gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Burgess et al 11272764 - (D) HASTINGS 103 GENERAL MILLS, INC. LEFF, STEVEN N

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte Szczesniak et al 11199938 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP PREVAL, LIONEL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Pasqualino et al 12034327 - (D) BOUDREAU 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation MEHRA, INDERP

2691 Ex Parte Lagnado 11249594 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY JOHNSON, ALLISON WALTHALL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Sundstrom 11424019 - (D) KATZ 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG SANDVIK, BENJAMIN P

2859 Ex Parte Ghabra et al 12415164 - (D) GARRIS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION TORRESRUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Kogan et al 11320028 - (D) FETTING 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG ROTARU, OCTAVIAN

In a non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969), and In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) decisions. We have held that patent applicants cannot rely on printed matter to distinguish a claim unless “there exists [a] new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 ([Fed. Cir. 1983]) . . . .
. . . .
. . . [T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.” . . . ; [see] In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 ([Fed. Cir. 1994]) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, . . . 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).

In re Xiao, 462 Fed. Appx. 947, 950–52 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential). Thus, non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight. 

gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao, king, ngai

the blogger search function has been broken for months, google knows this, to search for names (ie examiner's name or a company) use custom search (google cse) below.  to search for cases use tabs above

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Gadkaree et al 12599896 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CORNING INCORPORATED SAHA, BIJAY S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Ha et al 11307382 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP ULLAH, ELIAS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Ryan et al 12070387 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 Medtronic CardioVascular WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Potekhin et al 10144561 - (D) KOHUT 112(1)/103 101 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. TANG, KAREN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Xu et al 11707812 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 112(2)/obviousness-type double patenting GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC LEUNG, WAI LUN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Yamashita et al 12217899 - (D) GARRIS 102 102 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. DUNLAP, JONATHAN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Fitzpatrick 11213577 - (D) FETTING 103 102 MACCORD MASON PLLC IWARERE, OLUSEYE

Finally, while claim 1 does recite “transaction data that represents a single client expenditure with a merchant in exchange for a plurality of products,” the manner or degree of representation is unspecified, and there is no recital of a sale, only an expenditure in exchange for products. Thus, this limitation is aspirational instead of functional or structural, and is perceptible only in the mind of the beholder.

In a non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir.1983), In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969) and In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) decisions. We have held that patent applicants cannot rely on printed matter to distinguish a claim unless “there exists [a] new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed.Cir.1983)

[T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.”. . . . see In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1994) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).

In re Xiao, 2011-1195 WL 4821929, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Non-precedential). Thus non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight. “The rationale behind this line of cases is preventing the indefinite patenting of known products by the simple inclusion of novel, yet functionally unrelated limitations.” King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed Cir 2010). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (The relevant inquiry here is whether the additional instructional limitation has a “new and unobvious functional relationship” with the method, that is, whether the limitation in no way depends on the method, and the method does not depend on the limitation).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) , 2112.01
DONNER 7: 153, 175 8: 1000

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
DONNER 6: 179; 8: 395, 1924

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) , 2112.01
DONNER 7: 153, 175 8: 1000

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1768 Ex Parte Shiping 11862389 - (D) McKELVEY 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP NERANGIS, VICKEY M

1784 Ex Parte Zhai et al 10912576 - (D) KALAN 103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP SAMPLE, DAVID R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Klein et al 11781374 - (D) HUME 102/103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA TSAI, SHENG JEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Pantalone et al 11469680 - (D) STRAUSS 103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP ZHOU, YONG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Kraufvelin 11436772 - (D) BUI 103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. TORRES, MARCOS L

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY Requester, Respondent v. PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001654 6,890,324 09/894,042 MARTIN 305/102/103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P. WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original KIDWELL, MICHELE M

gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Rimpler et al 10344884 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C BASQUILL, SEAN M

1655 Ex Parte Morazzoni et al 10587468 - (D) GRIMES 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON MI, QIUWEN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1729 Ex Parte Cartwright et al 11562645 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER

1774 Ex Parte Freeman et al 11893230 - (D) OWENS 103 SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP CLEVELAND, TIMOTHY C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Kashi 11224160 - (D) PRATS 103 Cohen, Pontani, Lieberman & Pavane STORK, KYLER

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte BOUCHAT et al 11943395 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Ogren 10857299 - (D) FETTING 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Dryja Patents SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Raab 11587410 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ALI, MOHAMMAD M

3769 Ex Parte Dai et al 11332824 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 AMO / Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP SHAY, DAVID M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1732 Ex Parte Martin 12260162 - (D) PAK 103 obviousnesstype double patenting MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP BRUNSMAN, DAVID M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Bauman et al 11386280 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. BURCH, MELODY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Albrecht et al 11276042 - (D) McCARTHY 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) JENNISON,BRIAN W

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1765 Ex Parte Ziegler et al 12053822 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC BUTTNER, DAVID J

1765 Ex Parte Gallucci 11744354 - (D) McKELVEY 103 SABIC Innovative Plastics BUTTNER, DAVID J

1767 Ex Parte DAI-ICHI F R Co., LTD. 11398585 McKELVEY 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

1776 Ex Parte Kolesinski et al 11895209 - (D) TIMM 103 Gaetano D. Maccarone THERKORN, ERNEST G

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Brown et al 11751284 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC GOODCHILD, WILLIAM J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2667 Ex Parte Gaukroger 10561495 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP RUSH, ERIC

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Bhan et al 10734811 - (D) FETTING 112(2) 103 WILMERHALE/BOSTON OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

3684 Ex Parte Graff 10885569 - (D) FETTING 112(2) 103/obviousness-type double patenting PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M

In a recent non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969) and In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) decisions.

