zierden, woodruff

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2676 Ex Parte Sewell et al 11847474 - (D) FRAHM 103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER MCLEAN, NEIL R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Akridge 11531488 - (D) FREDMAN 103 JENSEN + PUNTIGAM, P.S. CORNET, JEAN P

We do not find this argument persuasive because a “mere statement of a new use for an otherwise old or obvious composition cannot render a claim to the composition patentable.” In re Zierden, 411 F.2d 1325, 1328 (CCPA 1969).

We also note that it “is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the process again patentable.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577–78 (Fed. Cir. 1990)

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2144.05

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Gerster 11343558 - (D) GUPTA 102 112(2)/103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC SU, XIAOWEI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2863 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12290681 - (D) HASTINGS 103 INTELLECTUAL VENTURES - ISF BETSCH, REGIS J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Kachline et al 11855202 - (D) KINDER 103 41.50 103 Lincoln Electric Company/Perkins COIE LLP JENNISON, BRIAN W

3769 Ex Parte Wang 12850658 - (D) WIEKER 102/103 BWT PROPERTY, INC. LIPITZ, JEFFREY BRIAN

woodruff

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Singh 12331365 - (D) MCMILLIN 102/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 LANIER, BENJAMIN E

2467 Ex Parte GRAY et al 12336860 - (D) THOMAS 103 VERIZON FOUD, HICHAM B

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Nam et al 11860240 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 103 Innovation Counsel LLP ABDIN, SHAHEDA A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Schumacher et al 11710243 - (D) HUME 103 HOWISON & ARNOTT, L.L.P SHIH, HAOSHIAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Richter et al 11194914 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier SCHNURR, JOHN R

2442 Ex Parte Shepherd et al 10205993 - (D) HORVATH 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Bosch et al 11928307 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 Davidson Sheehan LLP Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. HAMMONDS, MARCUS C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Brynelsen et al 12145430 - (D) BROWNE 103 IntraPace & Townsend & Townsend & Crew LLP HELLER, TAMMIE K

3766 Ex Parte Tockman et al 12685445 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 41.50 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP GEDEON, BRIAN T

"The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. ... In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range."  In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). In the case, Applicants have not shown that the claimed angle ranges are critical.

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2144.05

woodruff

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Duboc et al 12339897 - (D) TIMM 102 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED CHU, CHRIS C

2828 Ex Parte Simler et al 11237846 - (D) DELMENDO 103 ARRIS NIU, XINNING

2872 Ex Parte Matsunaga et al 12101654 - (D) GARRIS 103 OSHA LIANG L.L.P. MARTINEZ, JOSEPH P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2485 Ex Parte Wyman 10871758 - (D) BUI 103 102 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) LEE, Y YOUNG

2898 Ex Parte Majumdar et al 11240487 - (D) HANLON 102 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Mission/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN MOVVA, AMAR

We note that the Appellants do not direct us to any evidence demonstrating that the ranges recited in claims 1 and 24 are “critical.” See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (where the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range within the claims, “the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range”).

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2144.05

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Noonan et al 12264305 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting DEERE & COMPANY ADAMS, GREGORY W

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte McClernon et al 12574377 - (D) KIMLIN 103 DUFAULT LAW FIRM, P.C. HOOVER, MATTHEW

1777 Ex Parte Fu et al 12978989 - (D) SMITH 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY XU, XIAOYUN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Rosales et al 12176587 - (D) BUI 102 IBM CORPORATION (RVW) C/O ROBERT V. WILDER, ATTORNEY AT LAW WILSON, YOLANDA L

2159 Ex Parte Takagi et al 10699102 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MAYER & WILLIAMS PC SPIELER, WILLIAM

2161 Ex Parte Dean et al 10389688 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 Straub & Pokotylo PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

2181 Ex Parte NAGATA 12142831 - (D) COURTENAY 103 MARK D. SARALINO ( SHARP ) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP LEWIS-TAYLOR, DAYTON A.

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Yuen et al 10401301 - (D) COURTENAY 103 ROPES & GRAY LLP SALCE, JASON P

2426 Ex Parte Moore et al 11517015 - (D) HUME 103 VERIZON TAYLOR, JOSHUA D

2427 Ex Parte Zenoni 10728572 - (D) BUSCH 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV SCHNURR, JOHN R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte VERNICK 11770336 - (D) MORGAN 103 Avaya by MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, PLLC HAMMONDS, MARCUS C

2646 Ex Parte PUN et al 11762916 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 112(2) 103 ADDMG - Harris SIDDIQUI, KASHIF

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2800 Ex Parte Morgante 12130213 - (D) GARRIS 103 Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. TAMAI, KARL I

2811 Ex Parte Allen et al 12062186 - (D) TIMM 102 112(2) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP NGUYEN, CUONG QUANG

2815 Ex Parte Meyer et al 12131541 - (D) TORCZON 102/103 SpryIP, LLC IMC CHU, CHRIS C

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Gillanders et al ROY A. TERRY Requester and Appellant v. PIPE RESTORATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Patent Owner and Respondent 95001717 7,858,149 11/649,647 LEBOVITZ 103 41.77(b) 103 LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN S. STEINBERGER TILL, TERRENCE R original FLETCHER III, WILLIAM P

woodruff, perricone, bristol-myers

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Homer et al 11551940 - (D) KRIVAK 102(b)/103 DOCKET CLERK MCMAHON, DANIEL F

