otto, young

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2132 Ex Parte PETRESCU et al 11675556 - (D) HORVATH 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Duane Morris LLP (Harris Corp.) OTTO, ALAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2497 Ex Parte Mont et al 11335877 - (D) CHUNG 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DARROW, JUSTIN T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Popp 12293865 - (D) MURPHY 102/103 102/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP KIM, CHRISTOPHER S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Huang et al 12695386 - (D) OWENS 112(2)/102/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION MCCONNELL, WYATT P

1733 Ex Parte Schroder et al 12885015 - (D) ROESEL 102 Yudell Isidore PLLC ABOAGYE, MICHAEL

Appellants also do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in determining that the conductivity limitation pertains to a material being worked upon by the claimed apparatus, rather than the structure of the apparatus, and is therefore entitled to no patentable weight. Ans. 4–5, 8. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939 (CCPA 1963) (“inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 998 (CCPA 1935).

Otto, In re, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963) 2111.02 , 2115

Young, In re, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) 2115

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Adam 13136275 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 David H. Chervitz HUSON, JOSHUA DANIEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Schulz-Harder et al 10560525 - (D) GOODSON 103 Welsh Flaxman & Gitler CAZAN, LIVIUS RADU

3735 Ex Parte Essenpreis et al 12786993 - (D) WIEKER 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP JANG, CHRISTIAN YONGKYUN

otto, young, rishoi, mcgrew, smith

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Liang et al 11366305 - (D) McKONE 102 OKAMOTO & BENEDICTO, LLP TABOR, AMARE F

2464 Ex Parte DelRegno et al 10860609 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 VERIZON YUEN, KAN

2485 Ex Parte Scheffler 11142830 - (D) DANG 102/103 Duane Morris LLP (Entropic) LEE, Y YOUNG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Heath 11522408 - (D) SMITH 102/103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP RICHARDSON, JANY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Simonelli et al 11806483 - (D) WOOD 102/103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

3768 Ex Parte Henning et al 11115965 - (D) BAHR 102/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EVOY, NICHOLAS LANE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Bajema et al 11831082 - (D) SMITH 102/103 102/103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP CORMIER, DAVID G

Further, we note that the product washed constitutes the material on which the flume washer performs work and, thus, does not confer a patentable limitation on the claimed flume washer. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952) (“[T]here is no patentable combination between a device and the material upon which it works.”); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996 (CCPA 1935); In re Smith, 36 F.2d 302, 303 (CCPA 1929) (“It might be argued that the invention here consists in a combination of extra length carbons with the old machine, and that such a combination is patentable. It will be borne in mind that it has been long established that a person may not patent a combination of device and material upon which the device works, nor limit other persons from the use of similar material by claiming a device patent.”).

Otto, In re, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963) 2111.02, 2115

Young, In re, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) 2115

1761 Ex Parte Manthiram et al 12752779 - (D) NAGUMO 35 USC 135(b)1 derivation 35 USC 135(b)1 derivation MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. CHIANG, TIMOTHY S

However, Congress has determined that

Sec. 135. Interferences
(b)
(1) A claim which is the same as, or for the same or substantially the same subject matter as, a claim of an issued patent may not be made in any application unless such a claim is made prior to one year from the date on which the patent was granted.

see In re McGrew, 120 F. 3d 1236 - Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 1997

McGrew, In re, 120 F.3d 1236, 43 USPQ2d 1632 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 715.05, 2304.02(c)

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Kostamaa et al 11608278 - (D) THOMAS 102 102 TERADATA CORPORATION RAHMAN, SABANA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Daume 10950503 - (D) DANIELS 103 103 SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY LLP CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3657 Ex Parte Kumper 11363539 - (D) TARTAL 103 103 Norris McLaughlin & Marcus PA NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T

3673 Ex Parte Canning 11679399 - (D) SPAHN 103 103 FAY SHARPE LLP KELLEHER, WILLIAM J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Cavalcante 11440170 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. ALLEN, JEFFREY R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Fang et al 12341384 - (D) PRAISS 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC CATHEY JR, DAVID A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Munsell et al 11728395 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. FLYNN, RANDY A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Mori 11389034 - (D) HOUSEL 102 BAKER BOTTS LLP MARINI, MATTHEW G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Wilson 11214355 - (D) STAICOVICI 112(2) 112(1) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE SAETHER, FLEMMING

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Frazer 11045866 - (D) ASTORINO 103 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG SCRUGGS, ROBERT J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 MODERUSTIC, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant v. AMERICAN FIREGLASS, INC., Requester and Respondent 95001724 7,976,360 11/319,957 MARTIN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 PATENT VENTURE GROUP ENGLE, PATRICIA LYNN original NGUYEN, DUNG V

bush, rishoi, young, ariad, turbocare, purdue pharma

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Jansen et al 11/185,527 KATZ 103(a) WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON, P.C. EXAMINER HEGGESTAD, HELEN F

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/754,994 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) PITTS & LAKE P C EXAMINER CONLON, MARISA

3682 Ex Parte Yeh et al 11/294,459 NAPPI 103(a) DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Trivedi et al 10/097,868 WINSOR 112(2)/103(a) 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER SOMERS, MARC S

Appellants’ argument relies on the order in which the references were discussed, which is “of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition,” In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961), and is unpersuasive.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Stookey et al 11/617,103 ADAMS 103(a) 103(a) Faegre Baker Daniels LLP EXAMINER PATEL, YOGESH P
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Oda et al 11/220,402 SCHAFER 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Tracht 10/904,845 BARRETT 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION EXAMINER TO, TOAN C

3653 Ex Parte Kitching et al 10/758,065 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BUTLER, MICHAEL E

See In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 345 (CCPA 1952) (“there is no patentable combination between a device and the material upon which it works” (citations omitted)).
...
In re Young, 75 F.2d 996 (CCPA 1935) (where a claim to a machine for making concrete beams was not patentable over the prior art, recitation in the body of the claim of the material worked upon, a concrete beam, did not lend patentability to that claim).

Young, In re, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115
3662 Ex Parte Mandel 10/367,027 HORNER 103(a) Yaron Nahum Mandel EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J

3738 Ex Parte Aram et al 11/171,180 PRATS 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD

See Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“We now reaffirm that § 112, first paragraph, contains a written description requirement separate from enablement . . . .”) (emphasis added).

As stated in TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2001):

The written description requirement and its corollary, the new matter prohibition of 35 U.S.C. § 132, both serve to ensure that the patent applicant was in full possession of the claimed subject matter on the application filing date. When the applicant adds a claim or otherwise amends his specification after the original filing date . . ., the new claims or other added material must find support in the original specification.

It is well settled, however, that “[i]n order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 56 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2876 Ex Parte 6130931 et al Ex parte ELISABETH KATZ and INDUTCH PROCESS CONTROLS, INC. 90/010,580 09/156,078 EASTHOM 103(a) STOCKWELL & SMEDLEY, PSC EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original EXAMINER HO, ALLEN C

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3729 Ex Parte 6615485 et al Inter Partes FORMFACTOR, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. PHICOM CORPORATION Requestor, Respondent 95/000,358 10/034,543 EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) Ken Burraston/FormFactor KIRTON & MCCONKIE EXAMINER FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original EXAMINER ARBES, CARL J