Source: http://www.ptab.us/2011/
Timestamp: 2017-04-29 01:42:01
Document Index: 394362727

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', 'ART1700', 'arte 6135904', '§ 41', 'arte 7043283', 'arte 7466974', '§ 41', '§ 41', 'arte 6325414', 'arte 6373537', 'ART3900', 'arte 6', '§ 41', '§ 41', 'ART3900', 'arte 5631946', 'ART3900', 'arte 6067451', 'ART3900', 'arte 5438611', 'arte 5819172', 'ART3900', 'arte 5625670', 'arte 5436960', 'ART3900', 'arte 5479472', 'ART1600', '§ 41', '§ 101']

PTAB.US: 2011
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry1611 Ex Parte Rodriguez-Kabana et al 11/864,148 McCOLLUM 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER KLINKEL, KORTNEY L1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1761 Ex Parte Kane 11/630,603 COLAIANNI 103(a) Mallinckrodt Inc EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R1788 Ex Parte Song 11/141,236 PAK 103(a) EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER DESAI, ANISH PIrdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Even when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, the specification may define claim terms ‘by implication’ such that the meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.”2100 Computer Architecture and Software2168 Ex Parte Urmston et al 10/984,678 HUGHES 102(b) VAN PELT, YI & JAMES LLP AND EMC CORPORATION EXAMINER GORTAYO, DANGELINO N2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security2473 Ex Parte Blaker et al 09/999,647 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER NGO, NGUYEN HOANG2486 Ex Parte Valente 10/478,731 DILLON 103(a) Philips Electronics North America Corporation EXAMINER HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES2600 Communications2611 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/879,607 KRIVAK 103(a) THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. EXAMINER BOLOURCHI, NADER3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review3617 Ex Parte Sturm 11/753,204 KERINS 103(a) STURM & FIX LLP EXAMINER AVILA, STEPHEN P3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3788 Ex Parte Takiar et al 11/321,426 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) VIERRA MAGEN/SANDISK CORPORATION EXAMINER PERREAULT, ANDREW D
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry1648 Ex Parte De Leys et al 11/341,363 SCHEINER 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER PARKIN, JEFFREY S1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering1764 Ex Parte Rolly 11/510,350 COLAIANNI 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L1766 Ex Parte Todd et al 11/147,093 COLAIANNI 102(b)/102(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review3617 Ex Parte Saho et al 11/453,076 CALVE 102(b) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINEROLSON, LARS A3636 Ex Parte Venegas 10/827,975 HORNER 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER YIP, WINNIE S3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3716 Ex Parte Krenn et al 10/940,420 BROWN 112(1)/103(a) TRASKBRITT, P.C. / SHUFFLE MASTER EXAMINER HSU, RYAN3761 Ex Parte Donovan 11/584,145 SCHEINER 103(a) KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry1654 Ex Parte Wachs 11/098,775 SCHEINER 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER STEELE, AMBER D1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering1729 Ex Parte Fuller et al 11/053,714 TIMM 103(a) CARY W. BROOKS General Motors Corporation EXAMINER ECHELMEYER, ALIX ELIZABETH2100 Computer Architecture and Software2168 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/733,016 HOFF 103(a) THE LAW OFFICE OF KIRK D. WILLIAMS EXAMINER LE, DEBBIE M2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security2484 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/219,045 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER ATALA, JAMIE JO3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review3622 Ex Parte Fellon 11/160,846 LORIN 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER AHMED, AFFAF3622 Ex Parte Fellon 11/160,847 LORIN 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER AHMED, AFFAF3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3764 Ex Parte Shepard et al 10/747,420 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review3653 Ex Parte Martens et al 11/239,125 BARRETT 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER KUMAR, KALYANAVENKA K
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry1651 Ex Parte Jorgensen et al 11/129,953 FRANKLIN 103(a) NOVOZYMES NORTH AMERICA, INC. EXAMINER ARIANI, KADE2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security2427 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/675,467 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER RYAN, PATRICK A2486 Ex Parte Jeon 10/335,331 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES2600 Communications2617 Ex Parte Marshall et al 09/969,000 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Intellectual Property and Licensing NXP B.V. EXAMINER THIER, MICHAEL2625 Ex Parte Brown 10/255,631 KRIVAK 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HUNTSINGER, PETER K2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components2835 Ex Parte Gadkaree et al 11/494,206 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER SINCLAIR, DAVID M3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3716 Ex Parte Murakami 10/558,321 CRAWFORD 103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K3727 Ex Parte Hsu 11/479,255 HORNER 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D
The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . 2173.02, 2173.05(b)[W]e employ a lower threshold of ambiguity when reviewing a pending claim for indefiniteness than those used by post-issuance reviewing courts. In particular, rather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we hold that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.The USPTO, as the sole agency vested with the authority to grant exclusionary rights to inventors for patentable inventions, has a duty to guard the public against patents of ambiguous and vague scope. Such patents exact a cost on society due to their ambiguity that is not commensurate with the benefit that the public gains from disclosure of the invention. The USPTO is justified in using a lower threshold showing of ambiguity to support a finding of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because the applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend the claims during prosecution to more clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and to more clearly and precisely put the public on notice of the scope of the patent. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211-12 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry1653 Ex Parte Myatt 10/263,516 FRANKLIN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DRISCOLL, LORA E BARNHART1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1783 Ex Parte Seth et al 10/836,560 FRANKLIN 103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER FERGUSON, LAWRENCE D2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security2443 Ex Parte Yamashita et al 10/673,812 HOFF 103(a) RSW IP Law EXAMINER DENNISON, JERRY B2469 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos et al 10/769,327 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MOORE, IAN N2600 Communications2617 Ex Parte Ballai 10/235,073 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER PHUONG, DAI2618 Ex Parte Cho 10/226,126 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review3694 Ex Parte Benito et al 10/492,598 MOHANTY 103(a) KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. EXAMINER HOLLY, JOHN H3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3765 Ex Parte Mills et al 10/866,972 LEE 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M3767 Ex Parte Pope et al 10/700,738 ASTORINO 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review3677 Ex Parte Poliakoff 11/089,501 ASTORINO 102(b) 102(b)/103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER SANDY, ROBERT JOHN3686 Ex Parte Gordon 10/153,883 MOHANTY 103(a) 103(a) Christian C. Michel Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman, L.L.P. EXAMINER LE, LINH GIANG3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3761 Ex Parte Miura et al 11/509,475 FRANKLIN 103(a) 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
EXAMINER REVERSED3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)3682 Ex Parte 6135904 et al Ex parte RYAN G. GUTHRIE Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,944 09/181,368 DELMENDO 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: MICHAEL TAVELLA THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DELAND LAW OFFICE EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original EXAMINER HANNON, THOMAS RUnited States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50 (1966) (“Nor is the Government’s contention that the electrodes ofAdams were mere substitutions of pre-existing battery designs supported by the prior art.”).United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 148 USPQ 479 (1966). . . . . . . . . 716.01(b), 716.05, 2143.01, 2145
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry1636 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/997,700 FREDMAN 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER VOGEL, NANCY TREPTOW1646 Ex Parte Hill et al 12/436,508 FREDMAN 102(b) USDA, ARS, OTT EXAMINER MERTZ, PREMA MARIA2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security2451 Ex Parte Banatwala et al 10/734,348 DIXON nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/102(e) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B2493 Ex Parte Blakley et al 10/334,539 DANG 103(a) IBM CORP. (DHJ) c/o DAVID H. JUDSON EXAMINER HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID2882 Ex Parte Coppola 10/568,656 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC EXAMINER LIU, MICHAEL3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review3611 Ex Parte Garfinkle 11/956,533 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER HOGE, GARY CHAPMAN3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3769 Ex Parte Freedman 11/220,300 KERINS 251 103(a)/251/112(1) Philip D. Freedman PC EXAMINER SHAY, DAVID M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1734 Ex Parte Haidar 10/560,804 KATZ 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) LADAS & PARRY LLP EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING
DENIED1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry1616 Ex Parte Goldstein et al 10/691,928 WALSH 103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W Posted by
2100 Computer Architecture and Software2167 Ex Parte Lunev et al 11/293,576 HOFF 103(a) CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP EXAMINER BADAWI, SHERIEF3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3745 Ex Parte Carvalho et al 11/371,035 HORNER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER WIEHE, NATHANIEL EDWARD3771 Ex Parte Dunkley et al 10/821,624 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) NOVARTIS EXAMINER MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security2452 Ex Parte Chan et al 10/403,551 DROESCH 102(b)/103(a) PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN PLLC EXAMINER DAILEY, THOMAS J
We recognize that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but is proper so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). However, Appellants do not meaningfully explain how the determination of obviousness is based upon knowledge gleaned only from Appellants’ Specification.McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145
EXAMINER AFFIRMED3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)2684 Ex Parte 7043283 et al Ex parte BLACK & DECKER INC. 90/010,906 & 90/010,909 10/758,492 SIU 103(a) Appellant FOR PATENT OWNER: BLACK & DECKER, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MAX SHAFTAL PATZIK, FRANK & SAMOTNY, LTD. EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER GANTT, ALAN TEXAMINER AFFIRMED3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)2618 Ex Parte 7466974 et al Ex parte BLACK & DECKER INC. 90/010,902 & 90/010,908 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION Third Party Requester: PATZIK, FRANK & SAMOTNY LTD. EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER PHU, SANH D
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering1726 Ex Parte Grubb 10/602,945 PAK 103(a) ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED EXAMINER DOVE, TRACY MAE1734 Ex Parte Muha et al 11/218,618 GUEST 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING2600 Communications2613 Ex Parte Mahony et al 10/606,677 HAHN 112(1)/103(a) AT&T Legal Department - GMG EXAMINER LI, SHI K
GRANTED AFFIRMED3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review3611 Ex Parte Garfinkle 12/057,127 BROWN 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER DAVIS, CASSANDRA HOPE
MERRY CHRISTMAS!REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering1723 Ex Parte Morgal 10/821,593 KRATZ 103(a) William C. Boling, Esq. EXAMINER GARDNER, SHANNON M1734 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 11/722,789 GUEST 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER SLIFKA, SARAH A3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3748 Ex Parte Leistner et al 11/257,298 KERINS 103(a) FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) EXAMINER TRIEU, THAI BA
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security2473 Ex Parte Kroth et al 10/499,540 SAADAT 103(a) 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER RUTKOWSKI, JEFFREY M
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry1617 Ex Parte Larson et al 11/510,358 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP EXAMINER BROWE, DAVID2100 Computer Architecture and Software2185 Ex Parte Pantalone et al 10/869,388 HUGHES 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER DINH, NGOC V2600 Communications2617 Ex Parte Piccionelli et al 11/091,972 STEPHENS 103(a) Greg Piccionelli Piccionelli & Sarno EXAMINER LEE, JUSTIN YETwo criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Wyers v Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed Cir. 2010) (quotations and citations omitted).2625 Ex Parte Glemser et al 10/207,558 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER HANG, VU B3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review3677 Ex Parte Nolan et al 11/431,044 GREENHUT 103(a) BARBARA K. NOLAN EXAMINER SANDY, ROBERT JOHN
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry1648 Ex Parte Neubardt 11/091,089 SCHEINER 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF LEO ZUCKER EXAMINER FOLEY, SHANON A1651 Ex Parte Tyszka et al 11/009,901 PRATS 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREENThus, “[o]bviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011).1656 Ex Parte Huang et al 11/187,394 SCHEINER 103(a) OCCHIUTI ROHLICEK & TSAO, LLP EXAMINER CARLSON, KAREN C1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering1715 Ex Parte Linden et al 10/501,225 ROBERTSON 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY1781 Ex Parte Horiuchi et al 10/537,493 PRATS 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER BADR, HAMID R2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components2884 Ex Parte Hamann et al 11/519,393 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) FLEIT GIBBONS GUTMAN BONGINI & BIANCO P.L. EXAMINER KIM, KIHO3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3742 Ex Parte Sandberg et al 10/693,700 McCARTHY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting DEL CHRISTENSEN SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP
2100 Computer Architecture and Software2158 Ex Parte Hodes 10/788,532 DROESCH 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 ALAN S. HODES EXAMINER HASAN, SYED HAROONOur reviewing courts have “refused to find processes patentable when they merely claimed a mental process standing alone and untied to another category of statutory subject matter even when a practical application was claimed.” In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc); accord CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011).2161 Ex Parte Rabaioli 10/381,808 COURTENAY 103(a) 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER LU, CHARLES EDWARD3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review3632 Ex Parte Sheffield et al 11/945,082 BROWN 103(a) 103(a) Parks IP Law LLC EXAMINER WOOD, KIMBERLY T3685 Ex Parte Bly et al 09/990,911 BARRY 101/112(2) 101/103(a) MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC EXAMINER NILFOROUSH, MOHAMMAD A3693 Ex Parte Subbu et al 10/781,805 LORIN 103(a) 101 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER BORLINGHAUS, JASON M3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3724 Ex Parte Jimenez 10/444,136 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 102(b) WOLFF LAW OFFICE, PLLC EXAMINER LEE, LAURA MICHELLE
EXAMINER AFFIRMED3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)3619 Ex Parte 6325414 et al ELESYS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Requester, Respondent v. AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ 95/001,011 90/008,348 SONG 103(a) 103(a) Patent Owner: BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ Third Party Requester: BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON, & LIONE EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER TO, TOAN CREHEARING DENIED3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)2871 Ex Parte 6373537 et al Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. 90/008,146 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner: MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP Third Party Requester: BRUCE L. LAGERMAN EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER TON, MINH TOAN TEXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)3712 Ex Parte 6,546,924 et al Ex parte ProBatter Sports, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellant 90/010,151 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) 112(1) FOR PATENT OWNER: GRIMES & BATTERSBY, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WOODARD, EMHARDT, MORIARTY MCNETT & HENRY LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER RICCI, JOHN A AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry1618 Ex Parte Abraham 10/995,061 FRANKLIN 103(a) HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN1652 Ex Parte Koeberl et al 10/761,530 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM1653 Ex Parte Consigny et al 11/170,750 ADAMS 112(1) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER FORD, ALLISON M1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering1735 Ex Parte Johansson 10/558,832 PAK 103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P1763 Ex Parte Bernard et al 11/300,995 WARREN 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUY-AI N2100 Computer Architecture and Software2156 Ex Parte Keohane et al 11/186,701 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) IBM CORP (AP) C/O AMY PATTILLO EXAMINER ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S2185 Ex Parte Gold et al 10/684,001 BLANKENSHIP 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CAMPOS, YAIMA2186 Ex Parte Alderegula et al 11/124,745 LUCAS 103(a) IBM (RPS-BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER DUDEK JR, EDWARD J3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3714 Ex Parte Renbarger 10/837,807 PETRAVICK 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER MOSSER, ROBERT E
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1726 Ex Parte Cho et al 11/115,529 SMITH 103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER LEE, CYNTHIA K1765 Ex Parte Kriegel et al 11/119,668 HASTINGS 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER KUGEL, TIMOTHY J1772 Ex Parte Robotti et al 11/064,575 SMITH 102(a)/103(a) BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. EXAMINER KINGAN, TIMOTHY G1775 Ex Parte Muller-Hartmann et al 10/475,840 COLAIANNI 103(a) LEYDIG, VOIT AND MAYER EXAMINER BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW2100 Computer Architecture and Software2165 Ex Parte Betts et al 11/132,648 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R2166 Ex Parte Pauly 10/432,769 HOFF 103(a) WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. EXAMINER SAEED, USMAAN2174 Ex Parte Hackworth 09/862,949 