REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2199 Ex Parte Dent 11/143,157 GONSALVES 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER BULLOCK JR, LEWIS ALEXANDER
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Edgar 11/298,336 HOELTER 102/103 Elizabeth A. Edgar EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J
3657 Ex Parte Adoline et al 10/820,280 STAICOVICI 103 FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG
3687 Ex Parte East 11/177,182 FETTING 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Tarantino 10/810,782 LORIN 103 WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K
3721 Ex Parte Seyffert 11/051,274 CALVE 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
3761 Ex Parte Meir 10/601,455 BONILLA 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Kiehlbauch et al 11/812,902 DELMENDO 103 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER CHANDRA, SATISH
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Alberth et al 10/206,706 DILLON 103 103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER BOCURE, TESFALDET
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Uhlir-Tsang et al 11/553,932 OWENS obviousness-type double patenting/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FAISON, VERONICA F
1734 Ex Parte Higgins 12/167,139 METZ 103 DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP EXAMINER LE, EMILY M
1764 Ex Parte Ganapathiappan et al 11/700,633 GAUDETTE 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P
1767 Ex Parte TAKAGI et al 12/391,725 FRANKLIN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SALVITTI, MICHAEL A
1771 Ex Parte Bhan et al 11/014,362 SCHAFER 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Sahita et al 11/170,925 DROESCH 101/102 Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC/Intel Corporation RIAD, AMINE
Claim construction is an issue of law subject to review de novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
2183 Ex Parte Lippincott 10/850,095 DILLON 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E
The determination of whether an intended use clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. In re Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id.
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Jain et al 10/291,169 KIM 101/103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC EXAMINER STERRETT, JONATHAN G
See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[i]t is clear that unpatentable mental processes are the subject matter of claim 3. All of claim 3’s method steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”). Simply adding computer limitations to such mental processes, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
3625 Ex Parte Leon et al 11/241,883 KIM 102 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EXAMINER SMITH, JEFFREY A
3627 Ex Parte Stenz et al 10/873,000 FETTING non-obvious double patenting 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY
3634 Ex Parte Woller 10/426,550 HORNER 102 GARDNER GROFF GREENWALD & VILLANUEVA. PC CHIN EXAMINER SHUE, ALVIN C
3682 Ex Parte Boyle 11/215,907 KIM 103 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER HAMILTON, MATTHEW L
3685 Ex Parte Stefik et al 11/174,654 FETTING 103 Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER NIGH, JAMES D
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Boukhny 11/060,827 FRANKLIN 103 ALCON EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J
3743 Ex Parte Yabuuchi et al 10/879,136 BAHR 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER LU, JIPING
3767 Ex Parte Dalton 11/252,329 FITZPATRICK 103 Cardinal Law Group EXAMINER OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES
REHEARING
DENIED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Simmons et al 10/159,718 DANG 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER NGO, NGUYEN HOANG
