REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Hedstrom et al 11/052,893 SMITH 103(a)/non-statutory obvious-type double patenting WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY- MD 0750 EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE
“[T]here must be some clear evidence to establish why the variation would have been obvious which can properly qualify as ‘prior art.’” In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Kaplan, In re, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804
1731 Ex Parte Flytzani-Stephanopoulos et al 10/534,110 GAUDETTE 103(a) Milstein Zhang & Wu LLC EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Hendrix et al 11/290,291 SPAHN 103(a) Brocade Communications c/o Bever, Hoffman & Harms, LLP EXAMINER BRADFORD, CANDACE L
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Kovac 11/444,445 CLARKE 102(b)/103(a) THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION EXAMINER COZART, JERMIE E
With regard to the rationale of the Examiner, the predecessor of our reviewing court has stated that design choice is inapplicable in a rejection where the use of the claimed feature solves a stated problem. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)(use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” ).
Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04
3763 Ex Parte Simas et al 11/138,553 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER PRICE, NATHAN R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Nabors et al 10/517,732 FREDMAN 103(a) Syngenta Corp Protection, Inc. EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1647 Ex Parte Byrum 11/491,371 ADAMS 101/112(1) Arnold & Porter LLP EXAMINER ALLEN, MARIANNE P
1652 Ex Parte Zandi et al 10/079,949 FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER
PROUTY, REBECCA E
1655 Ex Parte Lindberg 10/271,186 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Yoshitake et al 10/472,378 GARRIS 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W
1762 Ex Parte Kesavan et al 11/243,144 WALSH 103(a) Kevin E Mcveigh RHODIA INC. EXAMINER METZMAIER, DANIEL S
1789 Ex Parte Fultz et al 10/955,443 COLAIANNI 102(e)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Deng et al 10/386,217 SMITH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D
2172 Ex Parte Aurenz 11/140,398 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HEFFINGTON, JOHN M
2183 Ex Parte Fowles 11/145,601 LUCAS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B
“Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 is an issue of claim construction and a question of law that we review de novo.” Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
However, during prosecution before this Office, while Appellant still has the opportunity to amend the claims, a higher standard of clarity is required:
In particular, rather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we hold that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
Ex parte Kenichi Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (precedential opinion) (BPAI 2008).
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte McCown et al 10/934,186 CHEN 102(b) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK EXAMINER FIELDS, COURTNEY D
NEW
REVERSED
06/02/2011 2451 Ex Parte Helsper et al 10/985,664 BARRY 102(e) Ballard Spahr LLP EXAMINER MAUNG, ZARNI
06/22/2011 1777 Ex Parte Olsta et al 11/599,080 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S
AFFIRMED
06/02/2011 1722 Ex Parte Hirayama et al 10/546,573 GAUDETTE 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER EOFF, ANCA
06/03/2011 1765 Ex Parte Musgrave et al 11/027,442 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER ZEMEL, IRINA SOPJIA
06/02/2011 1782 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 11/357,971 KRATZ non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER YAGER, JAMES C
06/02/2011 2164 Ex Parte Smith et al 10/864,267 JEFFERY obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ
06/02/2011 1745 Ex Parte Tuertscher et al 11/182,422 GAUDETTE 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHAN, SING P
DISMISSED
06/03/2011 1716 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11/018,641 BARTLETT RCE Edwards Vacuum, Inc. EXAMINER LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT
