Please use your    Go Back Key Image     key to return to the previous page.

 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print Table of Contents 1358 OG 325 

OFFICIAL GAZETTE of the UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

September 28, 2010 Volume 1358 Number 4

CONTENTS

 Patent and Trademark Office NoticesPage 
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Information1358 OG 326
Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable1358 OG 329
Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee1358 OG 330
Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a Late Maintenance Fee from 08/30/20101358 OG 358
Reissue Applications Filed1358 OG 359
Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed1358 OG 360
Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed1358 OG 362
Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations Due to Failure to Renew1358 OG 363
Service by Publication1358 OG 370
37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication1358 OG 371
Examination Guidelines Update: Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex1358 OG 372
Notice Regarding the Elimination of the Fee for Petitions to Make Special Filed Under the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Programs1358 OG 405
Reclassification Alert Report1358 OG 407
Errata1358 OG 409
Erratum1358 OG 412
Certificates of Correction1358 OG 414
Summary of Final Decisions Issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board1358 OG 420

Mailing and Hand Carry Addresses for Mail to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Reference Collections of U.S. Patents Available for Public Use in Patent Depository Libraries
Patent Technology Centers
Subscription/Copy Information



COPIES OF PATENTS are furnished by the Patent and Trademark Office at $3.00 each; PLANT PATENTS in color, $15.00 each; copies of TRADEMARKS at $3.00 each. Address orders to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA., 22313-1450, or click here for online ordering.


Printing by U.S.P.T.O. in electronic form is authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 10(a)3


Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 326 

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Information
		  Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Information
 
   For information concerning PCT member countries, see the notice
appearing in the Official Gazette at 1350 O.G. 73, on January 12, 2010.
 
   For information on subject matter under Rule 39 that a particular
International Searching Authority will not search, see Annex D of the PCT
Applicants' Guide.
 
European Patent Office as Searching and Examining Authority
 
   The European Patent Office (EPO) may act as the International Searching
Authority (ISA) for an international application filed with the	United
States Receiving Office or the International Bureau (IB) as Receiving
Office where at least one of the applicants is either a national or
resident of the United States of America. However, the EPO is no longer
a competent ISA, within the meaning of PCT Article 16(3), for
international applications filed by U.S. residents or nationals on or
after March 1, 2002, in the USPTO or IB as a Receiving Office, and where
the application contains one or more claims directed to the field of
business methods. For the definition of what the EPO considers to be
precluded subject matter in the field of business methods, applicants
should see the "Notice from the President of the European Patent
Office", dated November 26, 2001, and which was published as Annex A in
the "Notice Concerning EPO Competence to Act as PCT Authority" in
the Official Gazette at 1255 O.G. 878, on February 19, 2002.
 
   The European Patent Office may act as the International Preliminary
Examining Authority (IPEA) for an international application filed in the
United States Receiving Office or the International Bureau as Receiving
Office where at least one of the applicants is either a national or
resident of the United States of America, provided that the European
Patent Office acted as the International Searching Authority. However,
the EPO is no longer a competent IPEA, within the meaning of PCT Article
32(3), for international applications filed by U.S. residents or nationals
in the USPTO or IB as a Receiving Office where the corresponding demand is
filed with the EPO on or after March 1, 2002, and where the application
contains one or more claims directed to the field of business methods.
 
   The search fee of the European Patent Office was decreased, effective
September 15, 2010, and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1357 O.G.
135, on August 17, 2010.
 
Korean Intellectual Property Office as Searching and Examining Authority
 
   For use of the Korean Intellectual Property Office as an International
Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority for
international applications filed in the United States Receiving Office,
see the notice appearing in the Official Gazette at 1302 O.G. 1261 on
January 17, 2006.
 
   The search fee of the Korean Intellectual Property Office was increased,
effective January 1, 2010, and was announced in the Official Gazette at
1350 O.G. 72, on January 12, 2010.
 
Australian Patent Office as Searching and Examining Authority
 
   The Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) may act as the International
Searching Authority (ISA) for an international application filed with the
United States Receiving Office or the International Bureau (IB) as
Receiving Office where at least one of the applicants is either a national
or resident of the United States of America. However, IP Australia is not a
competent ISA, within the meaning of PCT Artical 16(3), for international
applications filed by U.S. residents or nationals in the USPTO or IB as a
Receiving Office, and where the application contains one or more claims
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 327 

directed to the field of business methods or mechanical inventions.
 
