vogel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Hamilton et al 12133466 - (D) LORIN 101 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC SCHEUNEMANN, RICHARD N

3674 Ex Parte Lumsden 13631798 - (D) BROWNE 103/OTDP PAUL AND PAUL SUE-AKO, ANDREW B.

3682 Ex Parte Coker et al 12332823 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1)/101/103 M&B IP Analysts, LLC DAGNEW, SABA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Costantino 10543455 - (D) NEW 103 103/OTDP GlaxoSmithKline DEVI, SARY AMANGALA J N

Moreover, we do not agree with Appellant's contention that the Specification may be used by the Examiner only as a dictionary for the exclusive purpose of defining claim terms per se. The predecessor to our reviewing court has held that the Specification may also be used as required to answer the question of whether Appellant's claims on appeal define merely an obvious variation of an invention disclosed and claimed in the reference (i.e., the '152) patent. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441--42 (C.C.P.A. 1970). The court in Vogel noted that, in general, the Specification: "sets forth at least one tangible embodiment within the claim, and it is less difficult and more meaningful to judge whether that thing has been modified in an obvious manner." Vogel, 422 F.2d at 442. The court further stated that: "use of the [Specification] is not in contravention of the cases forbidding its use as prior art, nor is it applying the patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 103, since only the disclosure of the invention claimed in the patent may be examined." Id. 

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804 , 804.01 , 804.02 , 1504.06

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3711 Ex Parte Groller et al 13874419 - (D) CAPP 103 103 41.50 103 Symbus Law Group, LLC COLLINS, DOLORES R

3791 Ex Parte Vaillancourt 13535060 - (D) ADAMS 102 102 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO ABOUELELA, MAY A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Langer et al 13994242 - (D) FLAX 103 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA GULLEDGE, BRIAN M

1619 Ex Parte Ressler et al 14197399 - (D) PRATS Dissenting GRIMES 102 Emory University - Office of Tech Transfer NGUYEN, JOHN P

1656 Ex Parte Gilljam et al 13638234 - (D) FLAX 103 VENABLE LLP TSAY,MARSHAM

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Tucker et al 13514703 - (D) CASHION 103 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP PENNY, TABATHAL

1791 Ex Parte Frye 12976527 - (D) CASHION 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP BEKKER, KELLY JO

1791 Ex Parte Marriott 12280508 - (D) REN 102 102/103 CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP STIJLII, VERA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2672 Ex Parte Hirabayashi et al 14248561 - (D) CUTITTA II Dissenting-in-Part WHITEHEAD JR. BAUMEISTER 112(1) 103 ALG INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC DHINGRA, PAWANDEEP

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Dawson et al 12342344 - (D) LORIN 103 101 Keohane & D'Alessandro SWARTZ, STEPHENS

3629 Ex Parte Angell et al 12335521 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1) 101 Law Office of Jim Boice MCCORMICK, GABRIELLE A

3691 Ex Parte Neofytides et al 10046654 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP AKINTOLA, OLABODE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Vassallo et al 13085131 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 112(1)/102 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. IWAMAYE, ANDREW MICHAEL

3792 Ex Parte Ikeya et al 14133629 - (D) ADAMS 103 PEARNE & GORDON LLP PIATESKI, ERIN M

general foods, vogel, eli lilly

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Wilkinson 11041758 - (D) BAHR 103 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS CONLEY, FREDRICK C

AFFIRMED
1786 Ex Parte Quinn et al 13970238 - (D) McGEE 103 Dodd Call Black, PLLC VINEIS, FRANK J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2459 Ex Parte Turk 11897182 - (D) HAGY 103 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Dhayagude et al 11942239 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI double patenting 103 Fish & Richardson PC / Atmel ABDIN, SHAHEDA A

