wyers

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte Rekiere 11189907 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SARPONG, AKWASI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Abel et al 11494263 - (D) KERINS 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE LLP MUSTAFA, IMRAN K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 Ex Parte Mylrea et al 10958190 - (D) MAYBERRY 112(1)/112(2)/103 SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP THANH, LOAN H

“Our [reviewing court’s] case law holds that copying requires evidence of efforts to replicate a specific product, which may be demonstrated through internal company documents, direct evidence such as disassembling a patented prototype, photographing its features, and using the photograph as a blueprint to build a replica, or access to the patented product combined with substantial similarity to the patented product.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, Appellants provide declaratory evidence that at least two commercial entities had access to the patented product (and, indeed, negotiated for the product) and later developed a substantially similar product. 

3772 Ex Parte Ginn et al 12582937 - (D) GRIMES 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP HICKS, VICTORIA J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Zhu et al 12088097 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS NGUYEN, HIEP VAN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte McCaffrey et al 11856132 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY BROWN, ADAM WAYNE

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11810358 - (D) PAULRAJ 103/obviousness-type double patenting Constellation Law Group, PLLC LIN, JERRY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte El-Wardany et al 11928443 - (D) FINK 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY CALLE, ANGEL J.

2155 Ex Parte Tabuchi 10911305 - (D) KUMAR 102 IBM CORPORATION HOFFLER, RAHEEM

2193 Ex Parte Belluomini et al 11776454 - (D) HUME 103 IBM CORPORATION (JVM) C/O LAW OFFICE OF JACK V. MUSGROVE NGO, CHUONG D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Moubayed et al 12345212 - (D) MOHANTY 103 HODGSON RUSS LLP LE, LINH GIANG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Nickel et al 11155985 - (D) FREDMAN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY STIGELL, THEODORE J

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 SILICONWARE PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD and SILICONWARE, U.S.A., INC. Requester, Cross-Appellant, and Respondent v. TESSERA, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Respondent Ex Parte 6433419 et al 09/488,268 95000227 - (D) CHEN 102/103 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK Third Party Requester: ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP NGUYEN, MINH T original GRAYBILL, DAVID E

envirco, kemco, b. braun, donaldson, ibormeith, innovention toys, wyers, KSR, klein, bigio, encyclopaedia

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12752581 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12490018 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC BOWMAN, AMY HUDSON

Construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is a two-step process. First, the claim must be analyzed to determine whether the claim language actually invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. See Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“If a claim element contains the word ‘means’ and recites a function, th[e] court presumes that element is a means-plus-function element under § 112, ¶ 6. . . . That presumption falls, however, if the claim itself recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.”). The second step is to “determine what structures have been disclosed in the specification that correspond to the means for performing that function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing § 112, ¶ 6.” B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A means-plus-function claim “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that “the 'broadest reasonable interpretation' that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six of 35 USC § 112.” MPEP § 2181. “Accordingly, the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination.” (id.) This “sets a limit on how broadly the PTO may construe means-plus-function language under the rubric of reasonable interpretation.” (emphasis added.) In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Thus, as articulated in MPEP 2181, “the USPTO must apply 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph in appropriate cases, and give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of and consistent with the written description of the invention in the application.” [Emphasis added.] (See also, Br. 3.)

A structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as a “corresponding structure” if the specification or the prosecution history “clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With means-plus-function claiming, the narrower the disclosed structure in the specification, the narrower the claim coverage. Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 732 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 54 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2181

Kemco Sales Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) , 2103,2183, 2184

B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419, 43 USPQ2d 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2163, 2181, 2182

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Harrington et al 11459371 - (D) FREDMAN 101/103 Basch & Nickerson LLP QUADER, FAZLUL

2174 Ex Parte Chen et al 10427279 - (D) HOMERE 103 DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. International Business Machines Corporation NGUYEN, LE V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Deno et al 11116569 - (D) HULSE 112(1)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BAYS, PAMELA M

3788 Ex Parte Livingston 11938849 - (D) MORRISON 102/103 GE ENERGY GENERAL ELECTRIC C/O ERNEST G. CUSICK REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Kulkarni 11549023 - (D) WINSOR 103 103 Siemens Corporation EDWARDS, LINGLAN E

Whether a prior art reference is analogous to the claimed invention such that it qualifies as prior art for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a question of fact. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm't., Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In KSR, the Supreme Court “direct[ed] us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 402); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 420. In an obviousness analysis,

[t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.

In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Determining whether art is in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s claimed invention “requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention's subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. Although the Examiner is correct that the Examiner’s claimed invention and the cited references are all broadly directed to computer programming (Ans. 24), Subramanian diverges substantially from the “the embodiments, function, and structure of [Appellant’s] claimed invention,” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, and the other cited prior art.

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, ,   2145,   2216,   2242,   2286,   2616,   2642, 2686.04

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Klapka et al 10497852 - (D) NEW 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) WALSH, DANIEL I

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Barry et al 11451634 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 102/103 MAYER & WILLIAMS PC BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Nagghappan 12904286 - (D) MURPHY 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC KEYWORTH, PETER

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Lee et al 12100173 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. BATURAY, ALICIA

2448 Ex Parte Bowen et al 11778354 - (D) FETTING Dissenting-in-part and Concurring-in-part SPAHN 101 101/103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON STRANGE, AARON N

2452 Ex Parte Wardwell 10529701 - (D) Per Curiam 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. NGUYEN, THU V

2452 Ex Parte Curtis et al 11483347 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC GOLABBAKHSH, EBRAHIM

2478 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11953810 - (D) WINSOR 103 LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE SCIACCA, SCOTT M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Primous et al 11529709 - (D) SHIANG 103 Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman, L.L.P. -Hubbell NWUGO, OJIAKO K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Joachim et al 11661161 - (D) KALAN 102/103 VENABLE LLP CHAN, TSZFUNG JACKIE

2853 Ex Parte Laksin et al 10586098 - (D) KALAN 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP SHAH, MANISlH S

2878 Ex Parte Feliss et al 10931679 - (D) KALAN 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP DOWLING, WILLIAM C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Gordon 11351790 - (D) SMEGAL 103 GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. MCCARRY JR,ROBERT J

3657 Ex Parte Balsells 12614769 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP BURCH, MELODY M

3689 Ex Parte Niethammer 10804683 - (D) FETTING 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Field 11748740 - (D) MORRISON 103 FAY SHARPE LLP WEAVER, SUE A

3788 Ex Parte Olsen et al 11512677 - (D) CAPP 103/obviousness-type double patenting Pauley Peterson & Erickson REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC, MEDTRONIC CV LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR GALWAY, LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, AND EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES (U.S.), INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2013-1117 7,892,281 12/348,892 10/412,634 11/352,614 12/029,031 PROST SJ invalidity 102 35 U.S.C. § 120 Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

Citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., 609 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the district court noted that under § 120, a later filed application may claim priority based on an earlier filed application if, inter alia, the later filed application contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.

Section 120 allows a later filed patent application to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States if, among other requirements,3 “it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application . . . submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director.” 35 U.S.C. § 120. We recently clarified that the “specific reference” requirement mandates “each [intermediate] application in the chain of priority to refer to the prior applications.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1352.

3 The other requirements, which are not at issue in this appeal, are that (1) the invention described in the new application must be disclosed in an application previously filed in the United States; (2) the application must be filed by the inventor(s) named in the previously filed application; and (3) the application must be co-pending with the earlier application at some point. 35 U.S.C. § 120; Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1349-50.

wyers, KSR

custom search

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Cheshire  10102174 - (D)  BISK 102 PVF -- APPLE INC. c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP CHOJNACKI, MELLISSA M

2198 Ex Parte Galli 09870223 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS KANG, INSUN

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Han et al 11194058 - (D) GARRIS 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP LAIOS, MARIA J

The scope of analogous art is to be construed broadly. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("The Supreme Court's decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 . . . (2007), directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly").

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

1727 Ex Parte Kim 11410507 - (D) GARRIS 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP MARTIN, ANGELA J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Markanthony et al 11332438 - (D) HOMERE 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. c/o CPA Global SOMERS, MARC S

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Ekudden et al 09789691 - (D) NEW 103 ERICSSON INC. WOZNIAK, JAMES S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Roth et al 10991140 - (D) ASTORINO 102 Ethicon Endo-Surgery/Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP MAI, HAO D

3751 Ex Parte de Leon et al 10632258 - (D) BARRETT 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. BAKER, LORI LYNN

jones, lemin, merck2, wyers, kao, thorner, aventis

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Nakatani et al 10/513,392 TIMM 103 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P. BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

1785 Ex Parte Weerasinghe et al 10/962,994 BEST 112(1)/102/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP CHAU, LINDA N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Saake et al 10/468,181 COURTENAY 103 EMC Corporation KIM, PAUL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Tabatabai et al 09/865,030 POTHIER 103 WAGNER, MURABITO & HAO LLP SHANG, ANNAN Q

