckwalter et al 11338092 - (D) SNAY 112(1)/103 103 Armstrong World Industries, Inc. HUANG, CHENG YUAN

1787 Ex Parte Van Buskirk et al 13784858 - (D) KENNEDY 103 PPG Industries, Inc, SHUKLA, KRUPA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2495 Ex Parte HUANG et al 13403397 - (D) ENGELS 102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC GEE, JASON KAI YIN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Kiesel 12954333 - (D) MacDONALD 103 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP AJIBADE AKONAI, OLUMIDE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2845 Ex Parte Lee 13184692 - (D) KUMAR 103 US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TRAN, HAI V

2875 Ex Parte Striakhilev et al 13112654 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP GUHARAY, KARABI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Montgomery 13242489 - (D) BAHR 112(1)/112(2) 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. VENNE, DANIEL V

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Durance et al 12682989 - (R) BROWNE 103 MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. LU, JIPING

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 NETLIST, INC. Requester, v. Patent of SMART MODULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 8250295 et al 10/752,151 95002399 - (D) POTHIER 112(1)/103 41.77 112(1)/103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTERS: MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP NGUYEN, LINH M original PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M

barbed wire, cyclobenzaprine, tiffin, artsana, murata

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Lange et al 12153158 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP WANG, SHENGJUN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Arjomand 11474530 - (D) STEPINA 103 103 RICHARD L HUFF ABDUR RAHIM, AZIM

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Scheer et al 11694963 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP (TOKYO ELECTRON) WEDDLE, ALEXANDER MARION

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Love et al 12435145 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 GOOGLE C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP CHENG, DIANA

2844 Ex Parte Ning et al 11711131 - (D) KATZ 112(1)/103 BLANK ROME LLP TANINGCO, ALEXANDER H

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2825 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD Requester and Respondent v. TELA INNOVATIONS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7441211 et al 11/145,025 95001832 - (D) Per curiam 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester: HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP CABRERA, ZOILA E original DOAN, NGHIA M

Secondary considerations, including satisfaction of a long-felt need and commercial success can have a significant impact on an obviousness analysis. See, e.g., The Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U.S. 275, 282 (1892); In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litigation, 676 F.3d 1063, 1075-1080 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (long-felt need and commercial success should be considered before ultimate decision made on obviousness); In re Tiffin, 443 F.2d 394 (CCPA 1971), modified on reh’g, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 1971); Ex parte Artsana USA, Inc., 2014 WL 4090808 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2014) (finding commercial success to be entitled to considerable weight); Murata Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Synqor, Inc., 2014 WL 1397381 *11-14 (PTAB Apr. 10, 2014) (same).

Tiffin, In re, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971) 716.04 , 2142

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) 716.03(a)

media techs, nuijten, tiffin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Jansen et al 10469391 - (D) GREEN 103 Merck BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Choperena et al 10793455 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 K&L GATES LLP YOO, REGINA M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Purwin 11037177 - (D) STRAUSS 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CLEARY, THOMAS J

2175 Ex Parte Martyn 10343333 - (D) McNAMARA 103 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.a.r.l. c/o WARE, FRESSOLA, VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON LLP VU, THANH T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Jagger et al 11496249 - (D) BONILLA 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Yang et al 11745283 - (D) WALSH 102/103 103 FAY SHARPE LLP YANG, NELSON C

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Axen et al 11995979 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 102/103 GE HEALTHCARE BIO-SCIENCES CORP. ZALASKY, KATHERINE M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Sayal et al 10918587 - (D) DESHPANDE 102/103 101 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PHAM, KHANH B

We disagree with the Appellants. The specification does not clearly define “tangible” or a “computer readable medium.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “tangible computer readable medium” encompasses a transitory, propagating signal. Given that a medium can be both tangible and transitory, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that a “tangible computer readable medium” as broadly claimed encompasses a transitory, propagating signal. Transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter. Examples include physical but transitory forms of signal transmission such as radio broadcasts, electrical signals through a wire, and light pulses through a fiber-optic cable, that convey encoded information. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Nuijten, In re, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2106, 2107.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Rajagopalan et al 10828023 - (D) GARRIS 103 Applied Materials BURKHART, ELIZABETH A

1733 Ex Parte Mukai et al 10566433 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

1742 Ex Parte Zhamu et al 11899008 - (D) KIMLIN 103 Bor Z. Jang SCHIFFMAN, BENJAMIN A

1754 Ex Parte McTeer 11370269 - (D) OBERMANN 103 FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) BAND, MICHAEL A

Claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).