We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection does not clearly explain or compare the instant claims with claim 1 of the ‘704 Patent. The key question in any obviousness double patenting analysis is: “Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent asserted as supporting double patenting?” General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970)). Answering this question requires that the decision-maker first construe the claims in the patent and the claims under review and determine the differences between them. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2001). After determining the differences, the decision-maker must determine whether the differences in subject matter render the claims patentably distinct.Id. Where the subject matter of a pending claim under review is an obvious variation of the subject matter of a patented claim, the pending claim is not patentably distinct. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

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

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804 , 804.01 , 804.02 , 1504.06

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 , 2144.08 , 2165.01

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte McGuire 13096712 - (D) BARRY 103 THE GRIFFITH LAW FIRM, A P.C. WU, JERRY

“[T]hat two inventions were designed to resolve different problems ... is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

fine, vogel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2865 Ex Parte Brusniak 12164882 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Patterson & Sheridan - The Boeing Company PARK, HYUN D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Li et al 12201167 - (D) BAHR 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ROSS, DANA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Bernstein 13197581 - (D) POLLOCK 103 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH) DRAPER, LESLIE A ROYDS

In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the combination of prior art references or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art.  In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Because the Examiner has not shown that Kroger, or any of the art of record, teaches or suggests the use of folic acid, we reverse the rejection of claims 34-36.

Fine, In re, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 707.07(f) , 2143.01 , 2143.03 , 2144

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Gero et al 12723405 - (D) HASTINGS 103 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. CHEN, KEATH T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Olivier 13121154 - (D) STEPINA 102/103 102/103 41.50 103 GARVEY SMITH NEHRBASS & NORTH, LLC BERRY JR, WILLIE WENDELL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Leuthardt et al 12459029 - (D) McGRAW 112(2)/102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC HARWARD, SOREN T

1657 Ex Parte Chan et al 11869657 - (D) POLLOCK 103 Quest Diagnostics SINGH, SATYENDRA K

1674 Ex Parte Barber 12175898 - (D) FREDMAN 102 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP WHITEMAN, BRIAN A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Charati et al 11689228 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP VALDEZ, DEVE E

1791 Ex Parte Kragh et al 11412797 - (D) BEST 103 DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Bimbra et al 11936230 - (D) KRIVAK 103 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP ABDUL-ALI, OMAR R

2185 Ex Parte Daga et al 12235471 - (D) DANG 112(2) 102/103 Polsinelli PC ORACLE AMERICA, INC. ZAMAN, FAISAL M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Salowey 11034346 - (D) DROESCH 103 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM LLP DINH, MINH

2486 Ex Parte Klein Gunnewiek et al 12517224 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MUNG, ON S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Pimmel 11929332 - (D) KRIVAK 112(2)/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 SAMS, MICHELLE L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Gravina 12392968 - (D) BAYAT 103 Tillman Wright, PLLC BURGESS, JOSEPH D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte CHANDHOK et al 11757373 - (D) KERINS 103/double patenting 41.50 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED GALKA, LAWRENCE STEFAN

3747 Ex Parte Liebsch et al 12516916 - (D) WIEKER 102 Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP TRAN, LONG T

3752 Ex Parte GRANDPIERRE 12620793 - (D) HOSKINS 103 LOWE HAUPTMAN & HAM, LLP LE, VIET

3754 Ex Parte Doneghue et al 11380568 - (D) SMEGAL 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH) JACYNA, J CASIMER

3777 Ex Parte Kucharczyk et al 12321139 - (D) POLLOCK 102/103 101 Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. ROY, BAISAKHI

The Board finds no evidence that a terminal disclaimer has been filed in either application. More to the point, a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 cannot be cured by terminal disclaimer. See In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804 , 804.01 , 804.02 , 1504.06

3788 Ex Parte Fallat et al 13056873 - (D) WOODS 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY VAN BUSKIRK, JAMES M

