cronyn, constant

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte NIEMELÄ 12998038 - (D) WINSOR 103 41.50 103 HARRINGTON & SMITH SCOTT, RANDY A

“The statutory phrase ‘printed publication’ has been interpreted to mean that before the critical date the reference must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art; dissemination and public accessibility are the keys to the legal determination whether a prior art reference was ‘published.’”  In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).  

Cronyn, In re, 890 F.2d 1158, 13 USPQ2d 1070 (Fed. Cir.1989) 2128.01 , 2152.02(e)

Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 7 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 706.02 ,   2128.02 ,   2129 ,   2145 ,   2152.03

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Allen et al 12458399 - (D) HOFFMANN 112(2)/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. BURKE, SEAN P

3667 Ex Parte Cooper et al 13486946 - (D) COCKS 102/103 GE GPO- Transportation- The Small Patent Law Group BRUSHABER, FREDERICK M

3686 Ex Parte Reisman 11749654 - (D) FETTING 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD NGUYEN, TRAN N

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte De Mey et al 11729825 - (D) FENICK 103 41.50 103 Law Office Of Edward B Weller JOSEPH, JAISON

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte NICHOLAS 14186552 - (D) BAHR 101/102 Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. SHAH, MILAP

3723 Ex Parte THYSELL 12976558 - (D) CHERRY 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. MORGAN, EILEEN P

typhoon touch, microprocessor

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2497 Ex Parte Chen et al 11558360 - (D) HAGY 112(1) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. HOLMES, ANGELA R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Bartholomeyczik et al 12932635 - (D) SHIANG 102 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP MATHEWS, CRYSTAL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Templeton et al 12486902 - (D) FETTING 102/103 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP HARRINGTON, MICHAEL P

3667 Ex Parte Tumavitch et al 13348758 - (D) SHAH 102/103 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD ANTONUCCI, ANNE MARIE

3673 Ex Parte Araki et al 12670410 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MYERS BIGEL & SIBLEY, P.A. CUOMO, PETER M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Skrobis 12779354 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY PAYER, HWEI-SIU C

3752 Ex Parte Bedingfield 12479373 - (D) MEYERS 102/103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago JONAITIS, JUSTIN M

Thus, although Evers' controller may capable of being modified to perform the functions of the "controller," as required in independent claims l, 12, 17, and 18, such a disclosure fails to satisfy the "capable of" test which requires that the prior art structure be capable of performing the function without further programming. Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (discussing Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). When the functional language is associated with programming or some other structure required to perform the function, that programming or structure must be present in order to meet the claim limitation. Id.

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Fimreite 10200889 - (D) MILLS 103 Casimir Jones, S.C. DRAPER, LESLIE A ROYDS

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2136 Ex Parte Narad 10406798 - (D) KUMAR 103 Law Office of R. Alan Burnett, P.S. TSAI, SHENG JEN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Whittier 10937939 - (D) SMEGAL 103 41.50 103 ONOFRIO LAW THANH, QUANG D

ethicon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Fick et al 11358478 - (D) DENNETT 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. MELLON, DAVID C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Beresnevichiene et al 12916277 - (D) DIXON 102/103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise TRUONG, THONG P

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Wang et al 13004016 - (D) DELMENDO 102 Avago Technologies Limited ROJAS, OMAR R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3667 Ex Parte Tumavitch et al 13348758 - (D) SHAH 102/103 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD ANTONUCCI, ANNE MARIE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Ventura et al 12535997 - (D) O'HANLON 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. BEEBE, JOSHUA R

3763 Ex Parte Grundlehner et al 12988997 - (D) ASTORINO 103 SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD CARPENTER, WILLIAM R

3768 Ex Parte Shmarak et al 10986567 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC (STJ) PENG, BO JOSEPH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3673 Ex Parte Murphy 12505697 - (D) LANEY 102 103 MYERS BIGEL & SIBLEY, P.A. CUOMO, PETER M

As such, if “between” includes an area unbounded by the boundary of the seat and intermediate sections and includes area outside those sections, then it would be a meaningless limitation because folding the legs under the seat section will necessarily cause the legs to fall into such an area. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp, 93 F.3d 1572, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (rejecting an interpretation that renders a limitation meaninglessly empty).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Sidhu et al 13725279 - (D) SNAY 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN STONER, KILEY SHAWN

1759 Ex Parte Tillotson et al 13354950 - (D) SQUIRE 103 HONEYWELL/CONLEY ROSE KESSEL, MARIS R

1787 Ex Parte Kollbach et al 13670603 - (D) KENNEDY 103 Henkel Corporation TRAN, THAO T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Iwamura 11636113 - (D) FRAHM 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES LANIER, BENJAMIN E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte AVS et al 13462675 - (D) KUMAR 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH MARSHALL, CHRISTLE I

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Heinz et al 12508998 - (D) MEYERS 103 NCR Corporation BAHL, SANGEETA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Savela 13567178 - (D) SCHOPFER 112(4) 103/double patenting CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY MEADE, LORNE EDWARD

3742 Ex Parte Burdio Pinilla et al 11921814 - (D) MURPHY 102 BSH Home Appliances Corporation HOANG, MICHAEL G

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 MEDTRONIC, INC. v. ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC. Ex Parte 8140663 et al 11/150,301 95002178 - (D) HOFF 103 103 Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MERCHANT & GOULD PC MENEFEE, JAMES A original SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex parte ESKO-GRAPHICS IMAGING GMBH, Appellant and Patent Owner. Ex Parte 6931992 et al 10/821,453 90013280 - (D) McKEOWN dissenting BRANCH 103 103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original EICKHOLT, EUGENE H

atlas powder, best

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Oprescu-Surcobe et al 12981985 - (D) DIXON 103 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. HUQ, OBAIDUL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Stowe 10860670 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP REFAI, RAMSEY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Wainer et al 12740397 - (D) GARRIS 103 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MAUPIN, HUGH H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Kurzweil et al 11097959 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 103 WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP MOONEYHAM, JANICE A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Ex Parte Raney et al 12291473 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM KINSEY WHITE, NICOLE ERIN

Appellants have merely discovered a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, and this does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverers. See Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The claiming of an unknown property that is inherently present in the prior art does not make the present claims patentable. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254 (CCPA 1977).

Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 51 USPQ2d 1943 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2112 , 2131.01 , 2131.05

Best, In re, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) 2112 , 2112.01 , 2112.02 , 2114

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Nie 12277562 - (D) JIVANI 103 MURPHY, BILAK & HOMILLER/LANTIQ ALGIBHAH, HAMZA N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Raghavan et al 12250628 - (D) STEPHENS 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED GORDON, MATTHEW E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex Parte Flemming 11971367 - (D) KORNICZKI 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. KONG, SZE-HON

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Baynes et al 12626339 - (D) HORNER 112(1)/102/103 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. LEIVA, FRANK M

3788 Ex Parte Bacon et al 13404460 - (D) HOELTER 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. WAY, JAMES R

REEEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 APPLE INC. Requester, v. MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC, Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7,349,012 et al 10/650,021 95001614 - (D) SIU 103 112(1) PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Third Party Requester – 90/009,870 Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C. TRAN, HENRY N original HO, TUAN V

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex parte ALLIED MACHINE & ENGINEERING CORP. Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7942616 et al 12/623,061 90012666 - (R) SONG 103 HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: HAMILTON IP LAW, PC Karma, INC. FETSUGA, ROBERT M original HOWELL, DANIEL W

santarus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Eller et al 12628594 - (D) BROWNE 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. FLANIGAN, ALLEN J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte KERTH et al 12907645 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 103 103 Dilworth IP - SAP NGUYEN, QUANG N

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Bower et al 11854398 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP LENOVO COMPANY (LENOVO-KLS) CONNOLLY, MARK A

However, we find the portions of the Specification (id.) cited by Appellants (App. Br. 2) do not identify a description of "a reason to exclude the relevant limitation." Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer. In fact, it is possible for the patentee to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same material."). See also Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP) 2173.05(i) (9th Ed., Mar. 2014) ("Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion").

