Source: http://www.ptab.us/2014_07_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2017-06-27 17:24:23
Document Index: 754660866

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§ 132', '§ 41', '§ 41', 'arte 5987863', 'arte 7789909', '§ 41', 'arte 5874001', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 112', 'arte 6653104', 'arte 6', 'arte 7274926']

PTAB.US: July 2014
therasense, schering, continental can, chester bancorp
2156 Ex Parte Curtis et al 12050233 - (D) CHUNG 103 LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE David A. Dagg, Esq. OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE
2156 Ex Parte Carter et al 12125485 - (D) FRAHM 102 IBM RALEIGH IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC LIAO, JASON G
2161 Ex Parte Hamada et al 10543565 - (D) HUME 102 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ACOB, AJITH
Anticipation of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 occurs when each claimed element and the claimed arrangement or combination of those elements is disclosed, inherently or expressly, by a single prior art reference. Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A reference inherently discloses an element of a claim “if that missing characteristic is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373,
1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Therasense, 593 F.3d at 1332 (citing Cont'l Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264,1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
2169 Ex Parte Kar et al 11675392 - (D) BRANCH 112(1)/102(e) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP ROBINSON, GRETA LEE
2442 Ex Parte Boleyn et al 10211047 - (D) DANG 103 Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt ZHANG, SHIRLEY X
The prima facie burden has not been met and the rejection does not adhere to the minimal requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 132 “when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.” Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
3683 Ex Parte Schoen et al 10784719 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M
In regard to the claims that recite the additional steps of computing, monitoring, signaling, notifying, etc., these steps relate to only ordinary functions of a computer and do not confer patent eligibility to the claims.
See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11471289 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A
2164 Ex Parte Zhang et al 12133766 - (D) HOFF 112(2)/103 112(2)/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP CHOI, YUK TING
2166 Ex Parte Peskin 11668368 - (D) WORMMEESTER 112(2)/101 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LIN, SHEW FEN
2649 Ex Parte Dominique et al 11139693 - (D) FRAHM 102(e) 102(e)/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. NGUYEN, HAI V
1715 Ex Parte Hilger et al 10415201 - (D) TIMM 103 Quinn Law Group, PLLC LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY
2156 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11272583 - (D) Per Curiam 103 IBM CORPORATION ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
2465 Ex Parte LEIGH 11554294 - (D) BRANCH 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WYLLIE, CHRISTOPHER T
2468 Ex Parte Flanagan et al 11445103 - (D) HUGHES 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED CHU, WUTCHUNG
2492 Ex Parte Schiller 11799217 - (D) DANG 102(e)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MOORTHY, ARAVIND K
2612 Ex Parte Hunt et al 11570080 - (D) DANG 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP CASCHERA, ANTONIO A
2643 Ex Parte Ahn 11773192 - (D) STRAUSS 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. HTUN, SAN A
2646 Ex Parte Yang et al 11789446 - (D) DANG 103 Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP - Ruckus IQBAL, KHAWAR
2651 Ex Parte Self 11332581 - (D) KINDER 103 ROBERT M. SCHWARTZ, P.A. GAY, SONIA L
2657 Ex Parte Bangalore et al 11646983 - (D) DIXON 102 AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Slusky ROBERTS, SHAUN A
2814 Ex Parte Wong et al 11185031 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP SAYADIAN, HRAYR
3638 Ex Parte Maier-Hunke 11992443 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 Mark P. Stone KIM, SHIN H
3695 Ex Parte Lundquist 11989449 - (D) CHERRY 103 Hemingway & Hansen, LLP OYEBISI, OJO O
3671 Ex parte EXMARK MFG. CO., INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 5987863 et al 09/135,926 90012406 - (D) BROWN 103 JAMES W. MILLER, ATTORNEY Arnold & Porter LLP FETSUGA, ROBERT M original BATSON, VICTOR D
3738 MEDTRONIC, INC. Requester, Respondent v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES AG Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7789909 et al 12/557,458 95001615 - (D) SONG 112(1) EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original WILLSE, DAVID H
porter, caveney
1734 Ex Parte Nagano et al 10488804 - (D) HASTINGS 103 FASSE PATENT ATTORNEYS, P.A. FELTON, AILEEN BAKER
1756 Ex Parte BOITNOTT et al 11669763 - (D) DELMENDO 103 LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES GUENZER ATTN: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH
2163 Ex Parte VENKATESWARAN et al 11559470 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102 McDermott Will & Emery LLP (GTH) BROWN, SHEREE N
2167 Ex Parte Jung et al 11487595 - (D) LEE 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC UDDIN, MOHAMMED R
2814 Ex Parte Mazzochette 11445611 - (D) BUI 103 Cantor Colburn LLP-LSG SAYADIAN, HRAYR
2837 Ex Parte Aas et al 12234345 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RO, BENTSU
2881 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12384478 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE
2884 Ex Parte Kalveram et al 11838950 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 KRIEG DEVAULT/ROCHE IGYARTO, CAROLYN
3742 Ex Parte Daimer 12202957 - (D) GREENHUT 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP NGUYEN, HUNG D
“Of course, the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.” Porter v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 663 F. 3d 1242, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (O’Malley, J., concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part)(internal quotations and citations omitted). The Examiner’s rejections, being unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence, cannot be sustained. In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674, (Fed.Cir.1985) (A preponderance of the evidence must show nonpatentability before the PTO may reject the claims of a patent application).
2166 Ex Parte Maghoul et al 11838850 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/Yahoo! HOSSEINI, REZA
2838 Ex Parte Falk et al 12322897 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 102 ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES, LLC GBLENDE, JEFFREY A
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11241868 - (D) GRIMES 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A
1741 Ex Parte Danielson et al 11652964 - (D) WARREN 103 CORNING INCORPORATED SNELTING, ERIN LYNN
2155 Ex Parte Boydstun et al 11673982 - (D) DIXON 102(e)/103 Siemens Corporation WONG, HUEN
2163 Ex Parte Chang et al 12132783 - (D) COURTENAY 102(e)/103 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. VY, HUNG T
2185 Ex Parte Berger et al 11861814 - (D) FINK 102/103 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION DILLON, SAMUEL A
2624 Ex Parte Ha et al 11411915 - (D) DIXON 103 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) MOORAD, WASEEM
2646 Ex Parte Trujillo 11272291 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP AJAYI, JOEL
2657 Ex Parte Bennett et al 11932250 - (D) HUGHES 112(1)/112(2) 103 Holland & Knight LLP LERNER, MARTIN
2673 Ex Parte Li et al 12151803 - (D) POLLOCK 103 InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely ZIMMERMAN, MARK K
2837 Ex Parte Kim et al 12212021 - (D) OWENS 102(e)/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL CHAN, KAWING
2883 Ex Parte Minkovich et al 11989289 - (D) GARRIS 103 ROSENBERG, KLEIN & LEE TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH
2899 Ex Parte Di Cioccio et al 10519406 - (D) HANLON 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. SNOW, COLLEEN ERIN
3632 Ex Parte Munn et al 12482097 - (D) GREENHUT 103 ULMER & BERNE, LLP DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY
1724 Ex parte MATRIX ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 5874001 et al 08/710,091 90009965 - (D) PAK 102/103 Harter Secrest & Emery LLP JOHNSON, JERRY D original HOEY, BETSEY MORRISON
playtex, robertson
1716 Ex Parte Dhindsa et al 11363703 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 MPG, LLP and Lam Research Corp. ALEJANDRO MULERO, LUZ L
2155 Ex Parte Cattell et al 11393163 - (D) MEDLOCK 102(e)/103 MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP HOFFLER, RAHEEM
2184 Ex Parte Circello 12032286 - (D) DIXON 103 FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. ROCHE, JOHN B
2462 Ex Parte Ngo 10227201 - (D) CHUNG 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MURPHY, RHONDA L
2645 Ex Parte Kettlewell et al 10911378 - (D) BAHR 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H
2872 Ex Parte Wagener et al 12222754 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 WALTER OTTESEN CHAPEL, DEREK S
2885 Ex Parte Van As et al 12441588 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 HILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MACCHIAROLO, LEAH SIMONE
3725 Ex Parte Brößke et al 12095566 - (D) HILL 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) PROSKAUER ROSE LLP EKIERT, TERESA M
Although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that the term “substantially” is a word that is used as a modifier to imply “approximately” rather than “precisely,” nonetheless, we agree with Appellants that a blank bent at a 90 degree angle does not constitute a “substantially” flat blank. See App. Br. 5; see also Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Proctor and Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, Roper’s bent blank that is introduced between coreless halves 31, 32 of a die is simply not “substantially flat” as recited in claim 1.
3746 Ex Parte Frank et al 11256717 - (D) SMEGAL 103 Kelly, Holt & Christenson, P.L.L.C. COMLEY, ALEXANDER BRYANT
When a claim requires two separate elements, using one element construed as performing two separate functions will not suffice to meet the terms of the claim. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir.
3781 Ex Parte Blake 11815943 - (D) WOODS 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON ALLEN, JEFFREY R
1644 Ex Parte Swaak 11811665 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1) 112(1)/112(2) TRASKBRITT, P.C. EWOLDT, GERALD R
2621 Ex Parte HOPE 11463739 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 102(e)/103 SNYDER, CLARK, LESCH & CHUNG, LLP MATTHEWS, ANDRE L
3635 Ex Parte Fortney et al 11805921 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 103 GRIGGS BERGEN LLP FERENCE, JAMES M
1633 Ex Parte Stopek 12298602 - (D) PAULRAJ 102 Covidien LP LONG, SCOTT
1747 Ex Parte Bondeson et al 11267450 - (D) WARREN 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP (NORDSON) DYE, ROBERT C
1767 Ex Parte Li 12156897 - (D) HANLON 112(1)/103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C
2456 Ex Parte Chou 11166526 - (D) HILL 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC C/O CPA Global MAI, KEVIN S
2464 Ex Parte Mahany et al 11419565 - (D) DANG 102(e)/103 BGL/Broadcom NGUYEN, PHUONGCHAU BA
2642 Ex Parte Phan-Anh 11691417 - (D) JEFFERY 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L
2694 Ex Parte Ritter et al 11222134 - (D) NEW 103 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD HORNER, JONATHAN R
3681 Ex Parte Nicholson 12080184 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP CHAMPAGNE, DONALD
3746 Ex Parte Cromm et al 11977629 - (D) HOELTER 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB KRAMER, DEVON C
3772 Ex Parte Chen et al 12255840 - (D) SMEGAL 103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC NELSON, KERI JESSICA
2197 Ex Parte Clemm et al 11139403 - (D) EVANS 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG COYER, RYAN D
KSR, patel
2878 Ex Parte Hoffman 12258664 - (D) NAGUMO 103 U S ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY LEGASSE JR, FRANCIS M
3626 Ex Parte Angell et al 12135960 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. NGUYEN, TRAN N
3742 Ex Parte Haverstock 12157761 - (D) BROWN 103 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP TRAN, THIEN S
3731 Ex Parte Boyden et al 11526192 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE SZPIRA, JULIE ANN
1618 Ex Parte Barenholz et al 10314487 - (D) FREDMAN 103 PASTERNAK PATENT LAW WESTERBERG, NISSA M
This explicit analysis by the Examiner provides “an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. This is also consistent with the recent non-precedential decision in In re Patel, 2014 WL 3454231 *4 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“a rejection based on ranges approaching each other might well be appropriate where there is a teaching in the prior art that the end points of the prior art range are approximate, or can be flexibly applied”).