REEXAMINATION

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex parte VIRUN, INC. Appellant Ex Parte 8282977 et al 12/383,244 90012700 - (D) GARRIS 103 Dentons US LLP Third Party Requester Hansra Intellectual Property Law DIAMOND, ALAN D original PADEN, CAROLYN A

general foods, vogel, eli lilly, aldrich

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Chardon et al 11742019 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HUYNH, THU V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2674 Ex Parte Zeng 11827741 - (D) POLLOCK 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PAYER, PAUL F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Teratani et al 11408240 - (D) HASTINGS 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1755 Ex Parte Fulton et al 12292346 - (D) TIMM double patenting 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC TRINH, THANH TRUC

The key question in any obviousness double patenting analyis is: "Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent asserted as supporting double patenting?"  General Foods Corp. v. Studiengessellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278 (Fed, Cir, 1992) (discussing In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970)). Answering this question requires that the decision-maker first construe the claims in the patent and the claims under review and determine the differences between them.  Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  After determinig the differences, the decision-maker must determine whether the differences in subject matter render the claims patentably distinct. Id. Where the subject matter of a pending claim under review is an obvious variation of the subject matter of a patented claim, the pending claim is not patentably distinct.  In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

It is critical during the analysis that no part of the patent be used as "prior art" against the claims under review.  This includes the claims themselves. See In re Aldrich, 398 F.2d 855, 859 (CCPA 1968) ("double patenting rejection[s] cannot be based on section 103,... or on the disclosures of the patents whose claims are relied on to demonstrate double patenting or on the 'disclosures' of their claims... [P]atent claims are looked to only to see what has been patented, the subject matter which has been protected, not for something one may find to be disclosed by reading them") (emphasis added).

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

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804 , 804.01 , 804.02 , 1504.06

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 , 2144.08 , 2165.01

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Miller 11958337 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC FLYNN, RANDY A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Yin et al 12117927 - (D) FINK 102/103 KIRTON MCCONKIE RICHER, AARON M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Kwong et al 11488799 - (D) COURTENAY 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. CHEN, XIAOLIANG

vogel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Trinon et al 11316025 - (D) POTHIER 101/103/obviousness-type double patenting Brake Hughes Bellermann LLP c/o CPA Global HOCKER, JOHN P

A good test, and probably the only objective test, for "same invention," is whether one of the claims could be literally infringed without literally infringing the other. If it could be, the claims do not define identically the same invention. See In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970)

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804, 804.01, 804.02, 1504.06
DONNER 12: 298-303, 307, 310, 311, 324, 338, 364, 366, 367, 370

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Battat et al 11327227 - (D) McKONE 103 Baker Botts LLP NOORISTANY, SULAIMAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte Fischer et al 10950841 - (D) FREDMAN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HON, MING Y

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Matthiessen et al 11754541 - (D) NEW 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(f) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Hood et al 10814679 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 102/103 HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP COLE, ELIZABETH M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Gross 11117783 - (D) McKONE 103 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP KUDDUS, DANIEL A

2171 Ex Parte Mock et al 11405372 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. PAN, YONGJIA

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Emig et al 10555040 - (D) GRIMES 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. HELM,CARALYNNE E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Simpson 11667746 - (D) NAGUMO 103 HODES, PESSIN & KATZ, P.A. SLIFKA, COLIN W

1762 Ex Parte Collins et al 12151242 - (D) McKELVEY 112(1) MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC YOON, TAE H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Jacobson et al 11322484 - (D) HUME 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN Mission/BSTZ OBERLY, VAN HONG

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte de Heer et al 11095121 - (D) COURTENAY 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP ZHOU, YONG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2677 Ex Parte Choi 11654402 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP PERROMAT, CARLOS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Hartdegen et al 10940396 - (D) JENKS 103 DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia SCHAPER, MICHAEL T

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 PASS & SEYMOUR, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant v. HUBBELL INCORPORATED, Third Party Requester 95000258 7195517 11/357,563 MARTIN 103 BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC Third Party Requester: Roylance, Abrams, Berbo & Goodman, L.L.P. GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original TA, THO DAC

bicon, miller3, vogel, innova

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Eghtesady 11429395 - (D) GREEN 103 TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP GRAY, PHILLIP A

Claim language, however, “should not [be] treated as meaningless.” Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Marek 10957534 - (D) PARVIS 102/103 ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC. GOODARZI, NASSER MOAZZAMI

A claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim language itself. See Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys. Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 72 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2173.05(g)

2446 Ex Parte Sitaraman et al 11693924 - (D) SIU 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. NGUYEN, DUSTIN

2454 Ex Parte Cope 12035584 - (D) COURTENAY statutory double patenting 101 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP AVELLINO, JOSEPH E

In a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the issue is whether the same invention is being claimed twice. The “same invention” means identical subject matter. Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186, 197 (1894). As expressed by the court in In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970), “[a] good test, and probably the only objective test, for ‘same invention,’ is whether one of the claims could be literally infringed without literally infringing the other. If it could be, the claims do not define identically the same invention.”

Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894) 804

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804, 804.01, 804.02, 1504.06

2456 Ex Parte Terrill et al 11237584 - (D) GONSALVES 103 Patent Capital Group FAN, HUA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Yuuki 11174741 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

2658 Ex Parte Sailer 11870505 - (D) McKONE 103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE BORSETTI, GREG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Ford et al 10064962 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Smith et al 10643527 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

katz, basell, vogel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Atanasoska et al 11855499 - (D) PRATS 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) AL-AWADI, DANAH J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Wiercinski 11314325 - (D) McKELVEY 103 W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Martin 11850571 - (D) MARTIN 103 Rutan & Tucker, LLP. REDMAN, JERRY E

3665 Ex Parte Takamatsu 10991858 - (D) KERINS 112(1)/103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC NGUYEN, CHUONG P

Reliance on this statement in arriving at the conclusion that the claims would have been obvious is improper, as it amounts to using Appellant’s own disclosure in the present application against him. See In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450 (CCPA 1982).

Katz, In re, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982) 715.01(c), 716.10, 804, 2132, 2132.01, 2133, 2136.05, 2137, 2138.02

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Zawacki et al 11874447 - (D) BONILLA 103 Rutan & Tucker, LLP. PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Son 11730697 - (D) GARRIS 103 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1308 Ex parte Hitachi Metals, Ltd., Patent Owner and Appellant 90010759 5645651 08/485,183 ROBERTSON 102/obviousness-type double patenting obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b) 103 obviousness-type double patenting BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP JOHNSON, JERRY D original YEE, DEBORAH

If the same invention is not being claimed twice, a second question must be asked. The second analysis question is: Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention disclosed and claimed in the patent? In considering the question, the patent disclosure may not be used as prior art. This does not mean that the disclosure may not be used at all. . . . As pointed out above, in certain instances it may be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of terms in a claim. It may also be used as required to answer the second analysis question above. . . . It must be noted that this use of the disclosure is not in contravention of the cases forbidding its use as prior art, nor is it applying the patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 103, since only the disclosure of the invention claimed in the patent may be examined.

In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-442 (CCPA 1970)

In In re Basell Poliolefine Italia S.P.A., 547 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008), our reviewing court stated:

Indeed, our predecessor court stated that a patent's disclosure may be used to determine whether an application claim is merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in a patent. Vogel, 422 F.2d at 441-42. The court stated that the disclosure may be used to learn the meaning of terms and in “interpreting the coverage of [a] claim.” Id. at 441. It may also be used to answer the question whether claims merely define an obvious variation of what is earlier disclosed and claimed.

Basell, 547 F.3d at 1378.

