REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Enyedy et al NAGUMO 103(a) HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN
Welding wire feeder and connection apparatus
Matiash et al., US 6,707,004 B2 (16 March 2004)
Kester et al., US 3,629,547 (1971).
Albrecht et al., US 6,479,795 B1 (2002).
Miller et al., US 5,410,126 (1995).
Gilliland et al., US 5,025,127 (1991).
Ex Parte Iwasa et al PAK 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE-265550
Porous resin film and ink jet recording medium
Arai WO 99/46117 Sept. 16, 1999
Arai et al U.S. 6,632,487 Oct. 14, 2003
Fujita JP 07-195827 Aug. 1, 1995
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). "If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697.
However, any structure or property implied by process steps must be considered when assessing the patentability of a product-by-process claim over the prior art. See In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1979) (holding the claimed process limitation "interbonded one to another by interfusion between the surfaces of perlite particles" in a product-by-process claim to limit the structure of the claimed composite just as process limitations, such as "intermixed," "ground in place," "press fitted," "etched," and "welded" were held to be capable of being construed as a structural limitation.)
The Examiner must supply a "sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same" before "the burden of showing that they are not" is shifted to the applicant. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Burns et al DIXON 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Network on-ramp system and method
Bloomfield US 6,023,345 Feb. 8, 2000
Dilip US 6,704,409 B1 Mar. 9, 2004 (filed Dec. 31, 1997)
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Ferlitsch WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) KIRTON & MCCONKIE
Systems and methods for providing load balance rendering for direct printing
Lobiondo US 5,287,194 Feb. 15, 1994
White US 2002/0063887 A1 May 30, 2002
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Belady et al WHITEHEAD, JR., 103(a) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
System for distributing AC power within an equipment rack
Gerald US 6,541,720 B2 Apr. 1, 2003
Chapel US 6,628,009 B1 Sep. 30, 2003
Ex Parte Wu et al KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P.
Dual damascene process without an etch stop layer
Zhao US 6,417,094 B1 Jul. 9, 2002
Lee US 6,472,306 B1 Oct. 29, 2002
Huang US 2004/0251549 A1 Dec. 16, 2004
Yang US 2006/0234443 A1 Oct. 19, 2006 (filed Apr. 15, 2005)
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Lewis et al PRATS 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
Cabinet catch for use in a cabinet latch assembly
Gerson US 2,493,624 Jan. 3, 1950
Hughes US 3,734,551 May 22, 1973
North US 2,244,344 Jul. 22, 1940
However, the claims are not to be confined to the embodiments found in the Specification, and it is improper to import limitations from the Specification into the claims. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
“We must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Ex Parte Colbert MILLS 103(a) KEUSEY, TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C.
Device for preventing dock piling or structure piling uplift
Bowers US 3,609,980 Oct. 5, 1971
Cosenza US 4,512,683 Apr. 23, 1985
Quigley et al. US 6,663,453 B2 Dec. 16, 2003
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Anders et al MOHANTY 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION
Systems and methods for configurable entitlement management
Talbot US 2002/0116312 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Svancarek US 2004/0039705 A1 Feb. 26, 2004
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Van Waeg et al GRIMES 103(a) CARIDIANBCT, INC.
Method and apparatus for leukoreduction of red blood cells
Keller, US 6,200,287 B1, issued Mar. 13, 2001
Minshall, US 5,009,654, issued Apr. 23, 1991
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[T]he patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure." Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
"A ‘whereby’ clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim." Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm., 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists . . . when the "improvement" is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal . . . there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references. Dystar Textilfarben Gmbh & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