   IP Australia may act as the International Preliminary Examining
Authority (IPEA) for an international application filed in the United
States Receiving Office or the International Bureau as Receiving Office
where at least one of the applicants is either a national or resident of
the United States of America, provided that IP Australia acted as the
International Searching Authority. However, IP Australia is not a competent
IPEA, within the meaning of PCT Article 32(3), for international
applications filed by U.S. residents or nationals in the USPTO or IB as a
Receiving Office where the corresponding demand is filed with IP Australia
and where the application contains one or more claims directed to the
fields of business methods or mechanical engineering or analogous fields of
technology as defined by specified areas of the International Patent
Classification System, as indicated in Annex A to the agreement between the
USPTO and IP Australia. See the notice appearing in the Official Gazette
at 1337 O.G. 261 on December 23, 2008.
 
   For use of IP Australia as an International Searching Authority and
International Preliminary Examining Authority for international
applications filed in the United States Receiving Office, see the notice
appearing in the Official Gazette at 1337 O.G. 265 on December 23, 2008.
 
   The search fee of IP Australia was increased, effective August 1, 2010,
and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1357 O.G. 135, on August 17,
2010.
 
Fees
 
   The transmittal fee and search fees for the USPTO were changed,
effective January 12, 2009, and were announced in the Federal Register on
November 12, 2008. The fee for filing a request for the restoration of the
right of priority was established, effective November 9, 2007, and was
announced in the Federal Register on September 10, 2007.
 
   International filing fees were decreased, effective September 1, 2010, and
were announced in the Official Gazette at 1357 O.G. 135, on August 17, 2010.
 
   The schedule of PCT fees (in U.S. dollars), as of September 15, 2010, is
as follows:
 
International Application (PCT Chapter I) fees:
 
   Transmittal fee                                                  $240.00
 
   Search fee
 
      U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as
      International Searching Authority (ISA)
         - Search fee 						  $2,080.00
         - Supplemental search fee, per additional
            invention (payable only upon invitation)              $2,080.00
 
      European Patent Office as ISA                               $2,185.00
 
      Korean Intellectual Property Office as ISA
	 - for international applications filed in English	  $1,092.00
 
      IP Australia as ISA					  $1,605.00
 
   International fees
 
      International filing fee                                    $1,147.00
      International filing fee-filed in paper
         with PCT EASY zip file or
         electronically without PCT EASY zip file		  $1,061.00
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 328 

      International filing fee-filed
         electronically with PCT EASY zip files			    $974.00
      Supplemental fee for each page over 30                         $13.00
 
   Restoration of Priority
 
      Filing a request for the restoration of the
      right of priority under § 1.452				  $1,410.00
 
   International Application (PCT Chapter II) fees associated
   with filing a Demand for Preliminary Examination:
 
      Handling fee                                                  $195.00
      Handling fee-90% reduction, if applicants meet criteria
      specified at:
        http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/fees/fee_reduction.pdf	     $19.50
      Preliminary Examination Fee
         USPTO as International Preliminary
         Examining Authority (IPEA)
            - USPTO was ISA in PCT Chapter I                        $600.00
	    - USPTO was not ISA in PCT Chapter I                    $750.00
	    - Additional preliminary examination fee,
              per additional invention
              (payable only upon invitation) 			    $600.00
 
   U.S. National Stage fees (for international applications entering
the U.S. national phase under 35 U.S.C. 371) can be found on the USPTO's
Web site (www.uspto.gov).
 
August 12, 2010  	      	                            DAVID J. KAPPOS
		  			    Under Secretary of Commerce for
				  Intellectual Property and Director of the
				  United States Patent and Trademark Office
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 329 

Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable
  		      Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable
 
   Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 1.362(d) provides
that maintenance fees may be paid without surcharge for the six-month
period beginning 3, 7, and 11 years after the date of issue of patents
based on applications filed on or after Dec. 12, 1980. An additional
six-month grace period is provided by 35 U.S.C. 41(b) and 37 CFR 1.362(e)
for payment of the maintenance fee with the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR
1.20(h), as amended effective Dec. 16, 1991. If the maintenance fee is
not paid in the patent requiring such payment the patent will expire on
the 4th, 8th, or 12th anniversary of the grant.
 
   Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on Sep. 18, 2007
for which maintenance fees due at 3 years and six months may now be paid.
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
 
   	Utility Patents 7,269,855 through 7,272,859
	Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
 
   Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on Sep. 16, 2003
for which maintenance fees due at 7 years and six months may now be paid.
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
 
      	Utility Patents 6,618,859 through 6,622,308
   	Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
 
   Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on Sep. 14, 1999
for which maintenance fees due at 11 years and six months may now be paid.
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
 
	Utility Patents 5,950,234 through 5,953,748
        Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
 
   No maintenance fees are required for design or plant patents.
 
   Payments of maintenance fees in patents may be submitted electronically
over the Internet at www.uspto.gov. Click on the "Site Index" link at the
top of the homepage (www.uspto.gov), and then scroll down and click on the
"Maintenance Fees" link for more information.
 
   Payments of maintenance fees in patents not submitted electronically
over the Internet should be mailed to "United States Patent and Trademark
Office, P.O. Box 979070, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000".
 
  Correspondence related to maintenance fees other than payments of
maintenance fees in patents is not to be mailed to P.O. Box 979070,
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, but must be mailed to "Mail Stop M
Correspondence, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O.
Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450".
 
   Patent owners must establish small entity status according to 37 CFR
1.27 if they have not done so and if they wish to pay the small entity
amount.
 
   The current amounts of the maintenance fees due at 3 years and six
months, 7 years and six months, and 11 years and six months are set forth
in the most recently amended provisions in 37 CFR 1.20(e)-(g). To obtain
the current maintenance fee amounts, please call the USPTO Contact Center
at (800)-786-9199 or see the current USPTO fee schedule posted on the USPTO
Internet web site. At the top of the USPTO homepage at www.uspto.gov, click
on the "Site Index" link and then scroll down and click on the "Fees,
USPTO" link to find the current USPTO fee schedule.
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 330 

Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee
			Notice of Expiration of Patents
		     Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee
 
   35 U.S.C. 41 and 37 CFR 1.362(g) provide that if the required
maintenance fee and any applicable surcharge are not paid in a patent
requiring such payment, the patent will expire at the end of the 4th, 8th
or 12th anniversary of the grant of the patent depending on the first
maintenance fee which was not paid.
   According to the records of the Office, the patents listed below have
expired due to failure to pay the required maintenance fee and any
applicable surcharge.
 
		   PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON August 11, 2010
		    DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
 
Patent  	                Application                         Issue
Number          	           Number                            Date
 
5,790,980                       08/792,641                       08/11/98
5,790,992                       08/623,532                       08/11/98
5,790,993                       08/924,896                       08/11/98
5,790,995                       08/872,267                       08/11/98
5,791,003                       08/666,841                       08/11/98
5,791,018                       08/754,616                       08/11/98
5,791,024                       08/833,543                       08/11/98
5,791,051                       08/746,013                       08/11/98
5,791,055                       08/625,086                       08/11/98
5,791,067                       08/786,825                       08/11/98
5,791,076                       08/725,357                       08/11/98
5,791,081                       08/888,257                       08/11/98
5,791,085                       08/904,818                       08/11/98
5,791,088                       08/738,209                       08/11/98
5,791,090                       08/155,010                       08/11/98
5,791,094                       08/780,272                       08/11/98
5,791,101                       08/661,873                       08/11/98
5,791,110                       08/792,175                       08/11/98
5,791,113                       08/673,259                       08/11/98
5,791,115                       08/724,995                       08/11/98
5,791,124                       08/555,328                       08/11/98
5,791,127                       08/742,864                       08/11/98
5,791,130                       08/707,590                       08/11/98
5,791,131                       08/702,226                       08/11/98
5,791,139                       08/393,841                       08/11/98
5,791,144                       08/854,077                       08/11/98
5,791,153                       08/740,868                       08/11/98
5,791,159                       08/688,598                       08/11/98
5,791,164                       08/664,589                       08/11/98
5,791,169                       08/918,128                       08/11/98
5,791,177                       08/574,276                       08/11/98
5,791,185                       08/403,732                       08/11/98
5,791,188                       08/769,163                       08/11/98
5,791,190                       08/694,286                       08/11/98
5,791,196                       08/605,188                       08/11/98
5,791,200                       08/763,274                       08/11/98
5,791,204                       08/592,517                       08/11/98
5,791,213                       08/747,465                       08/11/98
5,791,219                       08/531,954                       08/11/98
5,791,220                       08/732,858                       08/11/98
5,791,222                       08/432,634                       08/11/98
5,791,223                       08/823,827                       08/11/98
5,791,226                       08/762,987                       08/11/98
5,791,229                       08/751,199                       08/11/98
5,791,241                       08/703,210                       08/11/98
5,791,245                       08/765,810                       08/11/98
5,791,249                       08/825,252                       08/11/98
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 331 

5,791,250                       08/889,255                       08/11/98
5,791,260                       08/670,241                       08/11/98
5,791,261                       08/735,802                       08/11/98
5,791,274                       08/752,321                       08/11/98
5,791,286                       08/608,668                       08/11/98
5,791,295                       08/679,095                       08/11/98
5,791,302                       08/727,566                       08/11/98
5,791,304                       08/800,027                       08/11/98
5,791,305                       08/694,429                       08/11/98
5,791,310                       08/703,051                       08/11/98
5,791,317                       08/892,691                       08/11/98
5,791,327                       08/526,538                       08/11/98
5,791,331                       08/730,358                       08/11/98
5,791,340                       08/743,452                       08/11/98
5,791,346                       08/670,321                       08/11/98
5,791,348                       08/592,611                       08/11/98
5,791,350                       08/482,611                       08/11/98
5,791,354                       08/779,320                       08/11/98
5,791,358                       08/752,101                       08/11/98
5,791,360                       08/482,644                       08/11/98
5,791,365                       08/865,859                       08/11/98
5,791,389                       08/828,306                       08/11/98
5,791,390                       08/796,229                       08/11/98
5,791,391                       08/664,347                       08/11/98
5,791,396                       08/778,484                       08/11/98
5,791,398                       08/674,531                       08/11/98
5,791,402                       08/869,573                       08/11/98
5,791,415                       08/816,665                       08/11/98
5,791,428                       08/538,538                       08/11/98
5,791,430                       08/689,364                       08/11/98
5,791,434                       08/752,608                       08/11/98
5,791,443                       08/639,094                       08/11/98
5,791,445                       08/870,796                       08/11/98
5,791,462                       08/719,648                       08/11/98
5,791,465                       08/792,757                       08/11/98
5,791,472                       08/648,989                       08/11/98
5,791,480                       08/704,151                       08/11/98
5,791,483                       08/221,624                       08/11/98
5,791,484                       08/498,767                       08/11/98
5,791,487                       08/683,660                       08/11/98
5,791,489                       08/642,306                       08/11/98
5,791,516                       08/538,569                       08/11/98
5,791,521                       08/661,553                       08/11/98
5,791,525                       08/783,877                       08/11/98
5,791,526                       08/666,349                       08/11/98
5,791,530                       08/906,422                       08/11/98
5,791,532                       08/809,279                       08/11/98
5,791,535                       08/556,032                       08/11/98
5,791,542                       08/825,263                       08/11/98
5,791,545                       08/681,393                       08/11/98
5,791,547                       08/942,388                       08/11/98
5,791,552                       08/448,757                       08/11/98
5,791,556                       08/879,671                       08/11/98
5,791,573                       08/791,902                       08/11/98
5,791,574                       08/819,098                       08/11/98
5,791,581                       08/757,913                       08/11/98
5,791,592                       08/374,931                       08/11/98
5,791,599                       08/504,056                       08/11/98
5,791,604                       08/791,817                       08/11/98
5,791,606                       08/685,985                       08/11/98
5,791,607                       08/800,724                       08/11/98
5,791,617                       08/738,198                       08/11/98
5,791,618                       08/758,237                       08/11/98
5,791,622                       08/674,538                       08/11/98
5,791,628                       08/723,411                       08/11/98
5,791,631                       08/562,018                       08/11/98
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 332 

5,791,642                       08/754,259                       08/11/98
5,791,651                       08/827,218                       08/11/98
5,791,655                       08/926,292                       08/11/98
5,791,659                       08/912,861                       08/11/98
5,791,661                       08/735,674                       08/11/98
5,791,663                       08/740,497                       08/11/98
5,791,665                       08/677,711                       08/11/98
5,791,673                       08/651,581                       08/11/98
5,791,675                       08/610,057                       08/11/98
5,791,677                       08/639,116                       08/11/98
5,791,685                       08/803,477                       08/11/98
5,791,686                       08/611,995                       08/11/98
5,791,689                       08/470,223                       08/11/98
5,791,695                       08/424,724                       08/11/98
5,791,696                       08/736,289                       08/11/98
5,791,701                       08/696,309                       08/11/98
5,791,707                       08/704,385                       08/11/98
5,791,709                       08/713,037                       08/11/98
5,791,710                       08/780,693                       08/11/98
5,791,713                       08/686,554                       08/11/98
5,791,716                       08/652,000                       08/11/98
5,791,724                       08/743,030                       08/11/98
5,791,729                       08/916,483                       08/11/98
5,791,731                       08/821,220                       08/11/98
5,791,732                       08/858,889                       08/11/98
5,791,735                       08/680,814                       08/11/98
5,791,743                       08/746,542                       08/11/98
5,791,751                       08/655,975                       08/11/98
5,791,754                       08/783,252                       08/11/98
5,791,756                       08/697,930                       08/11/98
5,791,761                       08/674,099                       08/11/98
5,791,772                       08/784,028                       08/11/98
5,791,774                       08/717,808                       08/11/98
5,791,778                       08/767,524                       08/11/98
5,791,781                       08/741,711                       08/11/98
5,791,784                       08/618,971                       08/11/98
5,791,793                       08/860,971                       08/11/98
5,791,794                       08/776,252                       08/11/98
5,791,821                       08/812,874                       08/11/98
5,791,825                       08/725,447                       08/11/98
5,791,833                       08/365,906                       08/11/98
5,791,835                       08/604,575                       08/11/98
5,791,844                       08/735,518                       08/11/98
5,791,853                       08/859,828                       08/11/98
5,791,874                       08/786,870                       08/11/98
5,791,875                       08/710,129                       08/11/98
5,791,887                       08/734,415                       08/11/98
5,791,889                       08/644,609                       08/11/98
5,791,896                       08/765,233                       08/11/98
5,791,903                       08/840,426                       08/11/98
5,791,908                       08/678,282                       08/11/98
5,791,915                       08/621,311                       08/11/98
5,791,934                       08/656,565                       08/11/98
5,791,935                       08/674,602                       08/11/98
5,791,943                       08/562,373                       08/11/98
5,791,946                       08/586,189                       08/11/98
5,791,947                       08/476,115                       08/11/98
5,791,948                       08/888,181                       08/11/98
5,791,950                       08/759,601                       08/11/98
5,791,951                       08/799,710                       08/11/98
5,791,954                       08/881,475                       08/11/98
5,791,960                       08/755,658                       08/11/98
5,791,966                       08/598,816                       08/11/98
5,791,974                       08/795,369                       08/11/98
5,791,976                       08/753,915                       08/11/98
5,791,983                       08/546,338                       08/11/98
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 333 

5,791,992                       08/690,517                       08/11/98
5,791,997                       08/738,270                       08/11/98
5,792,003                       08/699,505                       08/11/98
5,792,004                       08/596,940                       08/11/98
5,792,005                       08/706,802                       08/11/98
5,792,010                       08/640,127                       08/11/98
5,792,020                       08/805,998                       08/11/98
5,792,021                       08/661,558                       08/11/98
5,792,025                       08/763,127                       08/11/98
5,792,029                       08/604,510                       08/11/98
5,792,031                       08/901,227                       08/11/98
5,792,038                       08/648,503                       08/11/98
5,792,050                       08/615,762                       08/11/98
5,792,053                       08/818,912                       08/11/98
5,792,057                       08/979,394                       08/11/98
5,792,063                       08/834,664                       08/11/98
5,792,067                       08/615,094                       08/11/98
5,792,068                       08/157,737                       08/11/98
5,792,081                       08/544,714                       08/11/98
5,792,082                       08/662,703                       08/11/98
5,792,085                       08/661,822                       08/11/98
5,792,087                       08/740,494                       08/11/98
5,792,095                       08/673,975                       08/11/98
5,792,096                       08/422,118                       08/11/98
5,792,102                       08/687,464                       08/11/98
5,792,112                       08/546,281                       08/11/98
5,792,114                       08/766,988                       08/11/98
5,792,118                       08/764,061                       08/11/98
5,792,130                       08/646,332                       08/11/98
5,792,146                       08/623,662                       08/11/98
5,792,151                       08/590,786                       08/11/98
5,792,161                       08/666,358                       08/11/98
5,792,163                       08/679,094                       08/11/98
5,792,199                       08/900,083                       08/11/98
5,792,201                       08/749,579                       08/11/98
5,792,213                       08/559,469                       08/11/98
5,792,221                       08/755,628                       08/11/98
5,792,224                       08/789,309                       08/11/98
5,792,228                       08/728,458                       08/11/98
5,792,229                       08/877,197                       08/11/98
5,792,233                       08/560,796                       08/11/98
5,792,247                       08/638,421                       08/11/98
5,792,256                       08/719,126                       08/11/98
5,792,265                       08/583,074                       08/11/98
5,792,266                       08/693,508                       08/11/98
5,792,274                       08/747,898                       08/11/98
5,792,275                       08/467,658                       08/11/98
5,792,289                       08/624,515                       08/11/98
5,792,290                       08/707,459                       08/11/98
5,792,294                       08/559,357                       08/11/98
5,792,301                       08/910,935                       08/11/98
5,792,312                       08/662,581                       08/11/98
5,792,317                       08/597,828                       08/11/98
5,792,320                       08/725,413                       08/11/98
5,792,321                       08/546,548                       08/11/98
5,792,325                       08/708,516                       08/11/98
5,792,334                       08/787,109                       08/11/98
5,792,342                       08/606,636                       08/11/98
5,792,344                       08/742,793                       08/11/98
5,792,348                       08/728,260                       08/11/98
5,792,353                       08/756,475                       08/11/98
5,792,355                       08/529,178                       08/11/98
5,792,371                       08/701,762                       08/11/98
5,792,376                       08/580,824                       08/11/98
5,792,377                       08/460,281                       08/11/98
5,792,378                       08/691,782                       08/11/98
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 334 

5,792,379                       08/825,074                       08/11/98
5,792,381                       08/486,992                       08/11/98
5,792,382                       08/486,994                       08/11/98
5,792,395                       08/406,868                       08/11/98
5,792,400                       08/538,637                       08/11/98
5,792,401                       08/653,886                       08/11/98
5,792,402                       08/815,543                       08/11/98
5,792,419                       08/825,408                       08/11/98
5,792,420                       08/855,309                       08/11/98
5,792,422                       08/771,046                       08/11/98
5,792,423                       08/400,984                       08/11/98
5,792,428                       08/650,326                       08/11/98
5,792,439                       08/746,365                       08/11/98
5,792,443                       08/708,318                       08/11/98
5,792,446                       08/802,316                       08/11/98
5,792,448                       08/866,041                       08/11/98
5,792,450                       08/405,913                       08/11/98
5,792,456                       08/487,860                       08/11/98
5,792,466                       08/766,703                       08/11/98
5,792,471                       08/635,312                       08/11/98
5,792,486                       08/832,513                       08/11/98
5,792,489                       08/567,891                       08/11/98
5,792,494                       08/693,807                       08/11/98
5,792,498                       08/804,527                       08/11/98
5,792,507                       08/788,588                       08/11/98
5,792,508                       08/615,233                       08/11/98
5,792,514                       08/954,029                       08/11/98
5,792,526                       08/530,152                       08/11/98
5,792,529                       08/361,093                       08/11/98
5,792,530                       08/696,364                       08/11/98
5,792,533                       08/700,769                       08/11/98
5,792,542                       08/835,373                       08/11/98
5,792,546                       08/289,204                       08/11/98
5,792,549                       08/655,542                       08/11/98
5,792,560                       08/535,413                       08/11/98
5,792,561                       08/690,965                       08/11/98
5,792,567                       08/545,798                       08/11/98
5,792,569                       08/618,184                       08/11/98
5,792,587                       08/920,973                       08/11/98
5,792,595                       08/608,495                       08/11/98
5,792,596                       08/595,916                       08/11/98
5,792,597                       08/236,161                       08/11/98
5,792,598                       08/623,344                       08/11/98
5,792,599                       08/710,720                       08/11/98
5,792,608                       08/417,632                       08/11/98
5,792,611                       08/652,127                       08/11/98
5,792,615                       08/812,861                       08/11/98
5,792,617                       08/476,229                       08/11/98
5,792,621                       08/496,230                       08/11/98
5,792,635                       08/474,799                       08/11/98
5,792,636                       08/765,913                       08/11/98
5,792,638                       08/247,946                       08/11/98
5,792,639                       08/783,889                       08/11/98
5,792,664                       08/474,997                       08/11/98
5,792,667                       08/491,866                       08/11/98
5,792,677                       08/784,701                       08/11/98
5,792,683                       08/837,335                       08/11/98
5,792,692                       08/912,323                       08/11/98
5,792,694                       08/648,688                       08/11/98
5,792,707                       08/789,721                       08/11/98
5,792,712                       08/737,932                       08/11/98
5,792,714                       08/754,691                       08/11/98
5,792,719                       08/643,023                       08/11/98
5,792,720                       08/572,700                       08/11/98
5,792,723                       08/752,938                       08/11/98
5,792,726                       08/412,494                       08/11/98
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 335 