HOFF 103(a) CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP EXAMINER KE, PENG2193 Ex Parte Lutkemeyer 11/029,990 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER NGO, CHUONG D2600 Communications2611 Ex Parte Ozen 10/444,337 DANG 102(e) Zenith Electronics Corporation EXAMINER WANG, TED M3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3765 Ex Parte von Blucher 10/834,776 BAHR 103(a) Cozen O'Connor EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M3775 Ex Parte Schmieding et al 10/357,449 GREENHUT 102(b) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER SCHAPER, MICHAEL T3781 Ex Parte Lummis et al 10/758,459 HORNER 112(2)/103(a) RUSSELL H. WALKER WALKER, McKENZIE & WALKER, P.C. EXAMINER MAI, TRI M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering1722 Ex Parte McLean et al 11/684,669 HASTINGS 102(b) 102(b) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER ROBINSON, CHANCEITY N2100 Computer Architecture and Software2169 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/671,938 ROBERTSON 101/112(2)/103(a) 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER KIM, PAUL
With respect to the judicially created “abstract idea” exception, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently stated that it “does ‘not presume to define ‘abstract’ beyond the recognition that this disqualifying characteristic should exhibit itself so manifestly as to override the broad statutory categories of eligible subject matter and the statutory context that directs primary attention on the patentability criteria of the rest of the Patent Act.’” Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Research Corp. Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
ON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)2608 Ex Parte 5631946 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,492 90/006,679 08/442,112 Per Curiam 103(a) 103(a) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER TROST IV, WILLIAM GEORGEON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)2744 Ex Parte 6067451 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,494 90/006,681 90/007,726 09/161,462 Per Curiam 103(a)/102(b) 102(e)/103(a)/112(1) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER CRAVER, CHARLES R EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER TROST IV, WILLIAM GEORGEON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)2608 Ex Parte 5438611 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,676 08/247,466 Per Curiam 102(b)/103(a) 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE JON REMAND AFFIRMED3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)2608 Ex Parte 5819172 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,493 90/006,680 90/007,735 08/844,957 Per Curiam 102(b)/103(a) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER CRAVER, CHARLES R EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE JON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)2608 Ex Parte 5625670 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/007,723 90/006,678 90/006,491 08/443,430 Per Curiam 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) /112(2) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER TROST IV, WILLIAM GEORGEON REMAND AFFIRMED3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)2608 Ex Parte 5436960 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,533 90/006,675 90/007,731 07/702,939 Per Curiam 103(a)/112(1)/112(2) COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER CRAVER, CHARLES R EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE JON REMAND AFFIRMED-IN-PART3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)2608 Ex Parte 5479472 et al Ex parte NTP, Inc. 90/006,677 07/702,938 102(b)/103(a)/112(1)/112(2) Per Curiam COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER: William H. Wright Sturm & Fix LLP Brian M. Buroker Hunton & Williams LLP COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Novak Druce Deluca & Quigg EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER OEHLING, GEORGE J
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry1611 Ex Parte Krishnan et al 10/980,478 FREDMAN 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER FRAZIER, BARBARA S1617 Ex Parte Cromack et al 10/526,755 FREDMAN 102(b) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER AZPURU, CARLOS A1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering1741 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/940,538 SMITH 103(a) Cantor Colburn LLP-General Motors EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J1774 Ex Parte Patch 10/984,154 SMITH 112(1)/103(a) AKERMAN SENTERFITT EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R1788 Ex Parte Melvin 11/508,518 GUEST 102(b)/103(a) Clifford G. Frayne EXAMINERNORDMEYER, PATRICIA L2100 Computer Architecture and Software2179 Ex Parte Firman 10/624,160 HUGHES 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - SZ EXAMINERTRAN, TUYETLIEN T2600 Communications2611 Ex Parte Vaidyanathan et al 10/040,173 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER KIM, KEVIN2612 Ex Parte Krug et al 11/315,455 DANG 102(b)/103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER MCNALLY, KERRI L3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review3694 Ex Parte Greer et al 10/908,899 MOHANTY 103(a) SMITH RISLEY TEMPEL SANTOS LLC EXAMINER TRAN, HAIREHEARINGGRANTED-IN-PART1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry1632 Ex Parte Adachi et al 10/580,248 ADAMS 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER SGAGIAS, MAGDALENE K
