REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/18/2011 1618 Ex Parte Inosaka et al 11/113,969 FREDMAN 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/16/2011 1724 Ex Parte Peragine et al 10/519,691 OWENS 103(a) Charles Muserlain EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/19/2011 2173 Ex Parte Ackley 10/960,385 DILLON 102(b) DISNEY ENTERPRISES C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/18/2011 2816 Ex Parte Krug et al 11/286,562 KRIVAK 103(a) ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES LLC EXAMINER LAM, TUAN THIEU
07/19/2011 2823 Ex Parte Shiraiwa et al 11/469,164 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER NGUYEN, KHIEM D
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3654 Ex Parte Fargo et al 10/564,873 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/18/2011 3742 Ex Parte Newman et al 10/842,788 O’NEILL 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA
07/18/2011 3761 Ex Parte Ellingboe et al 11/333,671 HORNER 103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3685 Ex Parte Koppen et al 10/868,299 MOHANTY 103(a) AlbertDhand LLP EXAMINER WINTER, JOHN M
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/18/2011 3714 BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Third Party Requestor, Appellant v. IGT Patent Owner, Respondent, Appellant 95/000,277 6,431,983 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103(a) PATENT OWNER: WEAVER AUSTIN VILLENEUVE & SAMPSON LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER ROBERT L. KOVELMAN STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER MENEFEE, JAMES A original EXAMINER WHITE, CARMEN D
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/18/2011 3749 TECPHARMA LICENSING AG Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. Patent of NOVO NORDISK A/S Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95/000,288 6,547,764 SONG 103(a) cc Patent Owner: Marc A. Began, Esq. Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc. cc Third Party Requester: Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLPEXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAMTU TRAN
In particular, "a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purposed of determining obviousness under § 103." Symbol Techs. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In this regard, "[e]ven if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches." Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed.Cir.1989).
Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 19 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . . . . 804.01, 2121.01
Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 13 USPQ2d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1989). . . . . . . 2121.01
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/18/2011 1616 Ex Parte Volgas et al 09/916,611 McCOLLUM 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL
07/18/2011 1628 Ex Parte Meythaler 10/885,175 FREDMAN 103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER KIM, JENNIFER M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/18/2011 1767 Ex Parte Dallavia 11/701,217 WALSH 103(a) Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J
2600 Communications
07/18/2011 2624 Ex Parte Albertelli et al 11/685,338 KRIVAK 101 BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER SETH, MANAV
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/18/2011 3682 Ex Parte Minifie et al 11/352,895 LORIN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BOVEJA, NAMRATA
“What is claimed by the patent application must be the same as what is disclosed in the specification; otherwise the patent should not issue.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 736 (2002). Here the claimed “kit” is not the same as the co-package disclosed in the specification. At best, the disclosed co-package renders the “kit” obvious. But “[o]ne shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (Emphasis original).
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 62 USPQ2d 1705 (2002) . . 1302.14, 2173.02
Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/18/2011 3742 Ex Parte Toida 10/853,116 O’NEILL 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HEINRICH, SAMUEL M
REHEARING
GRANTED AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/18/2011 2857 Ex Parte Moessner et al 11/021,591 JEFFERY 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER SUGLO, JANET L
See Supp. Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 Fed. Reg. 7,162, 7,168 (Feb. 9, 2011) (noting that Examiners should not construe means-plus-function limitations as covering pure software implementations when the supporting disclosure discusses implementing the invention via hardware and software).