5,792,747                       08/377,764                       08/11/98
5,792,749                       08/781,020                       08/11/98
5,792,758                       08/569,269                       08/11/98
5,792,762                       08/933,801                       08/11/98
5,792,766                       08/614,878                       08/11/98
5,792,770                       08/947,859                       08/11/98
5,792,774                       08/803,731                       08/11/98
5,792,785                       08/563,431                       08/11/98
5,792,791                       08/672,308                       08/11/98
5,792,794                       08/809,460                       08/11/98
5,792,796                       08/445,398                       08/11/98
5,792,799                       08/729,290                       08/11/98
5,792,800                       08/778,436                       08/11/98
5,792,815                       08/878,691                       08/11/98
5,792,816                       08/652,543                       08/11/98
5,792,823                       08/814,823                       08/11/98
5,792,830                       08/762,481                       08/11/98
5,792,839                       08/783,299                       08/11/98
5,792,841                       08/744,652                       08/11/98
5,792,842                       08/624,604                       08/11/98
5,792,855                       08/788,201                       08/11/98
5,792,857                       08/773,001                       08/11/98
5,792,858                       08/628,344                       08/11/98
5,792,860                       08/700,405                       08/11/98
5,792,863                       08/631,947                       08/11/98
5,792,877                       08/743,325                       08/11/98
5,792,884                       08/170,985                       08/11/98
5,792,891                       08/792,980                       08/11/98
5,792,900                       08/640,894                       08/11/98
5,792,901                       08/692,892                       08/11/98
5,792,921                       08/290,301                       08/11/98
5,792,931                       08/484,815                       08/11/98
5,792,933                       08/539,304                       08/11/98
5,792,944                       08/697,019                       08/11/98
5,792,945                       08/603,774                       08/11/98
5,792,949                       08/705,895                       08/11/98
5,792,958                       08/786,820                       08/11/98
5,792,959                       08/643,668                       08/11/98
5,792,962                       08/477,624                       08/11/98
5,792,965                       08/513,924                       08/11/98
5,792,983                       08/763,229                       08/11/98
5,792,990                       08/054,907                       08/11/98
5,793,015                       08/472,972                       08/11/98
5,793,022                       08/710,158                       08/11/98
5,793,023                       08/786,975                       08/11/98
5,793,026                       08/837,143                       08/11/98
5,793,033                       08/623,963                       08/11/98
5,793,034                       08/713,441                       08/11/98
5,793,039                       08/605,572                       08/11/98
5,793,043                       08/774,871                       08/11/98
5,793,045                       08/804,377                       08/11/98
5,793,048                       08/769,047                       08/11/98
5,793,049                       08/498,606                       08/11/98
5,793,050                       08/756,133                       08/11/98
5,793,063                       08/625,638                       08/11/98
5,793,065                       08/483,325                       08/11/98
5,793,070                       08/637,290                       08/11/98
5,793,091                       08/768,019                       08/11/98
5,793,099                       08/646,031                       08/11/98
5,793,112                       08/715,446                       08/11/98
5,793,121                       08/176,235                       08/11/98
5,793,131                       08/692,953                       08/11/98
5,793,135                       08/852,036                       08/11/98
5,793,137                       08/844,025                       08/11/98
5,793,147                       08/837,657                       08/11/98
5,793,149                       08/889,956                       08/11/98
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 336 