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry1613 Ex Parte Haldar et al 11/290,715 GREEN 103(a) Attn: William J. Davis, Esq. INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS EXAMINER BERRIOS, JENNIFER A1648 Ex Parte Kyle 11/449,829 SCHEINER 103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC EXAMINER LUCAS, ZACHARIAH1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering1726 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/341,355 SMITH 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D1732 Ex Parte Frenzel et al 10/539,781 KATZ 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, COLETTE B1771 Ex Parte Pawlak et al 11/319,093 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY1778 Ex Parte Dal Maso et al 10/994,405 SMITH 103(a) Husch Blackwell LLP Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R1788 Ex Parte Weiner et al 11/089,435 TIMM 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L2100 Computer Architecture and Software2171 Ex Parte MacHeffner 10/915,496 COURTENAY 103(a) MESCHKOW & GRESHAM, P.L.C. EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review3657 Ex Parte Baumgartner et al 10/491,429 SCHAFER 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3765 Ex Parte Westerkamp 11/185,701 McCARTHY 101/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT HA rejection for anticipation-type double patenting requires a “two-way analysis:” two claims do not claim the same invention if one of the claims could be literally infringed without literally infringing the other. See In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) . . . 804, 804.01, 804.02, 1504.063765 Ex Parte Westerkamp et al 11/185,702 McCARTHY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H3767 Ex Parte Johnson et al 12/043,861 6,569,118 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) STEPHEN A GRATTON EXAMINER CARPENTER, WILLIAM R
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1715 Ex Parte Loch et al 10/103,426 WARREN 103(a) 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A1722 Ex Parte Regan et al 11/738,536 SMITH 103(a) 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER EOFF, ANCA1722 Ex Parte Regan et al 11/782,687 SMITH 103(a) 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER EOFF, ANCA1732 Ex Parte McInnes et al 11/526,462 HANLON 103(a) 103(a) LATHROP & GAGE LLP EXAMINER QIAN, YUN2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components2825 Ex Parte Strang 10/673,506 HOFF 103(a) 101 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SIEK, VUTHE2857 Ex Parte Kamdar et al 10/786,980 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) 103(a) General Motors Corporationc/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER LE, JOHN H
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry1618 Ex Parte Velikyan et al 10/552,206 McCOLLUM 103(a) GE HEALTHCARE, INC. EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering1715 Ex Parte DeBiccari et al 11/019,871 TIMM 112(1)/103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A1724 Ex Parte Aigner et al 10/478,751 ROBERTSON 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN1724 Ex Parte Ma et al 10/776,223 WARREN 103(a) SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN1727 Ex Parte Fukuda et al 11/242,908 SMITH 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P1763 Ex Parte Evers 12/166,534 SMITH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA2100 Computer Architecture and Software2128 Ex Parte Walker et al 10/264,876 BARRY 101/102(e) LNG/LSI Joint Customer Number C/O Luedeka, Neely & Graham, P.C. EXAMINER PHAN, THAI Q"[R]egardless of what statutory category ('process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,' 35 U.S.C. § 101) a claim's language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the underlying invention for patenteligibility purposes." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011).2600 Communications2611 Ex Parte Santhoff et al 11/037,786 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Pulse-Link, Inc. EXAMINER ODOM, CURTIS B3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review3657 Ex Parte Borgerding et al 11/362,548 HORNER 103(a) Hildebrand, Christa Norris McLaughlin & Marcus PA EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design3717 Ex Parte Libby et al 10/612,782 KIM 103(a) Mr. Tim F. Williams Dority & Manning, P.A. EXAMINER HARPER, TRAMAR YONG3742 Ex Parte Chenier et al 10/651,949 CALVE 102(b)/103(a) SMART & BIGGAR EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H3779 Ex Parte Dalle et al 10/483,220 ASTORINO 103(a) LEVINE & MANDELBAUM EXAMINER KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN
2625 Ex Parte Benz e...