Source: https://www.ptab.us/2010/06/
Timestamp: 2018-10-15 10:27:58
Document Index: 764070757

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 112', '§ 101', '§ 112', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 103', '§ 41', '§ 41']

PTAB.US: June 2010
Ex Parte Merovitz 10/458,772 KIMLIN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) CHARLES N.J. RUGGIERO, ESQ.OHLANDT, GREELEY,RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP EXAMINER JUSKA, CHERYL ANN
Ex Parte Arpirez 10/375,083 STEPHENS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HILLERY, NATHAN
Ex Parte Forrer et al 11/016,216 HOMERE 103(a) IBM CORP (YA)C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W
Ex Parte van Lith et al 10/619,398 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) RYAN A. SCHNEIDER TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP EXAMINER CHARLES, MARCUS
Ex Parte Denney et al 10/690,833 BAHR 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA
Ex Parte Nicholas 10/476,508WALSH 102(e)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC EXAMINER TONGUE, LAKIA J
A declaration may supply a missing feature from an evidentiary exhibit. See Ex Parte Ovshinsky, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d, 1075, 1076 (Bd. Pat. App. Interf. Feb. 3, 1989).
Ex Parte Vogel et al 09/833,452 LANE 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(D) E I Du Pont De Nemours and Company EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R
But, “the mere fact that an inventor may have invented the combination, A, B, and C, for
example, before a patentee does not in itself prove that he has also invented the combination A, B, C, and D at the same time . . . .” In re Tanczyn, 347 F.2d 830, 832 (CCPA 1965).
Ex Parte Van Rijnsoever et al 10/482,145 BARRY 101/112(1)/112(2)/102(b) Philips Electronics North America Corporation EXAMINER DINH, MINH
Ex Parte Ohmer 10/904,910 BAHR 103(a) SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS EXAMINER ANDREWS, DAVID L
Ex Parte Aderhold et al 10/788,979 O’NEILL 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES GUENZER ATTN: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP
Ex Parte Bivens 10/642,130 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC EXAMINER MAI, TRI M
Ex Parte Carlson et al 11/590,638 KERINS 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY P.A. EXAMINER LEWIS, KIM M
Ex Parte Denney et al 11/401,114 BAHR 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA
Ex Parte Sexton et al 10/768,424 BAHR 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE
Posted by James Long at 9:48 AM No comments :
Ex Parte Blenke et al 10/743,222 GARRIS 102(b) CHRISTOPHER M. GOFF (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R
It is an established legal principle that
unless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only
all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or
combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove
prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). "[D]ifferences between the prior art reference and the claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation." Id. "Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention." Id. "[T]he [prior art] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference." Id., quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972).
Ex Parte Zohar et al 10/620,080 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) GRIFFITHS & SEATON PLLC (IBM2) EXAMINER VIDWAN, JASJIT S
Ex Parte Watson 09/893,693 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A
Ex Parte Mun 10/639,288 BAUMEISTER 103(a) LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY EXAMINER PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M
Ex Parte Nair et al 11/264,452 GRIMES 101/112(1)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER SKOWRONEK, KARLHEINZ R
Ex Parte Brackett et al 10/749,524 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (Cerner Corporation) EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M
Ex Parte Nhan et al 10/699,193 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
Ex Parte Riley 10/915,174 BARRETT 101/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER YU, HENRY W
"Because it is for the invention as claimed that enablement must exist, and because the impossible cannot be enabled, a claim containing a limitation impossible to meet may be held invalid under § 112. Moreover, when a claim requires a means for accomplishing an unattainable result, the claimed invention must be considered inoperative as claimed and the claim must be held invalid under either § 101 or § 112 of 35 U.S.C." Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Ex Parte Nakamura et al 10/357,038 BARRETT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION, T.J. WATSON RESEARCH CENTER EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
Dembiczak, In re, 175 F.3d 994, 50USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . .1504.06, 2144.04
Ex Parte Dorr 10/864,170 O’NEILL 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER STODOLA, DANIEL P
Ex Parte Dyko et al 11/076,314 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) RAY L. WEBER RENNER, KENNER, GRIEVE, BOBAK, TAYLOR & WEBER EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE
Ex Parte Lindner et al 10/079,479 WALSH 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M
Ex Parte Sundberg et al 11/088,146 OWENS 102(a/e)/103(a) WYETH LLC EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G
Ex Parte Albornoz et al 11/023,676 BARRETT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE
Ex Parte Cluff et al 11/497,698 BLANKENSHIP obviousness type double patenting/112(1)/102(e)/103(a) FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) EXAMINER CHU, GABRIEL L
Ex Parte Hintikka et al 10/609,781 SIU 102(b) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER GEBRESILASSIE, KIBROM K
Ex Parte Svendsen et al 10/346,298 KRIVAK 103(a) FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova EXAMINER SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI
Ex Parte Bell et al 10/894,992 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP EXAMINER VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG
Ex Parte Tremaglio 11/105,808 SILVERBERG 103(a) GANZ LAW, P.C. EXAMINER BOUCHELLE, LAURA A
Ex Parte Zemlok et al 11/122,311 KERINS 102(b) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHOI, STEPHEN
OMNI-THERM, INC. Requester, Respondent v. DUPACO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,046 6,490,737 SONG 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Edward W. Callan, Third Party Requester: Grace J. Fishel EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R
In Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) the court held that despite the absence of explicit antecedent basis, '[i]f the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.'" Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Antecedent basis can be present by implication. See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also In re Moore, 58 C.C.P.A. 1042, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971) ("[T]he definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed-not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.").
Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(e)
Ex Parte Namburi et al 11/849,505 GRIMES 103(a) ROBERTS & ROBERTS, LLP EXAMINER POLANSKY, GREGG
Ex Parte Burdick et al 10/853,611PRATS 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER OLSON, ERIC
Ex Parte Moncla et al 10/925,693 GAUDETTE non-statutory obviousness-type double-patenting THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K
Ex Parte Amorin et al 10/953,728 JEFFERY 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER STACE, BRENT S
Ex Parte Barsness et al 10/793,526 HUGHES 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Martin & Associates, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, CINDY
Ex Parte Leete et al 10/404,732 STEPHENS 102(b)/103(a) INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BONZO, BRYCE P
Ex Parte Scholz 10/767,907 HUGHES 103(a) Fish & Richardson, P.C. EXAMINER DARNO, PATRICK A
Ex Parte Stobie 10/969,377 HORNER 103(a) EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION EXAMINER GANESAN, SUBA
Ex Parte Homer 10/814,538 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOLTON, STEVEN E
Ex Parte McKenney 11/129,803 EASTHOM 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICES (San Jose) EXAMINER VO, CECILE H
Ex Parte Denissen et al 11/133,297 BARRY 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER VU, KIEU D
Ex Parte Martin 10/350,838 THOMAS 103(a) Susan M. Donahue Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY EXAMINER JONES, HUGH M
Ex Parte Yuan 10/642,256 NAPPI 103(a) HEMINGWAY & HANSEN, LLP EXAMINER TOLENTINO, RODERICK
Ex Parte Matthaei et al 10/182,208 KERINS 103(a) GERO G. McCLELLAN MOSER PATTERSON & SHERIDAN EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN
Ex Parte Pflager et al 10/270,087 STAICOVICI 103(a) REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER SHAKERI, HADI
Ex Parte Buchner 10/840,064 STAICOVICI 103(a) FRANK J. CATALANO, P.C. EXAMINER GETZOW, SCOTT M
Ex Parte Requena 10/023,456 NAPPI 103(a) WARE, FRESSOLA, VAN DER SLUYS, & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER SIDDIQI, MOHAMMAD A
Ex Parte McQueer 10/987,889 LEE 102(b)/103(a) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT
& LITTON, LLP EXAMINER HOEY, ALISSA L
Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Estee Lauder, Inc. v. L’Oreal S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 44 USPQ2d 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1997).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2138.05, 2163
Ex Parte Calvani 10/470,999 SCHEINER 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
Ex Parte Lange et al 10/942,021 SPIEGEL 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP EXAMINER STOCKTON, LAURA LYNNE
Ex Parte Van Oorschot et al 10/072,570 McCOLLUM 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D
Ex Parte Dawes 10/489,457 NAGUMO 112(1)/103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER O HERN, BRENT T
Ex Parte Wheat et al 10/407,876 OWENS 103(a) CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. EXAMINER PARSONS, THOMAS H
Ex Parte Agrawal et al 10/971,321 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) The Danamraj Law Group, PC/RIM Attn: Reba Pieczynski EXAMINER CHEEMA, AZAM M
Ex Parte Novak THOMAS 10/601,406 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER DAILEY, THOMAS J
Ex Parte Hosur et al 10/755,603 BAUMEISTER 112(1)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER REGO, DOMINIC E
Ex Parte Cychosz et al 09/952,995 LORIN 103(a) BECK & TYSVER, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER CHENCINSKI, SIEGFRIED E
Ex Parte Stevens et al 10/310,720 PATE III 103(a) Workman Nydegger EXAMINER HOFFMAN, MARY C
Ex Parte McIntire et al 10/663,497 MILLS 112(1) STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY LICENSING BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER BAUSCH, SARAE L
Plant Genetic Sys., N.V. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 315 F.3d 1335, 65 USPQ2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . 2164.08
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc.,188 F.3d 1362, 52 USPQ2d 1129(Fed. Cir. 1999).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2164.06(b)
Ex Parte Ameye et al 10/061,622 PRATS 103(a) CYNTHIA L. FOULKE NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER FUBARA, BLESSING M
Ex Parte Spears10/970,121 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Kraguljac & Kalnay, LLC – Oracle EXAMINER BROPHY, MATTHEW J
Ex Parte Dingman 10/427,362 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP EXAMINER BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL
Ex Parte Nyhan et al 09/900,674 FISCHETTI 103(a)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER BOYCE, ANDRE D
Appellants’ argument to these claims “fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims . . .,” and are not commensurate with the broader scope of the claims. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Ex Parte Gardenier et al 10/621,749 BARRETT 103(a) JOHN PIETRANGELO HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PHILLIPS, CHARLES E
Ex Parte Gilkerson 10/779,808 BARRY 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E
Ex Parte Menard 11/021,470 HORNER 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER BEAUCHAINE, MARK J
Ex Parte Nykoluk et al 10/688,447 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) PATRICK W. RASCHE ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER MAI, TRI M
Ex Parte Snead 10/178,123 LUCAS 102(e) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER COLIN, CARL G
Ex Parte Stockstill 10/664,039 McCARTHY 103(a) VEDDER PRICE, PC EXAMINER WILSON, JOHN J
“Common sense has long been recognized to inform the analysis of obviousness if explained with sufficient reasoning.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Our reviewing court has explained that “the use of common sense does not require a ‘specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference,’ only a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory generalizations.” Id. at 1329 (quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART and REVERSED-IN-PART
Ex parte MICHAEL C. RYAN 90/007,920 5,913,180 DELMENDO 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: DAVIS, BROWN, KOEHN, SHORS & ROBERTS, P.C. EXAMINER LEWIS, AARON J
Ex Parte Kintzley et al 11/437,018 NAGUMO 103(a) HEXION SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC. EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J
Ex Parte Ootsuka et al 10/489,111 OWENS Opinion dissenting-in-part NAGUMO 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER THOMPSON, CAMIE S
Ex Parte Michelsen 10/424,562 LORIN 102(b)/103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER AKINTOLA, OLABODE
Ex Parte Koele et al 11/365,543 PATE III 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M
Ex Parte Li et al 10/812,113 BARRETT 103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA
Ex Parte Viswanathan 11/220,383 BARRETT 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER LLOYD, EMILY M
Ex Parte Pratt 10/433,198 NAGUMO 103(a) THOMPSON E. FEHR EXAMINER WILSON, MICHAEL H
Posted by James Long at 9:33 AM No comments :
Ex Parte Aquila et al EXAMINER ALTSCHUL, AMBER L
Ex Parte Coulthard et al EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R
Ex Parte Hwang et al EXAMINER HILL, MYRON G
Ex Parte Krywanczyk et al EXAMINER RAO, SHRINIVAS H
Ex Parte Nishitani et al EXAMINER HUNTER, ALVIN A
Ex Parte Racenet et al EXAMINER WOO, JULIAN W
Ex Parte Reiser EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O
Ex Parte Rollins et al EXAMINER AFREMOVA, VERA
Ex Parte SERKIN et al EXAMINER MILEF, ELDA G
Ex Parte Takizawa EXAMINER MANCHO, RONNIE M
Ex Parte Blischak et al EXAMINER PATEL, NATASHA
Ex Parte Carruth EXAMINER MILLER, BENA B
Ex Parte Fitzsimmons EXAMINER JABR, FADEY S
Ex Parte Gargi EXAMINER TAN, ALVIN H
Ex Parte Keller et al EXAMINER WANG, VICTOR W
Ex Parte Kincaid EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS
Ex Parte Roher EXAMINER DOAN, ROBYN KIEU
Ex Parte Schabert et al EXAMINER ELKINS, GARY E
Ex Parte Serros et al EXAMINER FONSECA, JESSIE T
Ex parte TAKASHI YASUKOCHI, TOSHIRO YAMAGUCHI, TETSURO TATEISHI and NARUHITO HIGO EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D
Ex Parte Beyerinck et al 10/351,568 ADAMS 103(a) PFIZER INC. EXAMINER SASAN, ARADHANA
Ex Parte Hassan et al 10/512,318 GRIMES 103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC EXAMINER SILVERMAN, ERIC E
Ex Parte Darolia et al 10/707,469 NAGUMO 103(a) HARTMAN AND HARTMAN, P.C. EXAMINER BURKHART, ELIZABETH A
Ex Parte Berry et al 10/793,461 COURTENAY 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER RUTTEN, JAMES D
Ex Parte Yaeger 10/402,705 LUCAS 103(a) KUNZLER NEEDHAM MASSEY & THORPE EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L
Ex Parte Oliver et al 11/365,065 DIXON 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) OSHA LIANG L.L.P. EXAMINER JONES, HUGH M
The Examiner's focus during the examination of claims for compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether the claims meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision, not whether more suitable language or modes of expression is available. See Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1146 (BPAI 1992). Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958 (CCPA 1976).