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11503501 - (D) GRIMES 103 obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A
1718 Ex Parte Eriksson et al 11632312 - (D) WARREN 103 VENABLE LLP TUROCY, DAVID P
1787 Ex Parte Wu et al 12331591 - (D) SMITH 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. FUNG, CHING-YIU
2847 Ex Parte TSUDA et al 12419610 - (D) GARRIS 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. NGUYEN, CHAU N
2883 Ex Parte Digiovanni et al 12525138 - (D) KATZ 103 OFS Fltel, LLC (FORMERLY FURUKAWA ELECTRIC NORTH AMERICA, INC.) TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH
kemco, harris2, medical instrumentation
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11516689 - (D) GRIMES 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A
“Use of the term ‘means’ in a claim limitation creates a presumption that section 112, paragraph 6 has been invoked, but that presumption may be rebutted if the properly construed claim limitation itself recites sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed function.” Kemco Sales, 208 F.3d at 1361. In this case, claims 1 and 49 use the term “means” and recite no structures to perform the claimed functions. We therefore conclude that the claims invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Section 112, paragraph 6 provides that a patentee [or applicant] may define the structure for performing a particular function generically through the use of a means expression, provided that it discloses specific structure(s) corresponding to that means in the patent specification. . . . As such, [the court has] referred to section 112, paragraph 6 as embodying a statutory quid pro quo. . . . If a patentee [or applicant] fails to satisfy the bargain because of a failure to disclose adequate structure, the claim will be rendered . . . indefinite under section 112, paragraph 2. Id. at 1360-61. The rules that “structure corresponding to the claimed function must be disclosed in the specification with clear linkage between the structure and the claimed function serve worthy goals. Such rules are intended to produce certainty in result.” Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “A computer-implemented means-plus-function term is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm.” Harris Corp., 417 F.3d at 1253.
2448 Ex Parte Hjelm 12118849 - (D) CALVE 103 Leffler Intellectual Property Law, PLLC VU, VIET DUY
2618 Ex Parte Kerofsky 11293066 - (D) CURCURI, 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/103 CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP WANG, JIN CHENG
2427 Ex Parte Bartolome 12039988 - (D) CHUNG 103 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES KURIEN, CHRISTEN A
3633 Ex Parte Kiefel et al 12066115 - (D) GOODSON 103 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. HIJAZ, OMAR F
2164 Ex Parte Velusamy 11935261 - (D) KOHUT 103 VERIZON MAHMOOD, REZWANUL
2186 Ex Parte Ahluwalia et al 11223559 - (D) NEW 103 Lieberman & Brandsdorfer, LLC ALSIP, MICHAEL
2443 Ex Parte Schofield et al 11469395 - (D) WEINSCHENK 102/103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. MURRAY, DANIEL C
2487 Ex Parte Subramanian et al 10892897 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation CZEKAJ, DAVID J
2874 Ex Parte Gill et al 11376491 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 FLETCHER YODER (LUCENT) TRAN, HOANG Q
2167 Ex Parte McGowan et al 11303990 - (D) DESHPANDE 102(e)/103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. UDDIN, MOHAMMED R
1648 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Requester and Respondent v. X IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6653104 et al 09/986,119 95000062 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP Third-Party Requester: Woodcock Washburn LLP TURNER, SHARON L original PARK, HANKYEL
3713 Ex parte WALKER DIGITAL, LLC Ex Parte 6,110,041 et al 08/775,388 90012333 - (D) KOHUT 102(e)/103 FAHMI, SELLERS, EMBERT & DAVITZ Ascenda Law Group, PC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Callie A. Pendergrass c/o Erise IP, P.A. SAGER, MARK ALAN original PARADISO, JOHN ROGER
reiffin, vas-cath, union oil, lockwood, gosteli, edwards, lukach, ariad
2157 Ex Parte Sundaresan et al 11834817 - (D) MORGAN 103 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T
3653 Ex Parte VOLLM et al 11740573 - (D) BROWNE 112(2)/102/103 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP BUTLER, MICHAEL E
1673 Ex Parte Chang et al 12072578 - (D) MILLS 112(1)/102 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. MAIER, LEIGH C
The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.” Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To that end, to satisfy the written description requirement, the inventor “must also convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations” (emphasis in original). Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is not necessary for the specification to describe the claimed invention ipsissimis verbis; all that is required is that it reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563-64; In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52 (CCPA 1978).
