Source: http://www.ptab.us/2010_04_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2017-06-27 17:25:30
Document Index: 408957962

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 41', 'ART2100', '§ 41', '§ 41', 'ART1700', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', 'ART1600', '§ 41', 'ART1600', '§ 41', '§ 132', '§ 112', '§ 41', 'ART1700', '§ 41', '§101', '§ 101', '§ 2106', 'ART2100', '§ 41', 'ART1600', 'ART1700', '§ 41', 'ART1600', 'ART2800', 'ART1700', 'ART1700', 'ART2400', '§ 112', '§ 101', '§ 41', 'ART1700', 'ART1700', 'ART3600', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', 'ART1600', 'ART3600', '§ 41', '§ 41']

PTAB.US: April 2010
REVERSED1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Conrad et al 10/344,246 GRIMES 112(2)/103(a) ELI LILLY & COMPANYEx Parte Schultz et al 10/022,138 GRIMES 103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Balan et al 10/881,407 WARREN 102(e) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANYEx Parte Bries et al 09/809,805 SMITH 103(a) 3M Innovative Properties CompanyEx Parte Roba et al 09/986,622 COLAIANNI 112(2)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Collet et al 10/639,373 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and SecurityEx Parte Chang et al 10/228,165 HOFF 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTDEx Parte Lockridge et al 10/223,844 HOFF 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC.2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Choi et al 10/874,011 RUGGIERO 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Broach et al 10/751,349 FISCHETTI 112(2)/103(a) Westinghouse Electric Company LLCEx Parte Rusman et al 11/315,046 CRAWFORD 102(b) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLPAFFIRMED-IN-PART2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Toyoshima 09/972,781 HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Park 11/327,681 HAIRSTON 102(b) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Mascavage et al 09/991,379 CRAWFORD 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLPIt is well-established that an invention may be held to have been obvious without a specific finding of a particular level of skill where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level. See Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 218 USPQ 673 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . 2141.03Ex Parte Rosenberg 11/024,620 LEE, Dissenting SCHAFER 103(a) FRANK ROSENBERG3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & DesignEx Parte Janzig et al 10/731,699 PATE III obviousness-type double patenting/102(b) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A.
REVERSED1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Hollingsworth et al 10/795,652 WALSH 103(a) IAN C. McLEOD, P.C.Ex Parte Rollat et al 10/023,330 ADAMS 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Sjoberg 10/309,345 SMITH 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO Ex Parte Weeks 10/528,610 DELMENDO 103(a) THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANYEx Parte Bartenbach et al 10/806,232 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP Ex Parte Nam et al 10/374,980 KIMLIN 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRMEx Parte Petzoldt et al 10/934,525 NAGUMO 103(a)/provisionalobviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLANDMAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP Ex Parte Beutel et al 10/755,128 TIMM 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Bit-Babik et al 10/945,234 HAIRSTON 102(e) MOTOROLA, INC.Ex Parte Awada et al 10/845,534 THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) IBM CORP2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and SecurityEx Parte McGowan et al 10/632,072 HAIRSTON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION2600 CommunicationsEx Parte Andreason 09/898,480 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PCEx Parte Chen et al 11/121,877 HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent AFFIRMED-IN-PART1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Bristow et al 11/618,950 GARRIS 103(a)/provisional obviousness-type double patenting CANTOR COLBURN, LLP Ex Parte Bristow et al2 10/805,760 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, LLP 2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Sonkin et al 10/872,633 SIU Concurring JEFFERY 112(2)/101/102(e) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and SecurityEx Parte Brabson et al 10/045,556 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATIONThe Federal Circuit has stated that simply disclosing a general purpose computer as the structure to perform the claimed function does not meet the corresponding structure requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 sixth paragraph. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333. Rather, "the corresponding structure for a § 112 paragraph 6 claim for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification." Id (citing Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).2600 CommunicationsEx Parte Fritz et al 10/307,680 HOFF 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Ex Parte Marvit et al 10/807,561 EASTHOM 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Bunker 10/089,011 STAICOVICI 103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INCConsistent with the holding in BPAI precedential opinion Ex Parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (BPAI 2008), Appellant may not reserve arguments for some later time. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 (c)(1)(vii)(2009).
REVERSED1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Luzzatti 10/079,569 WALSH 103(a) AJAY PATHAK1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Morrow et al 10/830,754 GARRIS 103(a) COMMSCOPE BY MUNCY,GEISSLER, OLDS & LOVE, PLLC Ex Parte YAGI et al 11/697,842 PAK 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.Ex Parte Allibert et al 11/433,713 ROBERTSON 103(a) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and SecurityEx Parte Bodin et al 10/105,122 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP “The doctrine of claim differentiation creates a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope . . . . The difference in meaning and scope between claims is presumed to be significant to the extent that the absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make a claim superfluous.” Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte De Jonge et al 10/820,424 HORNER 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT & LITTON, LLP3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & DesignEx Parte Babbidge et al 10/794,092 BARRETT 103(a) KING & SCHICKLI, PLLCBecause claims 24 and 25 include all the limitations recited in claim 23, we conclude claim 23 must have been obvious based on our conclusion of obviousness of claims 24 and 25. See Ormco v. Align Tech., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (when a dependent claim is “found to have been obvious, the broader claims . . . must also have been obvious”).AFFIRMED-IN-PART1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Strebelle et al 10/534,299 FREDMAN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT P.C.2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Gu et al 10/447,862 BARRY 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE2600 Communications Ex Parte Parry et al 09/861,991 HAHN 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Ross et al 11/265,671 OWENS 103(a) CHRISTOPHER P. RICCI3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Ruppert et al 11/210,461 BAHR 102(b)/103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.See Tec Air Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Where the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified inoperable for its intended purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious.)
REVERSED1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Dalvit 10454898 SCHEINER 103(a) BERNSTEIN.SCULLY, SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSEREx Parte Schwartz et al 10754861 GRIMES 112(1) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Devine et al 10490422 NAGUMO 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PCEx Parte Basheer et al 11099399 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INCEx Parte Chiang et al 10921604 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLPIf the 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).Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144.08Ex Parte Fan 10642852 NAGUMO 103(a) GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTEEx Parte Fischer et al 10445146 TIMM 103(a) BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P.Ex Parte Gartland et al 10956440 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.Ex Parte Ohtani et al 10946072 COLAIANNI nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Chen et al 10612542 HUGHES 101 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLPThus, we find that Appellants’ claimed tangible machine readable media does not implicate a non-statutory carrier wave or a signal modulated by a carrier over a transmission medium. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357; Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106 Ex Parte Djugash et al 10901591 SIU 102(e) IBM CORPORATION3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & DesignEx Parte REINMULLER 08732408 STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLPAFFIRMED-IN-PART1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Frippiat et al 10182064 GRIMES 103(a) HAYES SOLOWAY P.C.Ex Parte Itoh et al 10214371 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering Ex Parte Chou et al 11157895 McKELVEY 102(e)/102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 (b) E.I. duPONT de NEMOURS AND COMPANYEx Parte Simmons 10870608 HANLON 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C.2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Jung et al 10385464 HUGHES 101/112(1)/132(a)/102(b) North Star Intellectual Property Law, PC(“a rejection of an amended claim under § 132 is equivalent to a rejection under § 112, first paragraph”) (quoting In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214 (CCPA 1981)); see also Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc. , 363 F.3d 1247, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The written description requirement prevents applicants from . . . . add[ing] new matter to their disclosures . . . defeating an accurate accounting of the priority of invention. See 35 U.S.C. 132.”)Rasmussen, In re, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . 706.03(o), 1504.04, 2163, 2163.01, 2163.04, 2163.05, 2163.06 Chiron v. Corp. v. Genentech Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 70 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.03, 2164.05(a)2600 CommunicationsEx Parte Quine 10650511 MARTIN 103(a) Pitney Bowes Inc.3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Haskell et al 10252972 FETTING 112(2)/103(a) Siemens Corporation3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & DesignEx Parte Khosravi et al 10461106 STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A.Although the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim under consideration must be consistent with the specification, we must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . 2111.01E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2111.01 Ex Parte Sun et al 10279769 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.Ex Parte Zawilinski et al 10930329 MEDLEY 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
REVERSED1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering Ex Parte Han et al 11158047 OWENS 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER WEDDLE, ALEXANDER MARION3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Davis et al 11086943 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) JACKSON WALKER LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J AFFIRMED-IN-PART1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering Ex Parte Butzer et al 11062777 HASTINGS 103(a) Mr. Edward J. Timmer EXAMINER D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Heikes et al 11021009 HUGHES 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER TAKELE, MESEKER 2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and SecurityEx Parte Park 10377746 DIXON 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Eisenberg et al 09974321 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER BUCHANAN, CHRISTOPHER RAccording to current Office policy, computer programs per se are not considered patentable subject matter under §101, as they are in themselves purely non-functional descriptive constructs. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 2009, at 2, available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/2009-08-25_interim_101_instructions.pdf. Also see MPEP § 2106.01 (I), citing In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994).Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02Ex Parte Foster et al 09931123 LORIN 101/103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP EXAMINER FELTEN, DANIEL S Patentable weight need not be given to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate (here the system). See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1338. See also, Ex parte Mathias, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (CCPA sic [Fed. Cir.] 2006).Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01 Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01
REVERSED1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Imachi et al 11091368 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK EXAMINER RHEE, JANE J 2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Clinton 10179624 BARRETT 112(2)/103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER MITCHELL, JASON DEx Parte Nightingale et al 10142148 DANG 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PATEL, SHAMBHAVI K Ex Parte Sattler et al 11026052 DIXON 101/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER CHOI, MICHELE C“A process is . . . an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing.” Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788 (1877). “‘Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.’” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972)).Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.022400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security Ex Parte Hellerstein et al 09731937 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH TAFFIRMED-IN-PART2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte McMullin 10607127 DANG 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D
REVERSED1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry Ex Parte Kivits et al 10/484,255 LEBOVITZ 102(a)/103(a) nonstatutory obviousnesstype double patenting YOUNG & THOMPSONEx Parte Sakuma et al 10/502,404 PRATS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. Appellants also argue that a conclusion of obviousness cannot be based on equivalence known only to an applicant (Reply Br. 3 (citing In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 598 (CCPA 1958)).Ruff, In re, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.06 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering Ex Parte Collins et al 10/461,022 PAK 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Adams 10/158,353 THOMAS 103(a) PATE PIERCE & BAIRDEx Parte Leveille et al 11/419,936 THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Ex Parte Martin et al 10/484,541 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLPEx Parte Barboi et al 10/981,837 HOMERE 101/112(2)/102(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FISH & RICHARDSON PC2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security Ex Parte Jackson et al 10/357,949 HUGHES 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Myers Bigel Sibley & Sajovec Thus, “the description must ‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.’” Ariad Pharmas. v. Eli Lilly and Co., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). In other words, the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Id.“[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Ariad, --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 1007369 at *12 (citing Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563.) Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181 2600 Communications Ex Parte Coles et al 10/393,729 NAPPI 103(a) JOHN C. MORAN, ATTORNEY, P.C. Ex Parte Satoh et al 10/537,417 HOFF 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. Ex Parte Spinelli 11/360,401 HOFF 103(a) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Bellick et al 10/821,334 PATE III 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLPEx Parte Kummer et al 10/823,032 MOHANTY 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC.3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & DesignEx Parte Vanderbilt et al 10/640,131 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATEDAFFIRMED-IN-PART1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Hill 10/702,406 GREEN 103(a) MATTHEW R. JENKINS, ESQ.Ex Parte Podlich et al 10/874,813 LEBOVITZ 103(A)/112(1)/101 POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP 2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Zargham et al 10/013,091 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Hogan 10/667,680 BAHR 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Woodcock Washburn LLP
REVERSED1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Loughner 11/351,765 FREDMAN 103(a) DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Bevilacqua 10/839,198 SILVERBERG 103(a) BROUSE MCDOWELL LPAEx Parte Sultan et al 09/899,265 FETTING 102(e) BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON, LLP3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & DesignEx Parte Gagliardi et al 10/346,962 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANYAFFIRMED-IN-PART1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Shannon et al 10/823,364 OWENS 103(a) MOSER IP LAW GROUP / APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Mennecart et al 10/450,872 BARRY 102(b)/103(a) THE JANSSON FIRM3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Kokis et al 10/294,998 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. "It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or 'template' to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Furthermore, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "has previously found a proposed modification inappropriate for an obviousness inquiry when the modification rendered the prior art reference inoperable for its intended purpose." Fritch, 972 F.2d at 1266 n.12 (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Fritsch v. Lin, 21 USPQ2d 1731 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991) . . . .2137.01, 2138.06Gorman, In re, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144.08
REVERSED1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Aseere et al 10/919,098 NAGUMO 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLEEx Parte Hamalainen et al 10/511,382 LANE 102(b)/103(a) Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Elwood et al 11/095,655 DANG 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC Ex Parte Nguyen 10/764,835 JEFFERY 103(a) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLPEx Parte Bodin et al 10/756,146 DIXON 103(a) INTERNATIONAL CORP (BLF) C/O BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP 2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security Ex Parte Blume 10/251,874 THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AFFIRMED-IN-PART1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry Ex Parte Lersch et al 11/675,280 GRIMES 112(2)/103(a) SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PCEx Parte Lisziewicz et al 10/081,922 FREDMAN Opinion dissenting-in-part McCOLLUM 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) LOOPER,VALERIE E. 1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Skala 10/961,698 DELMENDO 102(b)/103(a) GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Kaminsky et al 10/652,109 COURTENAY 101/102(e) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and SecurityEx Parte Freed et al 09/900,494 BARRY 112(1)/103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P.A
REVERSED1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Ellington et al 10/431,634 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Yagi et al 10/942,107 KIMLIN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE – 265550It is by now axiomatic that claim language is not to be read in a vacuum but in light of the supporting specification as it would reasonably be read by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971). Also, claims are not to be read in manner that renders them inoperative. In re Kamal, 398 F.2d 867, 872 (CCPA 1968); In re Sarett, 327 F.2d 1005, 1019 (CCPA 1964).Sneed, In re, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1445, 2145 Moore, In re, 439 F.2d 1232, 169 USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . .1504.04, 2164.08, 2172 Sarett, In re, 327 F.2d 1005, 140 USPQ 474 (CCPA 1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8042600 CommunicationsEx Parte Ginggen et al 11/098,071 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) CHERYL F. COHEN, LLC 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & DesignEx Parte Moriyama et al 10/263,642 ADAMS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCHAFFIRMED-IN-PART2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Kuwahara et al 10/702,661 RUGGIERO 102(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLCSee Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A. , 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived.”) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ex parte Scholl, No. 2007-3653, slip op. at 18 n.13 (BPAI Mar. 13, 2008) (informative), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd073653.pdf.
REVERSED 1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Agris et al 10/190,795 GREEN 103(a) MYERS, BIGEL, SIBLEY & SAJOVEC 2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Kincaid 10/318,809 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) Docket ClerkAFFIRMED-IN-PART1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte King 10/793,588 HASTINGS 103(a) PPG Industries, Inc.2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Tabor 10/810,377 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) Quarles & Brady LLP
REVERSED1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Hofstadt et al 10513041 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLPEx Parte Kuibira et al 10478278 PAK 102(b)/103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Wood et al 10449559 STEPHENS 102(b)/103(a) GLENN PATENT GROUP2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and SecurityEx Parte Barsness et al 10255484 LUCAS 102(e) IBM CORPORATIONAFFIRMED-IN-PART1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Ivanov et al 10462343 KIMLIN 103(a) DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Saliba et al 09751436 MOHANTY 102(e)/103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION
REVERSED1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Henshaw et al 09621234 GARRIS 251 improper recapture BERESKIN AND PARR LLP2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Peleg et al 10403500 STEPHENS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY2600 CommunicationsEx Parte Dodgson et al 10648560 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP
REVERSED 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry Ex Parte Carney et al 10722256 WALSH 103(a) CIBA VISION CORPORATIONEx Parte Cohenford et al 10323188 WALSH 112(1)/103(a) CYTYC CORPORATIONEx Parte Fu 10865623 WALSH 112(1) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Stenzel et al 10522672 KIMLIN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and SecurityEx Parte Teixeira 10605644 HUGHES 102(e) John A. SmartEx Parte Singh 10028574HOFF 102(b)/103(a) Philips Intellectual Property & Standards 2600 CommunicationsEx Parte Ohl et al 10491929HAIRSTON 112(1) KENYON & KENYON2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Ehlert 10861945 NAPPI 103(a) SCOTT N. BARKER, ESQ.3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & DesignEx Parte Feeney et al 11539180 PATE III 103(a) JOSEPH SWAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONAFFIRMED-IN-PART2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security Ex Parte Cherkasova et al 10601992 JEFFERY 101/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANYEx Parte Kristjansson 10346705 HAIRSTON 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC
REVERSED1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Nezu et al 10/762,154 WALSH 101/112(1) FISH & RICHARDSON PC [A]n application must show that an invention is useful to the public asdisclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future dateafter further research. Simply put, to satisfy the “substantial” utilityrequirement, an asserted use must show that that claimed invention has asignificant and presently available benefit to the public. . . . in addition toproviding a “substantial” utility, an asserted use must also show that theclaimed invention can be used to provide a well-defined and particular benefitto the public. In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “It is well established that the enablement requirement of § 112 incorporates the utility requirement of § 101.” Fisher, 421 F. 3d at 1378.Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01Ex Parte Schmid-Schonbein et al 11/850,169 PRATS 102(b)/103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PCAFFIRMED-IN-PART1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Chen 11/084,571 KIMLIN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & DesignEx Parte Ihde 10/714,200 PATE III 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS LLP
REVERSED1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Griffin et al 11/345,866 DELMENDO 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANYEx Parte Hild et al 10/848,203 GARRIS 102(a)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Samoto 10/669,687 STEPHENS 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & DesignEx Parte Berry et al 11/095,725 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.Ex Parte Schaffrath et al 11/170,974 LEE 102(b) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLPAFFIRMED-IN-PART1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Bonnemann et al 10/518,703 LANE 103(a) Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, PA
REVERSED1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Keck et al 10/950,881 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER CHEVALIER, ALICIA ANNEx Parte Ott et al 11/142,786 TIMM 103(a) MCNEES, WALLACE & NURICK LLC EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & DesignEx Parte Raczuk 10/752,110 BAHR 102(b) KRIEG DEVAULT LLP EXAMINER WILSON, LEE DAFFIRMED-IN-PART3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Gross 11/369,660 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) LAW OFFICE OF J. NICHOLAS GROSSEXAMINER RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAMDENIED2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Ramberg et al 10/131,881 GAUDETTE 103(a) HONEYWELL/FOGG EXAMINER PRITCHETT, JOSHUA L In KSR, the Court indicated that there is "no necessary inconsistency between the idea underlying the TSM test and the Graham analysis" provided that the test is not applied as a "rigid and mandatory" formula. Id. at 419. The TSM test is applied in an overly rigid and formalistic manner when the "obviousness analysis" is confined "by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents." Id.KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04 "Common sense has long been recognized to inform the analysis of obviousness if explained with sufficient reasoning and where there is a factual foundation from which the analysis flows." Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Posted by
REVERSED1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Blazewicz et al 10/402,596 KIMLIN 102(b) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LUDLOW, JAN M 2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Dettinger et al 10/718,218 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review Ex Parte Saxe et al 10/440,988 O’NEILL 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER SMITH, KIMBERLY S Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided en banc the scope and purpose of the written description requirement within the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The court reaffirmed that the written description requirement found in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement of that provision. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. , --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Further, the purpose of the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is to “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.” Ariad, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12. Accordingly, “the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. FarMar-Co, Inc. , 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The hallmark of the written description is disclosure. Ariad, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12. As such, not just possession, but “‘possession as shown in the disclosure’ is a more complete formulation.” Id. Thus, the test for whether the claims are adequately described “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. This inquiry is a question of fact. Id. (citing Ralston Purina, 772 F.2d at 1575). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Ariad, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12 (citing Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc. , 772 F.2d 1570, 227 USPQ 177 (Fed. Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2163.02 Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163AFFIRMED-IN-PART1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Motyka et al 10/828,827 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP. EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V
REVERSED1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Bae 10/884,862 FREDMAN 112(1)/102(a)/103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER YAO, LEI2100 Computer Architecture and SoftwareEx Parte Shin 10/991,616 SIU 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, KIM T 2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security Ex Parte Butterworth et al 10/090,404 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M 2600 Communications Ex Parte Bushey et al 11/311,140 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT EXAMINER SMITH, CREIGHTON H 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & ReviewEx Parte Gottwick et al 10/556,596 LEE 103(a) GREIGG & GREIGG P.L.L.C. EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, PAMELAEx Parte O'Shea et al 10/748,763 TURNER 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER MACASIANO, MARILYN G Ex Parte Sudolcan et al 10/460,732 SILVERBERG 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER L. MAKAY EXAMINER BUTLER, MICHAEL E 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design Ex Parte Coates et al 10/484,279 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F AFFIRMED-IN-PART3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review Ex Parte Cummings 10/852,484 McCARTHY 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NOVAK, DRUCE & QUIGG LLP EXAMINER KRAMER, DEAN J 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & DesignEx Parte Jones 10/962,629 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER NGUYEN, HOANG M