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804, 804.01, 804.02, 1504.06

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Leveugle 10470519 - (D) GRIMES 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Sheridan Ross PC RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Morris 11022133 - (D) KUMAR 103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC LEROUX, ETIENNE PIERRE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2657 Ex Parte Bennett et al 11030919 - (D) HOFF 103 Ian M. Bennett LERNER, MARTIN

2686 Ex Parte Theuss 11956971 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 Dicke, Billig & Czaja, PLLC BLOUIN, MARK S

2695 Ex Parte Lee et al 10645868 - (D) WARD 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Searls et al 11588682 - (D) FRAHM 112(2)/102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. DINH, TUAN T

2885 Ex Parte Yoo et al 11600059 - (D) DIXON 102/103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP NEGRON, ISMAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Lifson et al 10732134 - (D) DILLON 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. JIANG, CHEN WEN

3769 Ex Parte Van Hal et al 12089198 - (D) BONILLA 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LIPITZ, JEFFREY BRIAN

vogel, cybersource

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Haldar et al 11/290,715 GREEN 103(a) Attn: William J. Davis, Esq. INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS EXAMINER BERRIOS, JENNIFER A

1648 Ex Parte Kyle 11/449,829 SCHEINER 103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC EXAMINER LUCAS, ZACHARIAH
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/341,355 SMITH 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D

1732 Ex Parte Frenzel et al 10/539,781 KATZ 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, COLETTE B

1771 Ex Parte Pawlak et al 11/319,093 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY

1778 Ex Parte Dal Maso et al 10/994,405 SMITH 103(a) Husch Blackwell LLP Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

1788 Ex Parte Weiner et al 11/089,435 TIMM 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte MacHeffner 10/915,496 COURTENAY 103(a) MESCHKOW & GRESHAM, P.L.C. EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Baumgartner et al 10/491,429 SCHAFER 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Westerkamp 11/185,701 McCARTHY 101/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

A rejection for anticipation-type double patenting requires a “two-way analysis:” two claims do not claim the same invention if one of the claims could be literally infringed without literally infringing the other. See In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) . . . 804, 804.01, 804.02, 1504.06
3765 Ex Parte Westerkamp et al 11/185,702 McCARTHY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

3767 Ex Parte Johnson et al 12/043,861 6,569,118 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) STEPHEN A GRATTON EXAMINER CARPENTER, WILLIAM R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Loch et al 10/103,426 WARREN 103(a) 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1722 Ex Parte Regan et al 11/738,536 SMITH 103(a) 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER EOFF, ANCA

1722 Ex Parte Regan et al 11/782,687 SMITH 103(a) 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER EOFF, ANCA

1732 Ex Parte McInnes et al 11/526,462 HANLON 103(a) 103(a) LATHROP & GAGE LLP EXAMINER QIAN, YUN
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2825 Ex Parte Strang 10/673,506 HOFF 103(a) 101 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SIEK, VUTHE

2857 Ex Parte Kamdar et al 10/786,980 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) 103(a) General Motors Corporation
c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER LE, JOHN H
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Velikyan et al 10/552,206 McCOLLUM 103(a) GE HEALTHCARE, INC. EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte DeBiccari et al 11/019,871 TIMM 112(1)/103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1724 Ex Parte Aigner et al 10/478,751 ROBERTSON 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1724 Ex Parte Ma et al 10/776,223 WARREN 103(a) SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1727 Ex Parte Fukuda et al 11/242,908 SMITH 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P

1763 Ex Parte Evers 12/166,534 SMITH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Walker et al 10/264,876 BARRY 101/102(e) LNG/LSI Joint Customer Number C/O Luedeka, Neely & Graham, P.C. EXAMINER PHAN, THAI Q

"[R]egardless of what statutory category ('process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,' 35 U.S.C. § 101) a claim's language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the underlying invention for patenteligibility purposes." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Santhoff et al 11/037,786 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Pulse-Link, Inc. EXAMINER ODOM, CURTIS B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Borgerding et al 11/362,548 HORNER 103(a) Hildebrand, Christa Norris McLaughlin & Marcus PA EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Libby et al 10/612,782 KIM 103(a) Mr. Tim F. Williams Dority & Manning, P.A. EXAMINER HARPER, TRAMAR YONG

3742 Ex Parte Chenier et al 10/651,949 CALVE 102(b)/103(a) SMART & BIGGAR EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H

3779 Ex Parte Dalle et al 10/483,220 ASTORINO 103(a) LEVINE & MANDELBAUM EXAMINER KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN