REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724Ex Parte Ota et al 10/931,805 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
1726 Ex Parte Mori et al 11/230,282 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) BURR & BROWN EXAMINER
SIDDIQUEE, MUHAMMAD S
1734 Ex Parte Dahlback 10/538,973 PAK 103(a) MICHAUD-Kinney Group LLP EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING
1767 Ex Parte Munzmay et al 11/827,252 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK
1782 Ex Parte Bourgeois 10/897,867 OWENS 103(a) RISSMAN HENDRICKS & OLIVERIO, LLP EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A
1784 Ex Parte Singer et al 11/052,144 SMITH 112(1) KENNAMETAL INC. EXAMINER SAVAGE, JASON L
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Kang et al 10/071,494 MANTIS MERCADER 112(2)/102(b) KENNETH E. HORTON KIRTON & MCCONKLE EXAMINER MANDALA, VICTOR A
[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application. “[C]ustomary meaning” refers to the “customary meaning in [the] art field.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (second brackets in original) (citations omitted). ... As our reviewing Court decided, customary art definitions are determined as of the time of the invention. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313.
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Fertner et al 10/537,882 SCHAFER 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING DENIED
3617 Ex parte TZONG IN YEH Appellant 90/009,130 7,326,094 SONG 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, PLLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: CLEMENT CHENG EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER OLSON, LARS A
REHEARING DENIED
3617 Ex parte TZONG IN YEH Appellant 90/009,119 6,988,920 SONG 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, PLLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: CLEMENT CHENG LAW OFFICE OF CLEMENT CHENG EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER OLSON, LARS A
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1727 Ex Parte Wagner 11/122,161 WARREN 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M
1792 Ex Parte Fung et al 11/039,239 HANLON 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER LOUIE, MANDY C
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Mewherter et al 10/685,192 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER DEBROW, JAMES J
Our reviewing court identified a circumstance in which electronic transformation of data into a particular visual depiction of a physical object on a display may be considered a transformation sufficient to render a claimed process patent-eligible. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962-63 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) (discussing In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902, 908-09 (CCPA 1982)), aff’d sub nom. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010). The transformation of data within a general purpose computer to generate the “raster imagery” recited by claim 1 is not a type of “transformation” that has been determined sufficient to render a claimed method statutory by the Supreme Court or by our reviewing court.
Abele, In re, 684 F.2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2106.01, 2184
2178 Ex Parte Breuel et al 10/064,892 DANG 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC. EXAMINER PAULA, CESAR B
“The failure to raise all issues and arguments diligently, in a timely fashion, has consequences.” Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1475 (BPAI 2010) (informative decision). Cf. Kaufman Company v. Lantech, Inc., 807 F.2d 970, 973 n.* (Fed. Cir. 1986) and McBride v. Merrell Dow and Pharms., Inc., 800 F.2d 1208, 1211 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Kaufman Co. v. Lantech, Inc., 807 F.2d 970, 1 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . 2293, 2693
2183 Ex Parte Cabillic et al 11/116,897 BLANKENSHIP 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Lim et al 11/091,264 SAADAT 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER AJIBADE AKONAI, OLUMIDE
2624 Ex Parte Roberts 10/518,265 BOALICK 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER ALLISON, ANDRAE S
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Singh et al 11/067,551 SAADAT 112(1)/103(a) ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- NVID EXAMINER VU, HUNG K
GRANTED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Aoki et al 10/443,593 SCHEINER Concurring FREDMAN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) STEPHEN DONOVAN ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH
