REVERSED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Steele et al 10/320,461 NAPPI 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Friedman et al 10/748,440 McCARTHY 103(a) WYATT, GERBER & O’ROURKE LLP EXAMINER BRAHAN, THOMAS J
Ex Parte Fukui 10/204,977 O’NEILL 103(a) SUNSTEIN, KANN, MURPHY & TIMBERS, LLP EXAMINER SINGH, SUNIL
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Knopp et al 10/958,710 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER SINGH, SUNIL K
Further, it is also necessary for the Examiner to properly construe what an applied reference fairly teaches or discloses. See, e.g., In re Fracalossi and Wajer, 681 F.2d 792 (CCPA 1982).
Ex Parte Michelson 10/911,918 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP EXAMINER HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA
See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Machine Co., 32 F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(in infringement context, a single conveyor held to not meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).
Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)
Ex Parte Swiecicki et al 10/742,236 O’NEILL 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TARA POHLKOTTE EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
VACATED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte MacKenzie et al 10/183,900 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER ABYANEH, ALI S
The Supreme Court has held that “[e]xcluded from such patent protection are laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). “An idea of itself is not patentable.’” Id. at 185 (quoting Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 20 Wall. 498, 507, 22 L.Ed. 410 (1874); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“[M]ental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable.”); see also id. at 71 (“It is conceded that one may not patent an idea.”).
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01
Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498 (1874). . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02
As the unpatentability of abstract ideas was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski (2010), clever claim drafting involving the nominal addition of generic structures cannot circumvent the principles articulated by the Court. That is, even when a claim appears to apply an idea or concept in combination with a nominal claim to generic structure(s), one must ensure that it does not in reality seek patent protection for that idea in the abstract. Cf. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191.
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2851
Ex parte DIRECT IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC. 90/008,211 6,095,628 EASTHOM 305/112(1)/112(2)/103(a) Gray Robinson ATTN: STEFAN V. STEIN/ IP DEPT. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER Sandra L. Etherton ETHERTON LAW GROUP, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, MINH T original EXAMINER MAHONEY, CHRISTOPHER E
See Ex parte Wikdahl, 10 USPQ2d 1546 (.BPAI 1989) (holding that the addition of a process claim during reexamination impermissibly broadened the scope of original product claims in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 305).
Wikdahl, Ex parte, 10 USPQ2d 1546 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . 1412.02, 1412.03, 2258