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Woerlein et al 11747466 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP MEHTA, PARIKHA SOLANKI

3773 Ex Parte Ho 11781924 - (D) ADAMS 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI TYSON, MELANIERUANO

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Dow et al 11408105 - (D) GREEN 103 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. KANTAMNENI, SHOBHA

See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“It is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the process again patentable.”); see also Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that the realization of a new benefit of an old process does not render that process patentable); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating in the context of a claimed process that was drawn to the same use comprising the same steps of the prior art, “[n]ewly discovered results of known processes directed to the same purpose are not patentable because such results are inherent.”).

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2144.05
DONNER 8: 1047, 1069, 1285, 1672, 1676, 1691, 1710, 1713
HARMON 2: 80; 4:312, 374; 20: 73

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 
DONNER 1: 415; 7:748, 911; 8: 1641; 10: 891
HARMON 3: 4, 23, 44, 53, 59, 71, 89; 6: 339

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Ravi et al 12961333 - (D) KIMLIN 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. HIJJI, KARAM Y

1732 Ex Parte Yin et al 12362533 - (D) SMITH 103/obviousness-type double patenting GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY SAHA, BIJAY S

1762 Ex Parte Qian et al 12936372 - (D) GARRIS 103 POLYONE CORPORATION NERANGIS, VICKEY M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Hunt et al 11342769 - (D) HULSE 101/102(b)/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP SMITH, TIONNA M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte Walton et al 11261188 - (D) FRANKLIN 102(e)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TRAN, DUNG D

2677 Ex Parte Cooley 10747422 - (D) MILLS 112(1) 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LETT, THOMAS J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Ante et al 11632080 - (D) BUI 103 Cozen O'Connor PATIDAR, JAY M

2866 Ex Parte Pischl 11563349 - (D) NEW 103 BGL/Broadcom BALDRIDGE,BENJAMIN M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Hanin et al 11552411 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 ALLERGAN, INC. MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2115 XILINX, INC. Requester v. INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC Patent Owner 95001571 6,993,669 09/837,651 SIU 112(1)/112(2) 112(1)/102(b)/103 Novak Druce + Quigg LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: HAYNES BOONES, LLP CHOI, WOO H original BUTLER, DENNIS

hauserman, arvin, freeman, de blauwe, baxter travenol, grasselli2, clemens, freeman, klosak, dillon, mayne, schulze, greenfield, woodruff

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/21/2011 1655 Ex Parte Yang 10/505,015 ADAMS 103(a) WANG & HO EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

2600 Communications
07/22/2011 2624 Ex Parte Fushiki et al 11/041,033 KOHUT 102(b)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER WANG, CLAIRE X
REEXAMINATION EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/22/2011 3765 Ex parte CHRISTOPER SEAN VAN WINKLE and DAVID COX Appellants 90/009,210 7,076,806 SONG 102(b)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC Third Party Requester: VENABLE LLP EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER PATEL, TAJASH D

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/22/2011 1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/089,525 NAGUMO 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M

07/21/2011 1747 Ex Parte Yokota et al 10/277,646 GUEST 103(a) BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDINGS, INC. EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

The word “substantially” has been construed many times by our reviewing court. While the term “substantially” certainly broadens the term it modifies to some degree, it “cannot be allowed to negate the meaning of the word it modifies.” In re Hauserman, Inc., 892 F.2d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Arvin Industries, Inc. v. Berns Air King Corp., 525 F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1975)).
07/22/2011 1731 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/820,972 OWENS 103(a) K&L GATES LLP EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

That argument is not persuasive because, first, evidence must not merely show an unexpected property but, rather, must show an unexpected difference in a property between the claimed invention and the prior art. See In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973). Second, the Appellants have not provided a side-by-side comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims, and explained why the results would have been unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Freeman, 474 F.2d at 1324; In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).

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

De Blauwe, In re, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . 716.01(c), 2145

Grasselli, In re, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2112, 2145

Clemens, In re, 622 F.2d 1029, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . 716.02(d), 2145

07/21/2011 1796 Ex Parte Dreier et al 11/032,434 ROBERTSON 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

A showing of unexpected results may be sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). Such a showing must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965). The evidence must also be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978). Further, the Federal Circuit has held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is a claimed range; the applicant must show that the range is critical through unexpected results. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted).

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09, 2145

Schulze, In re, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965) . . . .716.01(c), 2145, 2164.06(c)

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

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . 2144.05

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/21/2011 2162 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11/058,972 THOMAS 103(a) Baker Botts L.L.P EXAMINER BULLOCK, JOSHUA

07/22/2011 2164 Ex Parte Avinash et al 11/016,081 MORGAN 103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

07/21/2011 2181 Ex Parte Azadet et al 10/880,331 GONSALVES 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
07/21/2011 2456 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/672,601 DANG 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T

2600 Communications
07/21/2011 2617 Ex Parte Filipovic et al 10/412,928 RUGGIERO 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M