REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Strong et al 10/072,272 PRATS 103(a)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Benczedi et al 10/862,466 GARRIS 103(a)
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP EXAMINER PIERY, MICHAEL T

1796 Ex Parte Bendler et al 10/903,090 GARRIS 112(2)/103(a)
E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2878 Ex Parte Bock 11/601,748 SAADAT 103(a)
TREYZ LAW GROUP EXAMINER EPPS, GEORGIA Y

2854 Ex Parte Uchida et al 11/078,520 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a)
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER MARINI, MATTHEW G

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Hagan et al 10/931,602 LEE 102(b)/103(a)
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

3768 Ex Parte Hart et al 11/229,431 MILLS 103(a)
NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU

3714 Ex Parte Moshal 10/504,313 O’NEILL 103(a)
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER MOSSER, ROBERT E

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2161 Ex parte ARACHNID, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,094 6,397,189 TURNER 103(a)
FOR PATENT OWNER: McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG LLP EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER HEWITT II, CALVIN L

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2161 Ex parte ARACHNID, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,097 6,381,575 TURNER 103(a)
FOR PATENT OWNER: McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD. FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG LLP EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER HEWITT II, CALVIN L

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3691 Ex parte ARACHNID, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,147 5,848,398 TURNER 102(e)/103(a)
FOR PATENT OWNER: McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD. FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG LLP EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER KAZIMI, HANI M

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3628 Ex parte ARACHNID, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,095 6,970,834 TURNER 102(b)/103(a)
FOR PATENT OWNER: McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD. FOR THE THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG LLP EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER DIXON, THOMAS A

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Scott et al 11/391,838 GREEN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E

1616 Ex Parte Mattai et al 11/560,677 WALSH 103(a)
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY EXAMINER KARPINSKI, LUKE E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte McBrearty et al 09/899,453 LORIN 112(2)/103(a)
Volel Emile International Business Machines Corporation EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRI V

See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1275 (BPAI 2005) (informative) “Common situations involving nonfunctional descriptive material are: - a computer readable storage medium that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material, such as music or a literary work, encoded on the medium, - a computer that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the machine functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not reconfigure the computer), or - a process that differs from the prior art only with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the process steps are to be performed to achieve the utility of the invention.

“Thus, if the prior art suggests storing a song on a disk, merely choosing a particular song to store on the disk would be presumed to be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is simply a rearrangement of nonfunctional descriptive material.” See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative). Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339. Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01

1766 Ex Parte Nisbet et al 12/017,289 FREDMAN 103(a)
SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER KAHN, RACHEL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Bi et al 10/685,372 RUGGIERO 102(e)
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER JAGANNATHAN, MELANIE

2491 Ex Parte Dayan et al 09/841,503 BARRY 103(a)
LENOVO (US) IP Law EXAMINER HENNING, MATTHEW T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Deng et al 10/713,552 NAPPI 103(a)
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Haskell et al 10/382,323 MOHANTY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a)
Alexander J. Burke SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER NGUYEN, TRAN N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Michelson 10/675,820 ADAMS 103(a)
MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP EXAMINER WOODALL, NICHOLAS W

3711 Ex Parte Sorenson 11/462,415 HORNER 103(a)
SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER BLAU, STEPHEN LUTHER

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Bickerstaff 10/418,709 GAUDETTE 103(a)
ARNOLD S. WEINTRAUB EXAMINER CRISPINO, RICHARD D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Chatterjee et al 11/052,216 LUCAS 103(a)
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER LINDLOF, JOHN M