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Braun  10/670,902 BARRY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Basch & Nickerson LLP DHINGRA, PAWANDEEP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 HASBRO, INC. Appellant v. GANZ Patent Owner, Respondent 95/001,345 7568964 12/250,757 SIU 103 Pearne & Gordon LLP KISS, ERIC B original AHMED, MASUD

3731 Ex Parte Jagger et al 10/601,952 GRIMES 103
SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC SONNETT, KATHLEEN C
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Dietrich et al 10/551,108 OWENS dissenting NAGUMO 103 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. LEE, DORIS L

Our reviewing court has rejected the proposition that, “regardless of how broad, a disclosure of a chemical genus renders obvious any species that happens to fall within it.” In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In Lemin, cited by the majority, the court explained that :

The position of the Patent Office is, essentially, that Lemin has done no more than pluck a subgenus out of a generic disclosure by Jones, and has used that subgenus in precisely the manner taught by Jones.
Generally speaking, there is nothing unobvious in choosing ‘some’ among ‘many’ indiscriminately. Here, however, the choice is based on a discovery by Lemin that some compounds, falling within a prior art genus, have a special significance.

332 F.2d 839, 841 (citation omitted). Moreover, unlike the “multitude [1200] of effective combinations” disclosed by the reference patent in Merck, 874 F.2d at 807, the number of combinations in this case is truly astronomical.

Jones, In re, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . 707.07(f), 2143.01, 2144, 2144.05, 2144.08

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Horikawa 11/122,249 HOMERE 102/103 102 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP RENNER, BRANDON M

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Mahalingam et al 10/436,310 FREDMAN 103 Avon Products, Inc. VU, JAKE MINH

To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness by showing secondary considerations of unexpected results, Appellants must first establish a nexus between the claimed invention and the allegedly unexpected results. See Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“For objective evidence of secondary considerations to be accorded substantial weight, its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.”). “Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Duffin 10/473,643 GAUDETTE 103 TYCO Healthcare Group LP HUSON, MONICA ANNE

1765 Ex Parte Null 11/920,474 DELMENDO 102/103 SHELL OIL COMPANY VALDEZ, DEVE E

1775 Ex Parte Latino et al 10/963,139 OWENS 103 MORRISS O'BRYANT COMPAGNI, P.C. YOO, REGINA M

1782 Ex Parte Baumgartner et al 11/927,019 GARRIS 103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP SMITH, PRESTON

1786 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/745,327 BEST 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. CHOI, PETER Y

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2122 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/393,641 CHEN 102/103 KRUEGER ISELIN LLP (1391) COUGHLAN, PETER D

2166 Ex Parte Ortwein et al 10/837,980 DILLON 102 IBM LOTUS & RATIONAL SW c/o GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ JOHNSON, JOHNESE T

2194 Ex Parte Krishnaswamy et al 10/808,223 MARTIN 112(1)/101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ZHEN, LI B

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Tao 11/469,626 EASTHOM 103 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC MAPA, MICHAEL Y

Therefore, Appellant attempts to limit the ordinary claim term “message” to exclude packets or other known message formats. However, the Federal Circuit recently reiterated the stringent standard for narrowing a claim term beyond its plain and ordinary meaning in Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America L.L.C., 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There, we explained that we will only interpret a claim term more narrowly than its ordinary meaning under two circumstances: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as [its] own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. Id. at 1365.

Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Bliznak 11/239,140 LORIN 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N

3637 Ex Parte Atkins 11/501,967 LEE 103 JAMES RAY & ASSOCIATES WILKENS, JANET MARIE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Francischelli et al 11/128,786 McCOLLUM 102 Medtronic CardioVascular COHEN, LEE S

wyers

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Morgal 10/821,593 KRATZ 103(a) William C. Boling, Esq. EXAMINER GARDNER, SHANNON M

1734 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 11/722,789 GUEST 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER SLIFKA, SARAH A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Leistner et al 11/257,298 KERINS 103(a) FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) EXAMINER TRIEU, THAI BA
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Kroth et al 10/499,540 SAADAT 103(a) 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER RUTKOWSKI, JEFFREY M
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Larson et al 11/510,358 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP EXAMINER BROWE, DAVID

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Pantalone et al 10/869,388 HUGHES 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER DINH, NGOC V

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Piccionelli et al 11/091,972 STEPHENS 103(a) Greg Piccionelli Piccionelli & Sarno EXAMINER LEE, JUSTIN YE

Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Wyers v Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed Cir. 2010) (quotations and citations omitted).

