Source: https://www.ptab.us/2017/06/
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 04:57:34
Document Index: 366578550

Matched Legal Cases: ['arte 7', 'arte 7983951', '§ 2173', 'art\n2688', 'arte 6069614', 'arte 7']

PTAB.US: June 2017
3655 Ex Parte LIANG et al 14103882 - (D) YAP 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL DANG, TINH
3736 Ex Parte Toth 13945244 - (D) MURPHY 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN
1787 Ex Parte Woychik et al 12061141 - (D) KRATZ 112(1)/102 112(2) GE GLOBAL PATENT OPERATION ROBINSON, ELIZABETH A
1711 Ex Parte Grunert 12532203 - (D) ROSS 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC CORMIER, DAVID G
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument and concur with the Examiner that the “configured to dispense the water . . . onto the component at a flow rate sufficient to clean accumulated contaminants off of the component” language of claim 30 is an intended use. Non-Final 5. It has long been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). An inventor of a structure (machine or article of manufacture) is entitled to benefit from all of its uses, even those not described,Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875), and conversely, patentability of the structure cannot turn on the use or function of the structure,In re Michlin, 256 F.2d 317, 320 (CCPA 1958).
3638 Ex Parte Avis 14032307 - (D) YAP 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP KIM, SHIN H
3731 Ex Parte Bennett 12573176 - (D) O’HANLON 102/103 Covidien LP OU, JING RUI
3731 Ex Parte Collins et al 10986143 - (D) MILLS 102/103 LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO MENDOZA, MICHAEL G
Labels: hewlett-packard , michlin , roberts
3647 Ex Parte Wood 12735536 - (D) WIEDER 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC HAWK, STEVEN
In view of the above, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term “three dimensional shock bump” to simply mean a shock bump “having the dimensions of a height, a width and a depth.” (See Answer 3, emphasis omitted.) Indeed, the specification and cited references support that the term “three dimensional shock bump” has a special meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art that would take the Examiner’s interpretation in this case beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation. See AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Sols., 419 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
3657 Ex Parte Norman et al 13043554 - (D) HUGHES 102/103 Brooks Kushman P.C. / Meritor NGUYEN, VU Q
1618 Ex Parte Li et al 12632686 - (D) JENKS 102/103 102 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP DICKINSON, PAUL W
1619 Ex Parte Storey et al 12706315 - (D) JENKS 102 SALIWANCHIK, LLOYD & EISENSCHENK KASSA, TIGABU
1785 Ex Parte Kohlweyer 11732778 - (D) SQUIRE 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY REDDY, SATHAVARAM I
1789 Ex Parte Naumann 12375596 - (D) SQUIRE 103 ROHAN MATHFRS PIERCE, JEREMY R
2631 Ex Parte Shan 11240252 - (D) COURTENAY 103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. MCKIE, GINA M
3727 Ex Parte Kraemer 13323325 - (D) O’HANLON 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch) HORTON, ANDREW ALAN
3735 Ex Parte Christopherson et al 12992511 - (D) NEWMAN 103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA CATINA, MICHAEL ANTHONY
3745 Ex Parte Strock et al 13236926 - (D) ASTORINO 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY BROWN, ADAM WAYNE
Labels: aquatex
1783 Ex Parte Boquillon 13201567 - (D) HANLON 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. VAN SELL, NATHAN L
3711 Ex Parte Fair et al 12827870 - (D) FINAMORE 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP CEGIELNIK, URSZULA M
3775 Ex Parte BAUMGARTNER 13351687 - (D) HUTCHINGS 102 102 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP WAGGLE, JR, LARRY E
1712 Ex Parte LIANG et al 13727767 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Dority & Manning, PA and Guardian Industries Corp MELLOTT, JAMES M
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Appellants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside (i.e. as well as the upper and lower limits) the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill 284 F.2d 955 (CCPA 1960).
Hill, In re, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960) 716.02(d)
2174 Ex Parte Guido et al 11839850 - (D) CHUNG 103 MOORE & VAN AT .TEN, PLLC For IBM NGUYEN, LE V
2879 Ex Parte Van De Ven et al 11854750 - (D) TIMM 103 BURR & BROWN, PLLC STERN, JACOB R
3663 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 12902406 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
3745 Ex Parte Loeffler 13710544 - (D) WARNER 112(1)/112(2) 112(1)/102 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP LESLIE, MICHAEL S
3749 Ex Parte Venkatesan et al 13334265 - (D) BROWN 103 112(2) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY SHIRSAT, VIVEK K
3772 Ex Parte QUINN 13418195 - (D) KORNICZKY 103 Richard C. Litman HARRIS, RAYMOND EUGENE
3779 Ex Parte GAVRIELY 13955008 - (D) SCHNEIDER 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP LEUBECKER, JOHN P
3733 DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC. Requester v. PUGET BIO VENTURES LLC Patent Owner Ex Parte 7,967,822 et al 10/977,365 95002152 - (R) MARTIN 103 PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: BARNES & THORNBURG LLP (IN) WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original HOFFMAN, MARY C
Posted by James Long at 4:49 PM No comments :
1767 Ex Parte Joseph 14343958 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C
1797 Ex Parte Forrest et al 13235981 - (D) WILSON 102/103 Reising Ethington P.C. EOM, ROBERT J
3733 Ex Parte Dell 12439088 - (D) O’HANLON 103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP ECKMAN, MICHELLE CHRISTINE
2164 Ex Parte Gordon 12978647 - (D) LORIN 103 Collage Analytics LLC OHBA, MELLISSA M
The issue here is whether the informational content carried by the “first date” and “second date” elements of the claim necessarily must be the same. While two "dates" are required, the record does not support requiring them to be different values. Cf. Linear Technology Corp. v. International Trade Com'n, 566 F.3d 1049, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2009):
We agree with the Commission's construction of “second circuit” and “third circuit,” defining the terms broadly to not require entirely separate and distinct circuits. Indeed, there is nothing in the claim language or specification that supports narrowly construing the terms to require a specific structural requirement or entirely distinct “second” and “third” circuits. Rather, the “second” and “third” circuits must only perform their stated functions.
We have considered the Appellant's arguments as to the construction of the claim phrases "first date" and "second date" but do not find them persuasive.
2174 Ex Parte Coutts 11836293 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP TILLERY, RASHAWN N
Posted by James Long at 3:14 PM No comments :
1793 Ex Parte Wegwerth 13457818 - (D) DERRICK 102 41.50 103 HUGH WEGWERTH YOO, HONG THI
1651 Ex Parte Winiski et al 14099416 - (D) SCHNEIDER 103 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO CORDAS, EMILY ANN
2616 Ex Parte Scott et al 12546266 - (D) BENNETT 103 BELZER PC GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA
2855 Ex Parte O’BRIEN 13673072 - (D) OGDEN 103 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP CHAPMAN JR, JOHN E
The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that “the level of skill in the accelerometer art is high: a person of ordinary skill would have had a full academic degree or equivalent experience in either mechanical or electrical engineering.” Answer 4–5 (citing UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S. , 8 Cl. Ct. 604, 617–18 (Ct. Cl. 1985), 228 USPQ 396, 401-402).
3673 Ex Parte Nirmel 13068315 - (D) DOUGAL 103 CHITTARANJAN n. NIRMEL CUOMO, PETER M
3625 EBAY INC., Requester. v. KABBAGE, INC., Patent Owner Ex Parte 7983951 et al 12/436,642 95002370 - (D) BRANCH 102/103 MUSKIN & FARMER LLC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: DENTONS US LLP RIMELL, SAMUEL G original AIRAPETIAN, MILA
Posted by James Long at 3:43 PM No comments :
3657 Ex Parte HIRANO 13728085 - (D) STEPHENS 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC NGUYEN, XU AN LAN T
3665 Ex Parte Hannah et al 13907502 - (D) HOELTER 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP MAWARI, REDHWAN K
3711 Ex Parte Darlington et al 14142345 - (D) BROWNE 112(2)/102/103 REISING ETHINGTON P.C. KLAYMAN, AMIR ARIE
Noting that “the Examiner is attempting to impose a requirement that a dependent claim must recite ‘structure’ in addition to any functional limitations,” Appellants argue that “patent claims may define an invention functionally, i.e., by what it does.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellants are correct. We are unaware of any requirement that a dependent claim further define the structure of the claim from which it depends. Rather, “[t]here is nothing inherently wrong with defining some part of an invention in functional terms.” MPEP § 2173.05(g). Functional language does not, in and of itself, render a claim improper. In re Swinehart , 439 F. 2d 210, 212 (CCPA 1971).
3742 Ex Parte MAUS et al 13548607 - (D) HILL 102/103 112(2) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP ROSS, DANA
2486 Ex Parte VLADIMIRSKY et al 12898969 - (D) MacDONALD 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. ANDERSON II, JAMES M
2688 Ex Parte Tsoukatos et al 13961116 - (D) REPKO 103 HolzerlPLaw, P.C. EVANS, JEFFERSON A
2894 Ex Parte Nandakumar et al 12817829 - (D) PRAISS 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED LIGAI, MARIA
3618 Ex Parte Lehti et al 13768301 - (D) SMEGAL 103 BrooksGroup VANAMAN, FRANK BENNETT
3628 Ex Parte THURLOW et al 12027792 - (D) HUME 101/103 Travelport VETTER, DANIEL
3746 Ex Parte Arnold et al 11946653 - (R) KORNICZKY 102 HONEYWELL,/PANGRLE BOBISH, CHRISTOPHER S
Labels: swinehart
2688 Ex Parte Gadbois et al 14050725 - (D) PYONIN 102/103 Hollingsworth Davis MILLER, BRIAN E
3731 Ex Parte Saliman et al 13247892 - (D) PRATS 103 SHAY GLENN LLP TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L
1744 Ex Parte Hawkins 13279308 - (D) HANLON 102/103 102/103 Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP/ The Boeing Company LE, NINH V
3735 Ex Parte Sebastian et al 12393537 - (D) MAJORS 102/103 double patenting Toering Patents PLLC TOTH, KAREN E
1757 Ex Parte Cornfeld 13315877 - (D) COLAIANNI 103/double patenting SolAero Technologies Corp. PILLAY, DEVINA
1792 Ex Parte JACOBSON et al 13419505 - (D) KRATZ 103 AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP WILLIAMS, LELA
2196 Ex Parte McConaughy et al 13838653 - (D) POTHIER 103 Greg Goshorn, P.C. KIM, SISLEY NAHYUN
2649 Ex Parte MASUDA et al 13731686 - (D) McMILLIN 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LIAO, HSINCHUN
3623 Ex Parte Graupner et al 13415814 - (D) HOMERE 101/103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise ELKASSABGI, ZAHRA
3623 Ex Parte Rangaswamy et al 13671221 - (D) CUTITTA 101/102 Jones Day For SAP YOUNG, ASHLEY YA-SHEH
3628 Ex Parte Keene 13912427 - (D) PINKERTON 101 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS ERB, NATHAN
3633 Ex Parte NOWLING 14317618 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 THOMTE LAW OFFICE, L.L.C. MATTEI, BRIAN DAVID
3661 Ex Parte Santori et al 14189037 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL NOLAN, PETER D
3732 Ex Parte Dolfi et al 12674520 - (D) KORNICZKY 103 103/double patenting MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC O'DONNELL, JUSTIN R
3735 Ex Parte Pittman et al 13263084 - (D) MURPHY 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS WEARE, MEREDITH H
As discussed above, the Appellants do not establish that the Examiner errs in determining that the prior art teaches the adjustment of the lung compliance threshold based on the percentage of Cheyne-Stokes respiration. Thus, for the purposes of this appeal, we treat as admitted fact that the prior art teaches an evaluation of the percentage of Cheyne-Stokes respiration to determine whether adjustment of the lung compliance threshold is warranted.In re Fox, 471 F.2d 1405, 1407 (CCPA 1973) (“In this court [or before the board, because] appellant has not denied the existence of the facts on which the examiner rested his obviousness rejection nor the added facts of which the board took judicial notice,” we accept them as accurate.).
Fox, In re, 471 F.2d 1405, 176 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1973) 2144.03
3762 Ex Parte Sheldon et al 12913400 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 Medtronic, Inc. PHAM, MINH DUC GIA
OPQA Ex Parte Sink et al 12043055 - (D) COURTENAY 101 Thompson Hine LLP JUNG, ALLEN J
2623 Ex Parte Hickman 14075646 - (R) Per Curiam 103 Bose Corporation PATEL, PREMAL R
1793 Ex Parte DeJesus-Gaite 11957973 - (D) ROSS 103 FAY SHARPE LLP MCCLAIN-COLEMAN, TYNESHA L.
2182 Ex Parte Grisenthwaite et al 13064257 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. GIROUX, GEORGE
2463 Ex Parte EFRATI 14061856 - (D) LENTIVECH 102/103 41.50 102 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. / Vonage ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S
2685 Ex Parte Limonadi 13763407 - (D) WINSOR 112(1)/101/103 41.50 112(2) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP YU, ROYIT
3669 Ex Parte De Luca 13774148 - (D) PYONIN 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. WORDEN, THOMAS E
3731 Ex Parte Fischer 13611821 - (D) BAHR 102/103 BGL/Cook - Chicago HIGHLAND, RACHEL S
3748 Ex Parte Darr et al 12832431 - (D) DOUGAL 101/103 Quinn IP Law AYALA DELGADO, ANTHONY
3775 Ex Parte Wright et al 14078808 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP LAWSON, MATTHEW JAMES
1764 Ex Parte Menschig et al 12932837 - (D) DENNETT 112(1) 112(1) FERRELLS, PLLC HUHN, RICHARD A
1615 Ex Parte ARORA et al 13709496 - (D) NEW 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. TCHERKASSKAYA, OLGA V
2642 Ex Parte Ylitalo 13718208 - (D) JEFFERY 112(1)/103 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC FANG, PAKEE
Rather, this is a case where Appellant’s excluding emergency calls from association with application views by reciting a negative limitation effectively introduces a new concept that is not reasonably supported by the original disclosure. See, e.g.,Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. RaytekCorp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding no express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description to justify adding negative limitation);Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393, 394 (BPAI 1983), aff'd mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“[T]he express exclusion of certain elements implies the permissible inclusion of all other elements not so expressly excluded. This clearly illustrates that such negative limitations do, in fact, introduce new concepts.”).
Grasselli, Ex parte, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) 2143.03 , 2173.05(i)
2815 Ex Parte Zhang et al 12743113 - (D) HEANEY 102 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP PARKER, KENNETH
2872 Ex Parte GLASSCO 14018956 - (D) PRAISS 112(2)/103 SINORICA LLC COLLINS, DARRYL J
3621 Ex Parte Cohen et al 11400045 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 Alexander J. Cohen COPPOLA, JACOB C
3625 Ex Parte Schulz 13796982 - (D) THOMAS 101 Haynes & Boone, LLP (70481) AIRAPETIAN, MILA
3627 Ex Parte Dye et al 13155200 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC YU, ARIEL J
3629 Ex Parte Millmore et al 12167661 - (D) CRAIG 112(1) 101/103 MILES & STOCKBRIDGE P.C. Oracle International Corporation JASMIN, LYNDA C
3661 Ex Parte Le et al 13865490 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL THOMAS, ANA D
3665 Ex Parte Matsuda et al 13449715 - (D) MEYERS 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP/VISA SHAAWAT, MUSSA A
3778 Ex Parte Knight et al 12968457 - (D) OSINSKI 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
2736 Ex parte MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES LLC Appellant Ex Parte 6069614 et al 08710388 90012469 - (D) HUME 103 41.50 103 TARA CHAND, C/O MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES LLC Third-party requester: DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC SAGER,MARKALAN original TWEEL JR, JOHN ALEXANDER
Labels: grasselli , omega
3665 Ex Parte Kinney et al 12179390 - (D) BAYAT 103 41.50 101 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. KING, RODNEY P
2497 Ex Parte Pourzandi et al 13974637 - (D) BEAMER 103 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson WRIGHT, BRYAN F
3735 Ex Parte Gollar 12886725 - (D) FLAX 103 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP CATINA, MICHAEL ANTHONY
1732 Ex Parte Harinck et al 14239617 - (D) SNAY 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC VADEN, KENNETH I
1793 Ex Parte Arihara 12219325 - (D) CASHION 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. TURNER, FELICIA C
Appellant has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would not have been capable of determining the appropriate drying time for a particular cat food product. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art);
2115 Ex Parte Bartling et al 13770041 - (D) BUSCH 102/103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED WANG, ZHIPENG
2647 Ex Parte Morrison et al 13628516 - (D) SAADAT 103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. YANG, JIANXUN
2669 Ex Parte Pershing 13385606 - (D) MacDONALD 103 101 DUNLAP CODDING, P.C. KHOLDEBARIN, IMAN K
2842 Ex Parte Thomsen 13905260 - (D) McMANUS 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. HILTUNEN, THOMAS J
3652 Ex Parte Husson et al 13377647 - (D) STRAUSS 103 AGCO Corporation, IP Legal LOWE, MICHAEL S
3657 Ex Parte Hanna et al 13014200 - (D) BROWN 112(2) 112(1)/102/103 BrooksGroup WILLIAMS, THOMAS J
3671 Ex Parte Wilcox et al 12907669 - (D) BROWN 103 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. TROUTMAN, MATTHEW D
3692 Ex Parte McDonough et al 14155115 - (D) FETTING 101 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP WONG, ERIC TAK WAI
3742 Ex Parte Quartararo 12324195 - (D) BROWN 103 Slater Hersey & Lieberman LLP FUQUA, SHAWNTINA T
3743 Ex Parte Kuta et al 12582492 - (D) HOELTER 103 SHEEHAN PHINNEY BASS & GREEN, PA LAU, JASON
3771 Ex Parte Ellwanger et al 13719598 - (D) HORNER 103 41.50 103 GOODWIN PROOTFR T T P TSAI, MICHAEL JASPER
3775 Ex Parte Hulliger 13426079 - (D) FLAX 102 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP COLEY, ZADE JAMES
3644 OLDCASTLE LAWN & GARDEN, INC., Requester v. ENCAP, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,503,143 B2 et al 10271072 95001963 - (D) GUEST 102/103 WEISS & WEISS THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP FETSUGA, ROBERT M original PALO, FRANCIS T
Labels: sovish
1637 Ex Parte Alessi et al 13142852 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 Seed IP Law Group LLP/ST (EP ORIGINATING) CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA
1777 Ex Parte PEARL et al 13570741 - (D) CASHION 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD PATEL, PRANAV N
2452 Ex Parte Levergood et al 11300245 - (D) JEFFERY 112(1)/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. WINDER, PATRICE L
To determine whether Appellants’ disclosure is enabled, the test is whether ordinarily skilled artisans could make or use the invention from the disclosure coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation. SeeUnited States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785
United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 8 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 2164.01 , 2164.06
2881 Ex Parte SAVITSKI et al 13846666 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 THERMO FINNIGAN LLC IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE
3749 Ex Parte Klein 12835619 - (D) SHAH 102/103 ARENT FOX LLP SAVANI, AVINASH A
3781 Ex Parte Luttik et al 12304030 - (D) SMEGAL 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON ALLEN, JEFFREY R
3652 Ex Parte Calvert et al 12598018 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 112(2)/103 102/103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP TIGHE, BRENDAN P
3654 Ex Parte Willim 13268003 - (D) PESLAK 103 112(2) 41.50 112(2) DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP ADAMS, NATHANIEL L
3771 Ex Parte Lee et al 11769768 - (D) STEPHENS 103 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY LOUIS, LATOYA M
1733 Ex Parte Biener et al 12249630 - (D) INGLESE 103 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNL/Zilka-Kotab ZHENG, LOIS L
1756 Ex Parte Polcik et al 13641350 - (D) RANGE 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH
1757 Ex Parte Determan et al 12879608 - (D) SNAY 103 Aerojet Rocketdyne PILLAY, DEVINA
1783 Ex Parte Buschur et al 12185477 - (D) INGLESE 102 103/double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY LONEY, DONALD J
3623 Ex Parte Steiner et al 13622538 - (D) BEAMER 101/103 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY P
3636 Ex Parte Murphy et al 12813904 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 102/103 MYERS BIGEL, P.A. BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL
3686 Ex Parte HERTEL et al 11777589 - (D) CUTITTA 101 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (Cerner Corporation) CHNG, JOY POH AI
3754 Ex Parte Foster et al 12941725 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Silaan Disinensiina SJvstp.ms DURAND, PAUL R
3781 Ex Parte Hall et al 12968398 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 112(2) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC MATHEW, FENN C
1726 Ex Parte Lopez et al 12616226 - (R) WILSON 102/103 DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC CONLEY, OI K
Labels: telectronics
1731 Ex Parte Boden et al 14127853 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY MOORE, ALEXANDRA MARIE
1782 Ex Parte HSU 14100967 - (D) OWENS 103 WPAT, PC ZHANG, RUIYUN
2128 Ex Parte Kraft et al 12580901 - (D) CHUNG 102/103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP) ALHIJA, SAIF A
3657 Ex Parte Nield 13347166 - (D) HAMANN 102/103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. SICONOLFI, ROBERT
3732 Ex Parte Courvoisier 12418728 - (D) DOUGAL 103 POLSINELLI PC EIDE, HEIDI MARIE
3736 Ex Parte Deirmengian et al 13355970 - (D) STEPINA 102/103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP CERIONI, DANIEL LEE
3761 Ex Parte Vaillancourt et al 13709589 - (D) HORNER 103 41.50 102/103 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO TREYGER, ILYA Y
3766 Ex Parte GURSKIS et al 13292889 - (D) COTTA 103 SHAY GLENN LLP PLATESKI, ERIN M
2445 Ex Parte Werjefelt et al 12232058 - (D) HUME 103 double patenting SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY LLP COULTER, KENNETH R
3657 Ex Parte Leible et al 12722019 - (D) HAMANN 112(2)/103 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. LANE, NICHOLAS J
2454 Ex Parte Bauer et al 14058413 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 101/103 Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WHIPPLE, BRIAN P
Cf. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location, It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.”)
3635 Ex Parte Johnson 13491115 - (D) DIXON 103 THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP. WALRAED-SULLIVAN, KYLE
3649 Ex Parte Zoeckler 13627207 - (D) BAHR 102 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
3654 Ex Parte Van Der Sluis et al 14130006 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON RIEGELMAN, MICHAEL A
3724 Ex Parte Weir et al 13307048 - (D) SMEGAL 103 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP MICHALSKI, SEAN M
3775 Ex Parte Lewis et al 12380339 - (D) FLAX 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia COLEY, ZADE JAMES
3786 Ex Parte Heismann et al 13661246 - (D) SMITH 103 SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP - Chicago KINNARD, LISA M
2487 Ex Parte ITO 13158939 - (D) SMITH 103 41.50 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. SULLIVAN, TYLER
Posted by James Long at 5:06 PM No comments :
1714 Ex Parte NOGUCHI et al 13159074 - (D) SMITH 103 OLIFF PLC BRATLAND JR, KENNETH A
1717 Ex Parte Schultz et al 13156936 - (D) GARRIS 103 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP BOWMAN, ANDREW J
1734 Ex Parte JUANG et al 13158931 - (D) SMITH 103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. EDMONDSON, LYNNE RENEE
3638 Ex Parte Downing 14355921 - (D) HOWARD 103 ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. KIM, SHIN H
3653 Ex Parte Mitchell et al 13587129 - (D) KHAN 102/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL BUTLER, MICHAEL E
3657 Ex Parte Iwai et al 13038679 - (D) KUMAR 102 DELAND LAW OFFICE SY, MARIANO ONG
3668 Ex Parte Hinnant et al 13568961 - (D) SCHOPFER 102/103 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman (Boeing) MARTINEZ BORRERO, LUIS A
3725 Ex Parte APPAVU et al 13272636 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 North Shore Patents, P.C. LEWIS, JUSTIN V
3731 Ex Parte Arnott 12813035 - (D) TOWNSEND 102 THE BLK LAW GROUP YABUT, DIANE D
Inventorship is a question of who actually invented the subject matter claimed in a patent and is determined on a claim-by-claim basis. See Trovan, Ltd. v. Sokymat SA, Irori, 299 F.3d 1292, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (
[A]n inventorship analysis, like an infringement or invalidity analysis, begins as a first step with a construction of each asserted claim to determine the subject matter encompassed thereby. The second step is then to compare the alleged contributions of each asserted co-inventor with the subject matter of the properly construed claim to then determine whether the correct inventors were named.
2692 Ex Parte Terlizzi et al 12069352 - (D) BARRY 103 103 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP APPLE INC. LEE, GENE W
2693 Ex Parte Chin 13166829 - (D) STEPHENS 112(1)/103 102/103 41.50 103 David E. Crites LI, LIN
3654 Ex Parte Radmall 12954750 - (D) NAPPI 102/103 112(1)/102/103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP ADAMS, NATHANIEL L
3766 Ex Parte Bloom et al 13250104 - (D) ADAMS 112(2)/103 103 Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. STICE, PAULA J
2154 Ex Parte Rossmark et al 14558375 - (D) McNEILL 102/103/double patenting BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
2158 Ex Parte Kaijima et al 12473322 - (D) DEJMEK 103 WINSTEAD P.C. IBM CORP. (WSM) RUIZ, ANGELICA
2427 Ex Parte Locker et al 12463020 - (D) HUME 112(1)/103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC KURIEN, CHRISTEN A
2457 Ex Parte Mukherjee 13671881 - (D) McNEILL 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP WILLIAMS, CLAYTON R
2483 Ex Parte Drive et al 12197656 - (D) FINK 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH NAVAS JR, EDEMIO
2863 Ex Parte Pantaleano et al 13781261 - (D) HASTINGS 101/112(2) ROCKWELL AUTOMATION / AT&W BHAT, ADITYA S
3622 Ex Parte Tu et al 13308394 - (D) KHAN 103 101 GE GLOBAL PATENT OPERATION SYROWIK, MATHEW RICHARD
3625 Ex Parte Ng et al 12493961 - (D) WINSOR 101 Blank Rome LLP Apple - Blank Rome AIRAPETIAN, MILA
3628 Ex Parte Hornbaker et al 12948458 - (D) ENGLE 101 Thompson Hine LLP JOSEPH, TONYA S
3631 Ex Parte Poulsen et al 13133664 - (D) BARRY 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION STERLING, AMY JO
3663 Ex Parte Lauffer et al 13602368 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL EVANS, GARRETT F
3735 Ex Parte MENSINGER et al 12880015 - (D) NEWMAN 101/102/103 KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP DEXCOM, INC. MALLARI, PATRICIA C
Labels: trovan