When an Applicant claims a class, the Applicant “must describe that class in order to meet the description requirement of the statute.” In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 968 (CCPA 1971). “[W]hile the description requirement does not demand any particular form of disclosure …, or that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec verba, a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.” Ariad Pharms, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). “[T]he specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1349. “[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries.” Id.
Union Oil of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 54 USPQ2d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2163.05
Edwards, In re, 568 F.2d 1349, 196 USPQ 465 (CCPA 1978) 2138.05
Lukach, In re, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) 211.05 , 2152.02(b) , 2163 , 2163.05
Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc) 2161 , 2181
1747 Ex Parte Neubauer et al 12201090 - (D) McGRAW 103 ALVIN T. ROCKHILL FISCHER, JUSTIN R
2828 Ex Parte Pomeranz 12175302 - (D) KAISER 103 BAE SYSTEMS CARTER, MICHAEL W
2618 HTC CORP. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. IPCOM GMBH Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7274926 et al 10/089,623 95001210 - (D) CHEN 103/314(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Third Party Requester: PERKINS COIE LLP original Kenyon & Kenyon LLP FOSTER, ROLAND G original CHAN, RICHARD
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11262499 - (D) GRIMES 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11286133 - (D) GRIMES 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A
2196 Ex Parte Crisan et al 10407536 - (D) ADAMS 103 KONRAD RAYNES DAVDA & VICTOR, LLP ATTN: IBM54 CAO, DIEM K
2493 Ex Parte Brown 11610156 - (D) BAHR 103 Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. SHAW, PETER C
However, this menu of options does not satisfy the requirements in claims 1 and 13 for both a presentation of a query and a presentation of its predetermined responses. See, e.g., Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in infringement context, a single conveyor held not to meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).
3682 Ex Parte Frank et al 11395088 - (D) MOHANTY 103 AT&T Legal Department - H&C BROWN, ALVIN L
2167 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11327644 - (D) DESHPANDE 102(e) 102(e)/103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP ALLEN, NICHOLAS E
2858 Ex Parte Holmquist et al 11302923 - (D) DELMENDO 102(e) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. ASSOUAD, PATRICK J
3769 Ex Parte Ferren et al 11171649 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE CRANDALL, LYNSEY P
1727 Ex Parte Han et al 11875775 - (D) WILSON 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP ENIN-OKUT, EDU E
2111 Ex Parte Bukris 12359761 - (D) McMILLIN 112(2)/102 MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & DUNLEAVY, P.C. KIM, KENNETH S
2426 Ex Parte LaJoie et al 12432871 - (D) KINDER 102(e)/103 STRAUB & POKOTYLO PENG, HSIUNGFE
2644 Ex Parte Son et al 10834806 - (D) SHIANG 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. PHUONG, DAI
3626 Ex Parte Maekawa 10653193 - (D) LORIN 103 Cheng Law Group, PLLC PORTER, RACHEL L
3635 Ex Parte BURGER et al 11959542 - (D) ZECHER 103 MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC - GM WENDELL, MARK R
3727 Ex Parte Dilger et al 11250792 - (D) BAHR 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. MULLER, BRYAN R
therasense, schering, continental can, chester ban...
reiffin, vas-cath, union oil, lockwood, gosteli, e...
alice, warner
aevoe, motorola
geisler, gurley
uship, ekchian
santarus, omega
REVERSED Tech Center 3700 Mechanic...
REVERSED Tech Center 3600 Transpor...
nelson, crown packaging
REVERSED Tech Center 1700 Chemica...