CFMT, hubbell, van ornum, gay

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Borlongan et al 10218893 - (D) FRANKLIN 103/obviousness-type double patenting FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. LOVE, TREVOR M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Bhatnagar et al 11181041 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 JANAH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. KASHNIKOW, ERIK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Chatani 11480203 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 MPG, LLP and SONY OBEID, MAMON A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Eitrich et al 10589084 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Abel Law Group, LLP BROWE, DAVID

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Chatow et al 11796216 - (D) BENOIT 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, PHONG H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Anglin et al 12433235 - (D) DANG 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O DARCELL WALKER, ATTORNEY AT LAW HAIEM, SEAN N

2424 Ex Parte Hsiao 12021655 - (D) POTHIER 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES SHELEHEDA, JAMES R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Josef Moeller 10349837 - (D) KRIVAK 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. BELLO, AGUSTIN

2653 Ex Parte Gidron et al 10240409 - (D) EASTHOM 102 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. ELAHEE, MD S  

REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex parte MARTEK BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION and DSM NUTRITIONAL PRODUCTS, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellant 90009659 5698244 08/483,477 GUEST 112(1) obviousness-type double patenting Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC original SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. HUANG, EVELYN MEI original WEIER, ANTHONY J

(citing CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp, 349 F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Enablement does not require an inventor to meet lofty standards for success in the commercial marketplace.”)).

CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int ’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 68 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2164
...

In this regard, we emphasize the second rationale to obviousness-type double patenting, which is “to prevent multiple infringement suits by different assignees asserting essentially the same patented invention.” In re Hubbell, --- F.3d----, 2013 WL 828475,*3 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2013) (citing In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 943-4 (CCPA 1982)).

Van Ornum, In re, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) 804, 804.02

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671; 3501 DOUGLAS DYNAMICS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BUYERS PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant-Cross Appellant. 2011-1291, 2012-1046, -1057, -1087, -1088 Re. 35,700 5,125,174 07/686,123 5,353,530 07/939,331 6,944,978 09/878,744 RADER Dissenting MAYER summary judgment of noninfringement/denial of a permanent injunction Andrus, Sceales, Starke & Sawal, LLP; Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP original MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH; WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP" MCBEE, J; BATSON, VICTOR D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2404; 3105  ATELIERS DE LA HAUTE-GARONNE AND F2C2 SYSTEMS SAS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BROETJE AUTOMATION USA INC. AND BRÖETJE AUTOMATION GMBH, Defendants-Cross Appellants. 2012-1038,-1077 5,011,339 07/447,501 5,143,216 07/589,685 NEWMAN Dissenting PROST failure to disclose the best mode under 112(1) not abandoned Kaye Scholer, LLP; Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP original HAROLD H. DUTTON, JR. NOT, DEFINED; PATTERSON, MARIE D

The requirement that a best mode violation requires intentional concealment was set forth in In re Gay, 309 F.2d 769, 772 (CCPA 1962) where this court’s predecessor explained, “Manifestly, the sole purpose of [the best mode requirement] is to restrain inventors from applying for patents while at the same time concealing from the public preferred embodiments of their inventions which they have in fact conceived.”

Gay, In re, 309 F.2d 769, 135 USPQ 311 (CCPA 1962) 608.01(h), 2161.01, 2165.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 IN RE SCOTT P. SCHREER 2012-1564 10/086,089 PER CURIAM 103 MICHAEL F. SARNEY, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP; NATHAN K. KELLEY, Deputy Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office SALCE, JASON P

van ornum, fallaux, cybersource

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Gerder-Kallisch et al 11243584 - (D) MILLS 102/103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC LIN, JERRY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Olds et al 10970424 - (D) WINSOR 103 HolzerIPLaw, P.C. LI, ZHUO H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Kim et al 09766473 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP AILES, BENJAMIN A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Woyzichovski 10501310 - (D) SMITH 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP BOCURE, TESFALDET

2617 Ex Parte Moganti 11026498 - (D) CALDWELL 102 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP RAMPURIA, SHARAD K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Tiramani 10653523 - (D) JUNG 103 112(2)/103 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellot, LLC CHAPMAN, JEANETTE E

3676 Ex Parte Vick et al 11409518 - (D) SCANLON 102/103 102/103 SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C. BOMAR, THOMAS S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Bergersen 10447099 - (D) McCARTHY 102 102 PATENTS+TMS, P.C. EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Birnbaum 11523508 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP RIDER, LANCE W

1638 Ex Parte Stomp et al 11590071 - (D) PRATS obviousness-type double patenting MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC ZHENG, LI

We are also not persuaded that the present fact situation, in which the two sets of conflicting claims are separately owned, precludes an obviousness-type double patenting rejection grounded in the possibility of harassment by multiple assignees. It may be true that issuance of the instant application would not result in unjustified timewise extension of patent rights.

However, in In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982), in a fact situation similar to that presented here, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals affirmed an obviousness-type double patenting rejection over a patent with a common inventor, despite a lack of common ownership. The court reasoned there that the concern over potential harassment of an infringer by multiple assignees asserting essentially the same patented invention outweighed the applicant‟s inability to proffer a terminal disclaimer tying together ownership of the application and conflicting patent. Id. at 944-48.

Van Ornum, In re, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . 804, 804.02

In In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313 (2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the Van Ornum rationale:

The harassment justification for obviousness-type double patenting is particularly pertinent here because the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents are not commonly owned. If the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents were commonly owned, the terminal disclaimer filed in this case would have been effective to overcome the double patenting rejection. We note that this defect was of the applicant‟s creation as through assignment it allowed ownership of the applications to be divided among different entities.

Id. at 1319 (footnote omitted).

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Ramachandran et al 11561868 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX CAMPBELL, NATASHA N.