1761 Ex Parte Lifchits 11789664 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 Christie Parker & Hale LLP NGUYEN, HAIDUNG D

1792 Ex Parte Lonergan 11564428 - (D) OWENS 103 General Mills CHAWLA, JYOTI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Okawa et al 10891796 - (D) DIXON 103 IBM CORPORATION RUIZ, ARACELIS

2195 Ex Parte Broussard et al 10762000 - (D) BUI 103 IBM Austin HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP TO, JENNIFER N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Krishnamoorthy et al 11045515 - (D) FRAHM 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NICKERSON, JEFFREY L

2448 Ex Parte Aloni et al 11269005 - (D) GONSALVES 103 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) STRANGE, AARON N

2452 Ex Parte Nastacio 11382364 - (D) DILLON 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP NGUYEN, THU V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Curey et al 09821537 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. LEE, PHILIP C

2644 Ex Parte Rosen et al 11096869 - (D) GONSALVES 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR

2659 Ex Parte Weiser 10177685 - (D) GONSALVES 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS ARMSTRONG, ANGELA A

2685 Ex Parte Glenn et al 10684583 - (D) HUME 103 Lewis and Roca LLP POPE, DARYL C
 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Theuss 11865122 - (D) GONSALVES 103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA BAISA, JOSELITO SASIS
 
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2818 RAMBUS INC. Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester, Respondent and Cross-Appellant and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, INC. Requester 95000250 6452863 09/492,982 EASTHOM 102/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original NGUYEN, TAN

See Application of Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 1971) (commercial success evidence of thermoplastic foam cups is not commensurate in scope with broad claims directed to thermoplastic foam containers). 

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) 716.03(a)

Weak secondary considerations generally do not overcome a strong prima facie case of obviousness. See Media Techs. Licensing, LLC v. Upper Deck Co., 596 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 2010 WL 2897876 (Oct. 04, 2010) (“Even if [the patentee] could establish the required nexus, a highly successful product alone would not overcome the strong showing of obviousness.”).

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1756 Ex Parte Lu 11272448 - (D) KIMLIN 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

baxter travenol, chapman, general foods, nuijten, greenfield, burckel, tiffin, kollman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Ariyapadi et al 12782346 - (D) GARRIS 103 KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT LLC MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Argenbright et al 10240479 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP PORTER, RACHEL L

3664 Ex Parte Krause et al 11273659 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 Dierker & Associates, P.C. SAMPLE, JONATHAN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Kim et al 11656460 - (D) VANOPHEM 102/103 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL

3761 Ex Parte Allen et al 11414032 - (D) ASTORINO 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TREYGER, ILYA Y

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Adams et al 10785227 - (D) MacDONALD 103 101/102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC BELANI, KISHIN G

Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because:

Appellants respectfully disagree and point out that the Examiner's position is based entirely upon taking of words out-of-context of its intended meaning in the specification, clearly directed to media used to store computer instructions, when interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art, who is willing to be free of the bias of attempting to interpret every reference to "transmission media" as somehow referring to a "signal", which is reasonably considered non-statutory under the holding of Nuijten, and that every reference to "transmission media" converts any claim remotely related to this reference as equivalent to a "signal."