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2483 Ex Parte Segall 11535800 - (D) CRAIG 103 Kristine Elizabeth Matthews BAILEY, FREDERICK D

2488 Ex Parte Pandit et al 10542668 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 THOMSON Licensing LLC PONTIUS, JAMES M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2657 Ex Parte Tiitola 12432952 - (D) BEAMER 103 Core Wireless Licensing Ltd SPOONER, LAMONT M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Schnabel et al 12252762 - (D) McMILLIN 103 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY CULLER, JILL E

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex parte ALLIED MACHINE & ENGINEERING CORP. Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7942616 et al 12/623,061 90012666 - (R) SONG 103 HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: HAMILTON IP LAW, PC Karma, INC. FETSUGA, ROBERT M original HOWELL, DANIEL W

toshiba, hewlett-packard,

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Graf et al 12547226 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 Yee & Associates, P.C. ARBES, CARL J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Challener et al 11861597 - (D) KOHUT 103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC KINSEY, BRANDON MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Korte et al 12640287 - (D) HUME 102/103 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC SALCE, JASON P

2424 Ex Parte LEE et al 11971422 - (D) ENGELS 112(1)/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC RAMAN, USHA

In addition, as applied to apparatus claims 1 and 3—6, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

2491 Ex Parte Proudler 12608606 - (D) WINSOR 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise EDWARDS, LINGLAN E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2668 Ex Parte Bergman et al 13447244 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 HP Inc. PARK, SOO JIN

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2495 Ex Parte Princen et al 12507050 - (D) THOMAS 103 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L

griffin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Langan et al 10873411 - (D) DENNETT 103 Pietragallo, Bosick & Gordon SAAD, ERIN BARRY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Henze 12396896 - (D) PESLAK 103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. ROSS, DANA

3766 Ex Parte Peterson 12820971 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC PORTER, JR, GARY A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte Nickel et al 12847907 - (D) MOORE 112(2)/102/103 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise GOSSAGE, GLENN

2165 Ex Parte Ruckart 11321336 - (D) MOORE 103 103 AT&T Legal Department - MB SYED, FARHAN M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Tofts et al 11389503 - (D) NAPPI 112(2)/102/103 103/double patenting Hewlett Packard Enterprise ASANBAYEV, OLEG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Zhao et al 12635346 - (D) HUME 103 103 REISING ETHINGTON P.C. General Motors Corporation ORTIZ SANCHEZ, MICHAEL

2693 Ex Parte Rofougaran et al 12137143 - (D) JIVANI 103 103 GARLICK & MARKISON (BRCM) EURICE, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte George et al 11673119 - (D) MAJORS 102/103 THE ESTEE LAUDER COS, INC ZISKA, SUZANNE E

Thus, the final "wherein" clause is non-limiting — it describes a source of the mineral ions for the production of the claimed composition, rather than imparting any actual or apparently meaningful structural limitation to the claims themselves. MPEP   2110.04; see generally Griffin v. Berlina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affirming interpretation that a wherein clause was limiting because it provided "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps" of the claim).

Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2103 , 2111.04

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Chaudhry 11960547 - (D) McMILLAN 103 AT&T Legal Department - MB FLYNN, NATHAN J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2693 Ex Parte Lee 12654155 - (D) HAAPALA 102/103 ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM LEE, DAVID J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3647 Ex Parte Haaf 12958965 - (D) BROWNE 103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC HAYES, KRISTEN C

3694 Ex Parte Tittel et al 12606633 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1) 103 IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US) MILEF, ELDA G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Wadleigh et al 12063815 - (D) COCKS 102/103 NIXON PEABODY LLP HOWARAH, GEORGE L

3765 Ex Parte Wartmann 13430276 - (D) KERINS 102 BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

3788 Ex Parte Soehnlen et al 11406889 - (D) HOFFMANN 103/double patenting FAY SHARPE LLP REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

swartz, enzo2, fisher, fouche, newman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Trimberger 12501445 - (D) PESLAK 112(1) 41.50 112(1)/101 Stephen Trimberger BERGIN, JAMES S

In order for the specification to be enabling, it “must adequately disclose the claimed invention so as to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention at the time the application was filed without undue experimentation.” In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2000) citing, Enzo-Biochem, Inc. v Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The purpose of the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. §101 is to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of “real world” value. In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 for lack of utility is tantamount to a rejection under the how-to-use provision of the enablement clause of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237, 1243 (CCPA 1971) (“[I]f such compositions are in fact useless, appellant’s specification cannot have taught how to use them.”). As such, the lack of utility because of inoperativeness (a question of fact), and the absence of enablement (a question of law) are thus closely related grounds of unpatentability. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 863; see also Newman v Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

The claimed invention must have “a specific and substantial utility to satisfy § 101.” In re Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1371. The substantial utility requirement means

that an application must show that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research. Simply put, to satisfy the “substantial” utility requirement, an asserted use must show that the claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit the public. Id.

Swartz, In re, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2107.01 , 2164.07

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 52 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2164.06(b)

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2103 , 2107.01 , 2164.07

Fouche, In re, 439 F.2d 1237, 169 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1971) 608.01(p) , 716.02(b) , 2107.01 , 2164.07

Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 11 USPQ2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2107.01

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Ritter 11639004 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 KLAUS J. BACH & ASSOCIATES KIRSCH, ANDREW THOMAS

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Singer et al 12752570 - (D) KENNEDY 102/103 PPG Industries, Inc. JONES JR., ROBERT STOCKTON

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Prokupets et al 10704000 - (D) McNEILL 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Hinton et al 11752988 - (D) FRAHM 103 DAVID H. JUDSON IBM CORP. (DHJ) TORRES, MARCOS L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Telep et al 12376991 - (D) LANEY 102/103 WARN, HOFFMANN, P.C. VENKATESAN, UMASHANKAR

gordon, ratti

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Nagata 12915273 - (D) KINDER 102 EPSON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INC RIVERA, WILLIAM ARAUZ

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Rockett et al 11764552 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/112(2)/102/103 112(2) REISING ETHINGTON P.C. General Motors Corporation NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1626 Ex Parte Ooms 12575040 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP KOSACK, JOSEPH R

1656 Ex Parte Pisarchik et al 12761253 - (D) NEW 103 DANISCO US INC. MOORE, WILLIAM W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte SOO et al 13468642 - (D) HOWARD 103 Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP OH, ANDREW CHUNG SUK

If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,  902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). For example, our reviewing Court held that an invention was not obvious where the prior [art] taught the device required rigidity for operation whereas the claimed invention required resiliency. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959).

Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2143.01 , 2144.08

Ratti, In re, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) 2143.01

DDR Holdings

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Shemesh 12706044 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 DEKEL PATENT LTD. TREYGER, ILYA Y

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Marcy et al 12420374 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 DANN, DORFMAN, HERRELL & SKILLMAN FAY, ZOHREH A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Bampton 12556606 - (D) KENNEDY 103/double patenting 103/double patenting Aerojet Rocketdyne ZHU, WEIPING

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Sasaki et al 12990219 - (D) DENNETT 102/103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. CHERNOW, FRANK A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Langendörfer et al 12225357 - (D) MORGAN 101/102/103 WARE, FRESSOLA, MAGUIRE & BARBER LLP LANIER, BENJAMIN E

There is no indication that performance of the algorithm via the reducer/register would preclude performance via a generic computer. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (recitation of generic computer elements does not make a claim directed to an abstract idea patent-eligible). 

DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 2173.05(b)

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Hansen et al 12506193 - (D) BROWNE 103 HEISLER & ASSOCIATES MAI, HAO D

REEXAMINATION

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 CIRRUS LOGIC, INC. and CIRRUS LOGIC INT’L (UK) LTD. Third Party Requesters and Respondents and BSE Co., Ltd. Third Party Requester and Respondent v. KNOWLES ELECTRONICS LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6,781,231 et al 10/238,256 95001251 - (D) BAUMEISTER 112(1)/102 LATHROP & GAGE LLP ANDUJAR, LEONARDO original CHAMBLISS, ALONZO

telectronics

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Lin et al 12308351 - (D) HULSE 112(1) Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing SGAGIAS, MAGDALENE K

The test for enablement is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art "could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation." United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 8 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 2164.01 , 2164.06

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2848 Ex Parte Cho et al 12722852 - (D) PINKERTON 103 ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP FERGUSON, DION

2892 Ex Parte Lin et al 13692104 - (D) DELMENDO 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP GORDON, MATTHEW E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Kovich et al 12148451 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Diederiks & Whitelaw, PLC LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Mote et al 13764290 - (D) KUMAR 103 Morris & Kamlay LLP / 030120 TABOR, AMARE F

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2619 Ex Parte MAILLOT et al 12040725 - (D) KUMAR 103 Artegis Law Group, LLP MEROUAN, ABDERRAHIM

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Chander et al 12329711 - (D) MURPHY 112(1)/112(2) 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL STAPLETON, ERIC S

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Gudiboina et al 13075967 - (D) MacDONALD 102 Reed Smith LLP KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