o'farrell, wiseman, jung, abele, cybersource

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Rao et al 11/170,331 ZECHER 103(a) WALTER W. DUFT EXAMINER TRUONG, LOAN

2161 Ex Parte Agrawal et al 11/317,216 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) The Danamraj Law Group, PC/RIM EXAMINER MINCEY, JERMAINE A

2186 Ex Parte Dunshea et al 11/006,127 BARRY 102(b) Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Michaud et al 10/856,534 HORNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) Winston & Strawn LLP EXAMINER PANG, ROGER L

3689 Ex Parte Kruk et al 10/279,188 KIM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Tak et al 10/837,390 HORNER 103(a) PEACOCK MYERS, P.C. EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Imamatsu 10/705,437 CHEN 102(a) 102(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER YAARY, MICHAEL D
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte McSwiggen et al 10/720,448 FREDMAN 103(a) MERCK EXAMINER BOWMAN, AMY HUDSON

O’Farrell states that “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988). O’Farrell identifies two kinds of error. In some cases, what would have been “obvious to try” would have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful…. In others, what was “obvious to try” was to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
1633 Ex Parte Subramaniam et al 11/449,125 WALSH 103(a) STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA

There is no dispute that the difference in starting material shape dictates the resulting nanoparticle shape. In the Wiseman case, the discovery of a new function did not render Wiseman’s disc brakes nonobvious, and the inherent difference in shape here is similarly insufficient. “[Appellants] are, in effect, arguing that a structure suggested by the prior art, and, hence, potentially in the possession of the public, is patentable to them because it also possesses an Inherent, but hitherto unknown, function which they claim to have discovered. This is not the law. A patent on such a structure would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art.” In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1023 (CCPA 1979).

Wiseman, In re, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) 2141.02, 2145, 2164.06(c)

1647 Ex Parte Champion et al 11/078,735 FREDMAN 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER WOODWARD, CHERIE MICHELLE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Cetel et al 11/284,612 TIMM 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER AUSTIN, AARON

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Murray 11/092,866 HOMERE 103(a) TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER EXAMINER QUELER, ADAM M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Karamchedu et al 10/635,184 COURTENAY 103(a) Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (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 . . . .”).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Gillaspy et al 10/947,417 HOELTER 101/103(a) Keohane & D'Alessandro EXAMINER CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

Our reviewing court in In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982) held that a claim directed to the steps of calculating and displaying was not statutory stating that “[t]his claim presents no more than the calculation of a number and display of the result, albeit in a particular format” (Id. at 908-09). Appellants’ claim 1 does not even include the displaying step recited in Abele’s rejected claim. See also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decision Inc., 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[t]he mere collection and organization of data regarding credit card numbers and Internet addresses is insufficient to meet the transformation prong of the test” and that “mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’”)

Abele, In re, 684 F.2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2106.01, 2184
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Lingle et al 10/453,790 GUEST Concurring WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

celeritas, wiseman, kubin

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Srinivas et al 11/916,685 GREEN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC. EXAMINER HEYER, DENNIS

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Kotnis et al 10/380,392 KRATZ 103(a) HUNTSMAN ADVANCED MATERIALS AMERICAS LLC EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I

1716 Ex Parte Choi et al 11/173,210 FRANKLIN 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY

1731 Ex Parte Bagala 11/277,897 FRANKLIN concurring NAGUMO 103(a) BASF CORPORATION EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

1731 Ex Parte Brady et al 11/275,416 GUEST 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A

1741 Ex Parte Willden et al 10/942,501 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) HUGH P. GORTLER EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J

1781 Ex Parte Shimek et al 10/620,038 NAGUMO 102(e)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Lee 10/423,942 BROCKETTI 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ALMO, KHAREEM E

2829 Ex Parte VanBuskirk et al 11/095,849 MACDONALD 102(b) SPANSION LLC C/O MURABITO , HAO & BARNES LLP EXAMINER MAI, ANH D

2837 Ex Parte Takagi et al 11/446,507 KRIVAK 102(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER COLON SANTANA, EDUARDO

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Schuller et al 10/423,471 CRAWFORD 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER GATLING, STACIE D

3657 Ex Parte Walters et al 10/741,760 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) Chrysler Group LLC EXAMINER BURCH, MELODY M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Jansen et al 10/221,379 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER EREZO, DARWIN P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte German 10/642,093 ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER HAYES, ROBERT CLINTON

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Busam et al 09/955,665 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HARMAN - BRINKS HOFER CHICAGO Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione EXAMINER TRAN, NGHI V