That is, "energy" per se is not used to store computer instructions. Nor is this claim directed to a "signal" per se, as were the facts of Nuijten. Moreover, to one having any genuine skill in the art, signals per se are not used to store instructions, and, contrary to the confusion running rampant within the USPTO in the aftermath of the Nuijten holding, the terminology "transmission media" is not equivalent to "signal." Indeed, if taken outside any other context, the terminology "transmission media" would clearly mean the media through which a transmission occurs and would not even refer to a signal per se. Therefore, someone at the USPTO is clearly very confused about underlying technology.

(App. Br. 9)(Emphasis omitted).


AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Constantz et al 11189555 - (D) MILLS 103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provisional double patenting rejection EPA - Bozicevic Field & Francis LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

“Because nonstatutory double patenting compares earlier and later claims, an earlier patent’s disclosure is not available to show nonstatutory double patenting. See Gen. Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1281-82 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Mosseveld et al 10551109 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. REDDY, KARUNA P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2413 Ex Parte Christenson et al 11279667 - (D) WINSOR 103 IBM CORPORATION COSTIN, JEREMY M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Reid 10864866 - (D) MCKONE 102/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. ALAM, FAYYAZ

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Slatter 11258352 - (D) FETTING 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHUMPITAZ, BOB R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte McKiernan et al 11145353 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CRAIG, PAULA L  

When an obviousness rejection is based on a combination of components in the prior art reference as in the instant situation, the comparison to show unexpected results need only be between the closest prior art reference and the claimed invention. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 422 (CCPA 1966). It need not be between the claimed invention and the invention suggested by the combined teachings in the prior art reference or references. Chapman, 357 F.2d at 422. To do so would require Appellants to compare the claimed invention against itself.   

Chapman, In re, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) 716.02(e)  

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01, 2145


REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Boffa 11435698 - (R) OBERMANN 103 M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC VASISTH, VISHAL V

In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179-80 (CCPA 1979) (the claimed subject matter must be compared with the closest prior art in a manner which addresses the thrust of the rejection).

Burckel, In re, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(e)

“Establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for ‘it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’” In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971))...

Greenfield, In re, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1978) 2145

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) 716.03(a)

Cf. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (CCPA 1979) (acknowledging that in some cases several data points may enable an ordinary artisan “to ascertain a trend in the exemplified data which would allow him to reasonably extend the probative value thereof”)

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(d)

boehringer, stencel, Jung, tiffin, joy technologies, huang, cable, standish, ariad, reiffin, lockwood, barker, vas-cath

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Thastrup et al 10/072,036 GREEN 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) Workman Nydegger EXAMINER BURKHART, MICHAEL D
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Desai et al 10/288,126 TIMM 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Cabillic et al 11/186,036 JEFFERY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kim 10/216,875 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2451 Ex Parte McDougall et al 10/284,966 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Lilleness et al 10/287,337 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER PHAM, TAMMY T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Robinson et al 11/265,364 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHARIFZADA, ALI R

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Krafft et al 11/100,212 GRIMES 102(b) Jane Massey Licata, Esquire Licata & Tyrrell P.C. EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Muller et al 11/040,270 COURTENAY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER TANK, ANDREW L

We also broadly but reasonably construe the “configured to render an arrangement . . . .” language of claim 1 as a statement of intended use or purpose. (emphasis added) “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim's preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id.

Stencel, In re, 828 F.2d 751, 4 USPQ2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.02
...
See In re Jung, No. 2010-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 at 7 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(“Jung argues that the Board gave improper deference to the examiner’s rejection by requiring Jung to‘identif[y] a reversible error’ by the examiner, which improperly shifted the burden of proving patentability onto Jung. Decision at 11. This is a hollow argument, because, as discussed above, the examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation and the burden was properly shifted to Jung to rebut it. . . . ‘[R]eversible error’ means that the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong . . . .”).