1729 Ex Parte Budinski et al 11227771 - (D) KATZ 103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Frey et al 10040799 - (D) DANG 103 IBM Corporation John R. Pivnichny, Ph.D CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

2179 Ex Parte Celik 10233551 - (D) BLANKENSHIP 103 APPLE INC. c/o BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC HUYNH, BA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Numao et al 10600547 - (D) SMITH 103 LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR) TOLENTINO, RODERICK

2493 Ex Parte Whittaker et al 09952208 - (D) DIXON 112(1) 112(1)/103 IP STRATEGIES COLIN, CARL G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Morton 11876019 - (D) COURTENAY 103 GARLICK & MARKISON ALAM, FAYYAZ

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Cybulski et al 11173955 - (D) RUGGIERO 102 CYMER INC PARK, KINAM

2835 Ex Parte Hanks 09946130 - (D) COURTENAY 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DINH, TUAN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte O'SULLIVAN 11318972 - (D) TURNER 101/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP LAN, TZU-HSIANG

See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding method for verifying the validity of a credit card transaction over the Internet to be non-statutory as an abstract idea capable of being performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.)

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Aranyi et al 11728699 - (D) WALSH 103 Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien SONNETT, KATHLEEN C

3734 Ex Parte Patel et al 11466202 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Roche Diagnostics Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP YABUT, DIANE D

3767 Ex Parte Fitzgerald et al 12181673 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

3775 Ex Parte Roman et al 11402319 - (D) CAPP 103 Harness Dickey & Pierce (Biomet) WAGGLE, JR, LARRY E  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Jensen et al 10723423 - (D) ADAMS 103 VIKSNINS HARRIS & PADYS PLLP KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 GLOBAL LOCATE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant v. SiRF TECHNOLOGY INC. Requester 95001377 6,417,801 09/715,860 COCKS 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. ENGLISH, PETER C original BLUM, THEODORE M

3M, hazani, garnero, van ornum, fallaux

REVERSED

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Vaidyanathan 10/738,403 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LEE, JOHN W

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2839 Ex Parte Polnyi et al 11/648,470 DROESCH 102(a) WEI TE CHUNG EXAMINER IMAS, VLADIMIR

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Saieg et al 10/916,127 SPAHN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CULBRETH, ERIC D

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-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Blackmon et al 11/116,626 BLANKENSHIP 101/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER LOONAN, ERIC T

“Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment.” Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1631 XDx, INC. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of SOURCE PRECISION MEDICINE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/001,032 6,964,850 LEBOVITZ 103(a) LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION C/O INTELLEVATE FOR PATENT OWNER: SUNSTEIN, KANN, MURPHY & TIMBERS, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER ALLEN, MARIANNE P

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Hubbell et al 10/650,509 PRATS obviousness-type double patenting Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER LANKFORD JR, LEON B

We are also not persuaded that common ownership is a requirement for an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. As stated in MPEP § 804 ¶ I.A., “[d]ouble patenting may exist between an issued patent and an application filed by the same inventive entity, or by a different inventive entity having a common inventor, and/or by a common assignee/owner” (emphasis added).
...

This policy is supported by the decision in In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982), in which the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals affirmed an obviousness-type double patenting rejection over a patent with a common inventor, despite a lack of common ownership. The court reasoned there that the concern over potential harassment of an infringer by multiple assignees asserting essentially the same patented invention outweighed the applicant‟s inability to proffer a terminal disclaimer tying together ownership of the application and conflicting patent. Id. at 944-48.

In In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313 (2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the Van Ornum rationale:

The harassment justification for obviousness-type double patenting is particularly pertinent here because the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents are not commonly owned. If the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents were commonly owned, the terminal disclaimer filed in this case would have been effective to overcome the double patenting rejection. We note that this defect was of the applicant‟s creation as through assignment it allowed ownership of the applications to be divided among different entities.

Id. at 1319 (footnote omitted).

Van Ornum, In re, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . 804, 804.02
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte D'URSO et al 11/463,940 TIMM 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE +QUIGG LLP/UTB EXAMINER EMPIE, NATHAN H

1726 Ex Parte Sherman et al 10/707,229 NAGUMO 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) EDWARD YOO C/O BENNETT JONES LLP EXAMINER LEWIS, BEN

1783 Ex Parte Thrush 11/105,182 KRATZ 103(a) ROBERT D. FISH FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC EXAMINER LONEY, DONALD J

2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Chang et al 11/000,108 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER DOBSON, DANIEL G

2622 Ex Parte Altice 10/751,440 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Treyz Law Group EXAMINER CHEN, CHIA WEI A

2628 Ex Parte Chu et al 11/220,145 SAADAT 103(a) IBM (RPS-BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER REPKO, JASON MICHAEL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Brooker 10/969,357 WARREN 103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER CONSILVIO, MARK J

NEW

REVERSED

2171 Ex Parte Balinsky 11/190,249 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALVESTEFFER, STEPHEN D

1726 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/664,157 WARREN 103(a) H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC EXAMINER CONLEY, OI K

3718 Ex Parte Limback et al 10/443,612 O’NEILL 102(b) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER PANDYA, SUNIT

2625 Ex Parte Sprague et al 10/308,550 BAUMEISTER 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER HUNTSINGER, PETER K

AFFIRMED

1783 Ex Parte Hoolhorst et al 11/463,927 GARRIS 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER SIMONE, CATHERINE A

2454 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/425,408 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PATEL, CHIRAG R

3763 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 10/898,334 SCHEINER 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER BOUCHELLE, LAURA A

REHEARING

1762 Ex Parte Bacher et al 10/618,936 PAK 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER NERANGIS, VICKEY MARIE