We have held that patent applicants cannot rely on printed matter to distinguish a claim unless “there exists [a] new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed.Cir.1983). . . .
. . . .
. . . [T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.” . . . ; see In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1994) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, . . . 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).

In re Xiao, 2011-1195 WL 4821929, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Non precedential).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) , 2112.01
DONNER 6: 280, 281, 340-44, 355-57; 7: 763-65
HARMON 2: 15, 46; 3: 21; 4: 199; 6: 74

Bernhart, In re, 417 F.2d 1395, 163 USPQ 611 (CCPA 1969) 2173.05(j)
DONNER 13: 162

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.05
DONNER 6: 282, 283, 345-48, 687, 695, 696, 698-700, 708, 771
HARMON 2: 15, 61; 4: 205

3684 Ex Parte Zellner et al 10750695 - (D) SMEGAL 103 AT&T Legal Department - CC NGUYEN, NGA B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Di Serio 10180878 - (D) TARTAL 103 HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI PC OMGBA, ESSAMA

AFG, xiao, chef america, princeton, dystar

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Liu et al 10/920,915 HUGHES 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, SON T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Kobayashi et al 11/204,038 HORNER 102(b) KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP EXAMINER LE, TAN

3684 Ex Parte Hicks et al 11/159,914 TURNER 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Costea et al 10/346,898 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3761 Ex Parte King 10/704,860 GREEN 112(1)/102(b) Susan Clark King EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

“Consisting of” is a closed transitional phrase that is “understood to exclude any elements, steps, or ingredients not specified in the claim.” AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., Inc., 239 F.3d 1239, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

AFG Industries, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Company, Inc., 239 F.3d 1239, 57 USPQ2d 1776 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . 2111.03

3777 Ex Parte Mathew 10/681,634 ASTORINO 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER RAMIREZ, JOHN FERNANDO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Saito et al 10/315,583 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER STACE, BRENT S

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Nowlin et al 09/991,089 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER PEACHES, RANDY
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Koningstein et al 10/750,451 PETRAVICK 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) Straub & Pokotylo EXAMINER BEKERMAN, MICHAEL

In re Xiao, No. 2011-1195, 2011 WL 4821929, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2011) (non-precedential) (non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight)

3654 Ex Parte Duke et al 11/446,005 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) THE GATES CORPORATION EXAMINER REESE, ROBERT T

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Westervelt et al 10/837,787 BEST 103(a) Gesmer Updegrove LLP EXAMINER MENDEZ, ZULMARIAM

1731 Ex Parte Kolodziej et al 11/592,589 GAUDETTE 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER WOOD, JARED M

1771 Ex Parte De Rezende Pinho et al 10/480,966 TIMM 103(a) Albemarle Netherlands B.V. EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Roy et al 12/698,671 SIU 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER TRAN, TUNG Q

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Ugail 11/072,065 SIU 103(a)/101 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP EXAMINER REPKO, JASON MICHAEL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Schaepkens et al 10/817,531 STRAUSS 102(e)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER CHU, CHRIS C

Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning, are construed to mean exactly what they say.)

Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Fransen et al 11/087,631 FREDMAN 112(1)/103(a) HOYNG MONEGIER LLP EXAMINER VALENTI, ANDREA M

3687 Ex Parte Thoren 10/843,304 TURNER 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Solem et al 11/343,382 WALSH 103(a) Edwards Lifesciences LLC EXAMINER MCEVOY, THOMAS M

See Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming obviousness where motivation was found in the knowledge of those skilled in the art at the time, and where the nature of the problem also supplied a motivation). “In other words, the nature of the problem called for exactly the solutions in the prior art.” Id. at 1339. Accord, DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied”).

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

3733 Ex Parte Myint et al 11/268,786 FREDMAN 102(a)/103(a) STOEL RIVES LLP - SLC EXAMINER CARTER, TARA ROSE E

3767 Ex Parte Peterson et al 11/247,436 LEE 112(2)/103(a) Faegre Baker Daniels LLP EXAMINER HALL, DEANNA K

3774 Ex Parte Hlavka et al 10/622,207 BAUMEISTER 112(1) Leason Ellis LLP EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

REHEARING
 
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Chandler 11/401,198 SMITH 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER WARDEN, JILL ALICE