2192 Ex Parte Bagley et al 10/852,908 BARRY 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BUI, HANH THI MINH
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/026,043 MacDONALD 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER KIM, JUNG W
2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lindskog 10/502,018 SAADAT 103(a) Mark P. Stone EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Bodine et al 10/943,795 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DURAND, PAUL R

Objective evidence of non-obviousness, including commercial success, must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 197 1) (evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). In order to be commensurate in scope with the claims, the commercial success must be due to claimed features, and not due to unclaimed features. Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 229 (D.D.C. 1990), aff’d, 959 F.2d 226, 228 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Features responsible for commercial success were recited only in allowed dependent claims, and therefore the evidence of commercial success was not commensurate in scope with the broad claims at issue.). An inventor’s opinion as to the purchaser’s reason for buying the product is insufficient to demonstrate a nexus between the sales and the claimed invention. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Further, gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence as to market share, Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27 (Fed. Cir. 1985), or as to the time period during which the product was sold, or as to what sales would normally be expected in the market, Ex parte Standish, 10 USPQ2d 1454, 1458 (BPAI 1988).

Tiffin, In re, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04, 2142

Joy Technologies Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp 225, 17 USPQ2d 1257 (D.D.C. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . .716.03(a)

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . 716.03(b), 716.06, 1504.03

Standish, Ex parte, 10 USPQ2d 1454 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) .716.03(a), 716.03(b), 2138.01
3738 Ex Parte Calandruccio et al 10/842,030 BAHR 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. EXAMINER PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D

3772 Ex Parte Masini 10/872,717 O’NEILL 112(1)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PATEL, TARLA R

[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. . . . [T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed. . . . This inquiry . . . is a question of fact.

Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). See also Vas-Cath at 1563-64.

New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. Written description support can be either express or inherent, and is determined from the disclosure considered as a whole. Reiffin v. Microsoft, 214 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000). That one of ordinary skill in the art might see the scenario asserted by Appellant as possible within the context of the description in Appellant’s Specification is insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See, e.g., Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Wohnsiedler, 315 F.2d 934, 937 (CCPA 1963). See also In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 593 (CCPA 1977):

That a person skilled in the art might realize from reading the disclosure that such a step is possible is not a sufficient indication to that person that [the] step is part of appellants’ invention. Such an indication is the least that is required for a description of the invention under the first paragraph of § 112.

Precisely how close the original description must come to comply with the description requirement must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The primary consideration is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure. See Vas-Cath at 1561-63.

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

Barker, In re, 559 F.2d 588, 194 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2161, 2163

tiffin, remark, huang, cable

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

3673 Ex Parte Martin 11/221,324 SCHAFER 102(b)/103(a) BEYERS COSTIN, P.C. EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1644 Ex Parte Seed et al 10/960,442 FREDMAN 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) QUINE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, P.C. EXAMINER DAHLE, CHUN WU

See In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971) (“objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”)(evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). ...

In the case of evidence of commercial success, the Federal Circuit has acknowledged that the Appellant bears the burden of establishing a nexus, stating:

In the ex parte process of examining a patent application… the PTO lacks the means or resources to gather evidence which supports or refutes the applicant's assertion that the sales constitute commercial success. Cf. Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1503 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990) (evidentiary routine of shifting burdens in civil proceedings inappropriate in ex parte prosecution proceedings because examiner has no available means for adducing evidence). Consequently, the PTO must rely upon the applicant to provide hard evidence of commercial success.

In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996). ...

Rather than supporting a conclusion of obviousness, copying could have occurred out of a general lack of concern for patent property, in which case it weighs neither for nor against the nonobviousness of a specific patent. It may have occurred out of contempt for the specific patent in question, only arguably demonstrating obviousness, or for the ability or willingness of the patentee financially or otherwise to enforce the patent right, which would call for deeper inquiry. Even widespread copying could weigh toward opposite conclusions, depending on the attitudes existing toward patent property and the accepted practices in the industry in question. It is simplistic to assert that copying per se should bolster the validity of a patent.
Cable Elec. Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
1648 Ex Parte Jones et al 10/326,908 SCHEINER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER HORNING, MICHELLE S
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Blaker et al 09/845,432 HOMERE 101/102(b) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Lindstrom 10/557,666 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN EXAMINER ZHANG, JUE

REHEARING

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2448 Ex Parte Hessmer et al 09/954,423 HOMERE 103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T