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Cook Jr et al 10/480,326 CRAWFORD 103(a) SULLIVAN & WORCESTER LLP EXAMINER SHAH, AMEE A

3664 Ex Parte Ban et al 10/989,432 ASTORINO 112(2)/102(b) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC) EXAMINER TRAN, KHOI H

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Borzym 10/762,430 PATE III 103(a) Thomas N. Young Young & Basile P.C. EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T

3734 Ex Parte Falahee 10/689,124 GREENHUT 102(e)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D

3761 Ex Parte Zander et al 11/025,645 SPAHN 102(a)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

The question of whether a prior art reference “teaches away” from the claimed subject matter is irrelevant to an anticipation analysis. See Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. Thus, the question whether a reference ‘teaches away’ from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.”) (Citations omitted).

Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . 2123, 2131.05
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1724 Ex Parte 7105091 et al 10/883,378 7,105,091 Ex parte KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. LEE 103(a) PATENT OWNER: GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BORIS M. KHUDENKO, Ph.D., P.E. KHUDENKO ENGINEERING, INC. EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER PRINCE, FRED G

EXAMINER REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2624 Ex Parte 7088862 et al 95/001,179 7,088,862 MVTec SOFTWARE GmbH Requester and Appellant v. COGNEX CORPORATION Patent Owner and Respondent SIU 102/103(a) PATENT OWNER COGNEX CORPORATION PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER LAROSE, COLIN M original EXAMINER MARIAM, DANIEL G

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2621 Ex Parte 6771808 et al 95/001,176 6,771,808 MVTec SOFTWARE GmbH Third Party Requester, Appellant v. COGNEX CORPORATION Patent Owner, Respondent SIU 102/103 PATENT OWNER COGNEX CORPORATION PROSKAUER ROSE LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER LAROSE, COLIN M original EXAMINER WERNER, BRIAN P
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Wallach et al 10/761,370 WALSH 103(a) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA

“[Appellants] are, in effect, arguing that a structure suggested by the prior art, and, hence, potentially in the possession of the public, is patentable to them because it also possesses an Inherent, but hitherto unknown, function which they claim to have discovered. This is not the law. A patent on such a structure would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art.” In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1023 (CCPA 1979); see also In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Wiseman, In re, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) 2141.02, 2145, 2164.06(c)

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Jux et al 11/224,395 COLAIANNI 103(a) CIBA VISION CORPORATION EXAMINER ANGEBRANNDT, MARTIN J

1733 Ex Parte Bruckner et al 10/380,792 COLAIANNI 103(a) PROSKAUER ROSE LLP EXAMINER MCGUTHRY BANKS, TIMA MICHELE

1741 Ex Parte Lindsay et al 10/895,594 FRANKLIN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Dority & Manning, P.A. EXAMINER FORTUNA, JOSE A

1763 Ex Parte Carter et al 12/054,476 COLAIANNI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

1767 Ex Parte Ito 11/364,327 PRATS 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER MCCULLEY, MEGAN CASSANDRA

1785 Ex Parte Campbell et al 11/378,780 TIMM 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Kalliokulju et al 10/118,656 KOHUT 103(a) WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER EHICHIOYA, FRED I

2156 Ex Parte Kalthoff et al 11/273,598 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP EXAMINER LIAO, JASON G

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Fellenstein et al 10/205,571 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) CAHN & SAMUELS, LLP EXAMINER CALDWELL, ANDREW T

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Jacob et al 10/386,974 SMITH 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER PANWALKAR, VINEETA S

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Hidaka et al 11/704,916 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER LAM, TUAN THIEU

2824 Ex Parte Hudgens 11/447,821 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, VAN THU T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte McClendon et al 09/923,362 CRAWFORD 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

3679 Ex Parte Knowles 09/982,928 PATE III 103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER BOCHNA, DAVID

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 Ex Parte Braxton 10/034,720 ADAMS 103(a) VAN OPHEM & VANOPHEM, PC REMY J VANOPHEM, PC EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

3761 Ex Parte Schlinz et al 10/883,378 LEE 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3783 Ex Parte Botelho et al 10/825,989 PATE III 103(a) HODGSON RUSS LLP EXAMINER KAMEN, NOAH P
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Armstrong et al 10/889,481 OWENS 103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte Cochran et al 10/879,401 LUCAS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W
VACATED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte King 11/031,648 GRIMES 102(b) 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 103(a) Vista IP Law Group LLP EXAMINER HELLER, TAMMIE K