SEARCH

PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Showing posts with label warmerdam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label warmerdam. Show all posts

Friday, December 31, 2010

Friday December 31, 2010

REVERSED 
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1731 Ex Parte Taylor et al 10/971,211 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) SALLY J. BROWN AUTOLIV ASP, INC. EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 
2123 Ex Parte Grayson 10/793,161 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R 

“[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 
3695 Ex Parte Monk et al 10/690,394 CRAWFORD 101/102(e) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER HAVAN, THU THAO 

Here, similar to Benson, concluding that the claimed subject matter is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 would effectively pre-empt performing the various steps by any means, and in practical effect would be a patent on the idea of detecting fraud in relation to stored value products. As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[a]n idea of itself is not patentable.” Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. 498, 507 (1874) quoted in In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498 (1874). . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106 

Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

AFFIRMED 
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 
1657 Ex Parte Malaviya et al 10/483,930 SPIEGEL 101/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1716 Ex Parte Yamazaki et al 11/072,521 COLAIANNI 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N 

1773 Ex Parte Blouin et al 10/007,031 COLAIANNI 102(b) BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER ALEXANDER, LYLE 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 
2448 Ex Parte Janniello et al 09/938,147 STEPHENS 101/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 
2874 Ex Parte Guttmann et al 10/399,938 EASTHOM 112(1)/103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER KIM, ELLEN E 

REHEARING DENIED 
2600 Communications 
2626 Ex Parte Karavansky 10/640,992 MANTIS MERCADER 101/102(b)/103(a) Sviatoslav Karavansky EXAMINER SMITS, TALIVALDIS IVARS

Monday, April 26, 2010

warmerdam, foster, lowry, ngai, mathias,

REVERSED 
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
Ex Parte Han et al 11158047 OWENS 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER WEDDLE, ALEXANDER MARION 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 
Ex Parte Davis et al 11086943 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) JACKSON WALKER LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
Ex Parte Butzer et al 11062777 HASTINGS 103(a) Mr. Edward J. Timmer EXAMINER D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 
Ex Parte Heikes et al 11021009 HUGHES 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER TAKELE, MESEKER 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 
Ex Parte Park 10377746 DIXON 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 
Ex Parte Eisenberg et al 09974321 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER BUCHANAN, CHRISTOPHER R 

According to current Office policy, computer programs per se are not considered patentable subject matter under §101, as they are in themselves purely non-functional descriptive constructs. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 2009, at 2, available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/2009-08-25_interim_101_instructions.pdf. Also see MPEP § 2106.01 (I), citing In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

Ex Parte Foster et al 09931123 LORIN 101/103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP EXAMINER FELTEN, DANIEL S 

Patentable weight need not be given to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate (here the system). See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1338. See also, Ex parte Mathias, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (CCPA sic [Fed. Cir.] 2006). 

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01 

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01