Porter, Ex parte, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) . . . .608.01(n), 2173.05(e), 2173.05(f), 2173.05(q)
Ex Parte Sirohey et al 10/711,189 HAHN 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, L.L.P. EXAMINER BROOME, SAID A
Ex Parte Slepian 10/072,766 LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER MARVICH, MARIA
Ex parte RESEARCH CORPORATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 90/007,187 5,726,772 TORCZON 102(b) For Patent Owner: MICHAEL GREENBAUM, ESQ. BLANK ROME LLP For Third-Party Requester: JOHN D. VANDENBERG KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J
Ex Parte Beer et al 10/051,459 KRATZ 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER ALEXANDER, LYLE
Ex Parte Engesser 10/929,568 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER MACARTHUR, SYLVIA
Ex Parte Freese et al 10/661,917 OWENS 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER CHACKO DAVIS, DABORAH
Ex Parte West et al 10/535,493 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L
Ex Parte Schneider et al 11/092,368 BOALICK 103(a) SLATER & MATSIL, LLP EXAMINER WEISS, HOWARD
Ex Parte Fitzsimmons 11/519,739 THOMAS 103(a) Todd E. Fitzsimmons EXAMINER JABR, FADEY S
We note that claim terms are not interpreted in a vacuum, devoid of the context of the claim as a whole. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[p]roper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.”); ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“While certain terms may be at the center of the claim construction debate, the context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered....”).
Ex Parte Mau 10/619,748 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP EXAMINER GOTTSCHALK, MARTIN A
Ex Parte Flynn et al 10/349,727 MOHANTY 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP EXAMINER FRENEL, VANEL
Ex Parte Tarquini et al 10/003,820 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER COLIN, CARL G
Ex Parte Peck et al 10/281,289 SPIEGEL 102(a)/102(e)/obviousness-type double patenting AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. EXAMINER FORMAN, BETTY J
An obviousness-type double patenting analysis entails two steps: (1) construction of the claims of the patent and the claim in the application to identify any differences, and (2) determination of whether the differences in subject matter between the claims render the claims patentably distinct. Accord Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In other words, "a double patenting of the obviousness type rejection is analogous to [a failure to meet] the non-obviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 103, except that the patent principally underlying the double patenting rejection is not considered prior art." In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quotation marks omitted).
Ex Parte Krakers et al 11/013,205 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER JOYNER, KEVIN
Ex Parte Plumer et al 10/983,874 LORIN 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUSAN M. DONAHUE ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./FY EXAMINER NELSON, FREDA ANN
Ex Parte Sazy 10/655,571 STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E
Ex Parte Eis et al 10/770,616 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S
Ex Parte Kerr et al 09/995,697 JEFFERY 102(e) BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Anne Kinsman EXAMINER EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A
Ex Parte Thomas 10/192,609 EASTHOM 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GILLIS, BRIAN J
Ex Parte Dettinger et al 09/871,929 JEFFERY 101/103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM) EXAMINER MIRZA, ADNAN M
Ex Parte Morishita et al 10/366,718 GREEN 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER GIBBS, TERRA C
In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("If a prima facie case is made in the first instance, and if the applicant comes forward with reasonable rebuttal, whether buttressed by experiment, prior art references, or argument, the entire merits of the matter are to be reweighed").
Ex Parte Schrader 10/311,760 GREEN 103(a) WHITE & CASE LLP EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN
Ex Parte Gueret 10/779,725 SILVERBERG Concurring Opinion BAHR 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER STEITZ, RACHEL RUNNING
Ex Parte Vange et al 10/380,471 GREEN 103(a) JACOBSON HOLMAN PLLC EXAMINER LULIS, MICHAEL P
Ex Parte Standing 10/970,165 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO