REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Hartlep et al 11/251,597 McCOLLUM 101 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER MACFARLANE, STACEY NEE

Where the invention is a process, the product resulting from that process must have utility in order for the process to have utility. Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966).

“The threshold of utility is not high: An invention is ‘useful’ under section 101 if it is capable of providing some identifiable benefit.” Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc., 185 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1999). However, section 101 requires a utility that is both substantial and specific. A substantial utility requires:

show[ing] that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research. Simply put, to satisfy the “substantial” utility requirement, an asserted use must show that that claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public.

In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A specific utility is “a use which is not so vague as to be meaningless.” Id. In other words, “in addition to providing a ‘substantial’ utility, an asserted use must also show that [the] claimed invention can be used to provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public.” Id.

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 148 USPQ 689 (1966). . . . .2106, 2107.01, 2107.02

Juicy Whip Inc. v. Orange Bang Inc., 185 F.3d 1364, 51 USPQ2d 1700 (Fed. Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .706.03(a)

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Hunt et al 10/204,701 NAPPI 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Mukai et al 11/475,109 HOFF 103(a) ARENT FOX LLP EXAMINER LUO, DAVID S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Dovertie 10/905,161 BAHR 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3742 Ex Parte Nordberg et al 11/111,227 McCARTHY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) ROBERT B. NORDBERG EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Chalasani et al 10/301,074 LUCAS 101/102(a)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER PATEL, DHAIRYA A

The present state of the law is unsettled with respect to software. However, our guiding court has concluded that certain data structures are statutory subject matter when considered as “physical entities that provided increased efficiency in computer operations.” In re Lowry 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In a seemingly contrary conclusion, In re Warmerdam, the same court considered data structures as representing merely the “manipulation of ideas.”

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01

Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Loffler et al 10/363,864 BAHR 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH C

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Constantz et al 11/134,051 MILLS 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Bogin et al 10/762,037 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER SUN, SCOTT C

2165 Ex Parte Chowdhuri et al 10/908,956 HOMERE 102(b) JOHN A. SMART EXAMINER CHBOUKI, TAREK

2175 Ex Parte Tabi 10/896,501 STEPHENS 102(b) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER ORR, HENRY W

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Bramhall et al 10/122,759 STEPHENS 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Amizic et al 10/911,282 SAADAT 101/103(a) Zenith Electronics Corporation EXAMINER TORRES, JUAN A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte EGAWA 11/276,828 MacDONALD 103(a) RABIN & BERDO, PC EXAMINER WAGNER, JENNY L

REHEARING

DENIED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Hillis et al 11/386,227 HOFF 112(1) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER ANDERSON, GUY G

2883 Ex Parte Hillis et al 11/386,212 HOFF 112(1) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER ANDERSON, GUY G