2625 Ex Parte Glemser et al 10/207,558 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER HANG, VU B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Nolan et al 11/431,044 GREENHUT 103(a) BARBARA K. NOLAN EXAMINER SANDY, ROBERT JOHN

tanaka, wyers, ICON

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Nahas 11/249,814 SMITH 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER MERKLING, MATTHEW J

1761 Ex Parte Shendy et al 11/099,075 SMITH 103(a) CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A

1764 Ex Parte Liaw et al 11/905,940 SMITH 103(a) Joe McKinney Muncy EXAMINER
HUHN, RICHARD A

1786 Ex Parte Zafiroglu et al 11/364,912 FRANKLIN 103(a) INVISTA NORTH AMERICA S.A.R.L. EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Fontoura et al 10/152,251 DROESCH 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER AVELLINO, JOSEPH E
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Baur et al 11/194,333 McCOLLUM 103(a) Henkel Corporation EXAMINER
GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Paulson et al 11/051,125 SMITH 103(a) Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. EXAMINER MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL

1763 Ex Parte Roby 10/533,041 FRANKLIN 103(a) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L

1783 Ex Parte Kia et al 10/639,306 SMITH 103(a) Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER SAMPLE, DAVID R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/787,479 DIXON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER
HILLERY, NATHAN
REHEARING

DENIED-IN-PART, GRANTED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1753 Ex Parte 6033542 et al 90/007,824 11/430,299 08/574,693 Ex parte Kobelco Research Institute, Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant ROBERTSON 102/251 FOR PATENT OWNER: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Gregory S. Rosenblatt Wiggin and Dana, LLP EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN original EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

Thus, because In re Tanaka holds that the addition of dependent claims as a hedge against possible invalidity is within a reasonable interpretation of the reissue statute, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 251. Id., at 1251-1252.

DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1762 Ex Parte 6709694 et al 95/000,390 09/890,690 SIRONA DENTAL SYSTEMS, INC. Requester v. 3M ESPE AG Patent Owner 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY DELMENDO 103(a) PATENT OWNER: PAMELA L. STEWARD, ESQ. 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY DORTHY P. WHELAN, ESQ. FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C., P.A. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JOHN D. CARPENTER, ESQ. CHRISTIE PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER MICHENER, JENNIFER KOLB

Sirona’s reliance on cases such as Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) is misplaced. Those cases involved simple mechanical inventions in which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the element in dispute (e.g., the gas spring designed to stably retain a structure in the vertical position as in ICON Health) would serve the same or similar function in either the invention or the prior art.

comaper, clay, wyers, PPG, borkowski2, hammack, zurko

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Saigusa et al 11/581,000 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CROWELL, ANNA M

1735 Ex Parte FOODY, Sr. 11/769,850 GAUDETTE 103(a) FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER SAAD, ERIN BARRY

1776 Ex Parte KEE et al 11/834,803 GAUDETTE 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER STELLING, LUCAS A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Caruba et al 11/165,937 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3731 Ex Parte 6428542 et al 95/000,446 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Whether a reference in the prior art is “analogous” is a fact question. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 658. Wyers et al. v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010).EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3731 Ex Parte 6,936,050 B2 et al 95/000,451 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C.EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

The definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, “is essentially a requirement for precision and definiteness of claim language.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1562, (Fed. Cir. 1996) (quoting In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909 (CCPA 1970). The “purpose is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance.” In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382 (CCPA 1970).

PPG Ind. v. Guardian Ind., 75 F.3d 1558, 37 USPQ2d 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . 2164.06(b)

Borkowski, In re, 422 F.2d 904, 164 USPQ 642 (CCPA 1970) . . 707.07(l), 2164.02, 2174

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Ho et al 10/757,775 FREDMAN 103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI

1655 Ex Parte Bortlik et al 10/568,704 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER MI, QIUWEN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Mazur et al 11/104,120 GAUDETTE 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Burdick et al 10/385,897 BARRY 101/obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN M

The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).

Zurko, In re, 258 F.3d 1379, 59 USPQ2d 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.03
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11/057,815 KIM 103(a) BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A. EXAMINER OBEID, FAHD A
DISMISSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Eisert et al 10/572,655 VIGNONE RCE Thomas Langer Cohen Pontani Lieberman & Pavane EXAMINER LAM, CATHY N