5,793,150                       08/499,627                       08/11/98
5,793,155                       08/402,996                       08/11/98
5,793,161                       08/431,881                       08/11/98
5,793,170                       08/816,160                       08/11/98
5,793,173                       08/668,812                       08/11/98
5,793,201                       08/391,979                       08/11/98
5,793,211                       08/882,998                       08/11/98
5,793,214                       08/851,815                       08/11/98
5,793,215                       08/577,664                       08/11/98
5,793,216                       08/476,575                       08/11/98
5,793,218                       08/573,026                       08/11/98
5,793,223                       08/703,317                       08/11/98
5,793,227                       08/694,048                       08/11/98
5,793,233                       08/655,475                       08/11/98
5,793,234                       08/651,366                       08/11/98
5,793,250                       08/733,120                       08/11/98
5,793,253                       08/430,988                       08/11/98
5,793,259                       08/879,957                       08/11/98
5,793,261                       08/835,664                       08/11/98
5,793,265                       08/866,188                       08/11/98
5,793,267                       08/612,090                       08/11/98
5,793,270                       08/806,030                       08/11/98
5,793,277                       08/821,573                       08/11/98
5,793,280                       08/824,353                       08/11/98
5,793,291                       08/645,597                       08/11/98
5,793,296                       08/640,159                       08/11/98
5,793,319                       08/753,762                       08/11/98
5,793,320                       08/764,791                       08/11/98
5,793,340                       08/528,975                       08/11/98
5,793,341                       08/783,410                       08/11/98
5,793,350                       08/752,475                       08/11/98
5,793,354                       08/438,323                       08/11/98
5,793,364                       08/662,243                       08/11/98
5,793,380                       08/599,163                       08/11/98
5,793,384                       08/596,737                       08/11/98
5,793,391                       08/514,141                       08/11/98
5,793,392                       08/490,055                       08/11/98
5,793,395                       08/478,687                       08/11/98
5,793,405                       08/518,361                       08/11/98
5,793,408                       08/551,805                       08/11/98
5,793,411                       08/594,498                       08/11/98
5,793,417                       08/738,808                       08/11/98
5,793,418                       08/704,192                       08/11/98
5,793,420                       08/603,464                       08/11/98
5,793,428                       08/833,583                       08/11/98
5,793,430                       08/976,937                       08/11/98
5,793,436                       08/665,522                       08/11/98
5,793,438                       08/627,176                       08/11/98
5,793,442                       08/659,778                       08/11/98
5,793,462                       08/792,891                       08/11/98
5,793,465                       08/728,249                       08/11/98
5,793,474                       08/533,933                       08/11/98
5,793,481                       08/704,669                       08/11/98
5,793,487                       08/935,905                       08/11/98
5,793,488                       08/509,161                       08/11/98
5,793,496                       08/716,645                       08/11/98
5,793,501                       08/607,035                       08/11/98
5,793,502                       08/593,089                       08/11/98
5,793,509                       08/498,426                       08/11/98
5,793,510                       08/614,176                       08/11/98
5,793,512                       08/592,862                       08/11/98
5,793,521                       08/684,786                       08/11/98
5,793,527                       08/497,673                       08/11/98
5,793,531                       08/748,419                       08/11/98
5,793,537                       08/781,593                       08/11/98
5,793,541                       07/535,944                       08/11/98
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 337 

5,793,550                       08/636,059                       08/11/98
5,793,552                       08/926,572                       08/11/98
5,793,554                       08/677,148                       08/11/98
5,793,557                       08/622,913                       08/11/98
5,793,560                       08/358,402                       08/11/98
5,793,563                       08/590,085                       08/11/98
5,793,564                       08/595,484                       08/11/98
5,793,574                       08/711,618                       08/11/98
5,793,576                       08/869,732                       08/11/98
5,793,578                       08/752,012                       08/11/98
5,793,582                       08/695,418                       08/11/98
5,793,583                       08/703,378                       08/11/98
5,793,586                       08/736,752                       08/11/98
5,793,590                       08/878,182                       08/11/98
5,793,599                       08/662,624                       08/11/98
5,793,603                       08/752,312                       08/11/98
5,793,604                       08/670,355                       08/11/98
5,793,614                       08/953,491                       08/11/98
5,793,633                       08/351,217                       08/11/98
5,793,639                       08/711,740                       08/11/98
5,793,641                       08/576,187                       08/11/98
5,793,652                       08/775,675                       08/11/98
5,793,664                       08/787,237                       08/11/98
5,793,665                       08/672,996                       08/11/98
5,793,670                       08/734,333                       08/11/98
5,793,681                       08/870,358                       08/11/98
5,793,686                       08/755,930                       08/11/98
5,793,690                       08/891,959                       08/11/98
5,793,711                       08/655,115                       08/11/98
5,793,714                       08/937,898                       08/11/98
5,793,730                       08/865,195                       08/11/98
5,793,732                       08/605,504                       08/11/98
5,793,734                       08/838,651                       08/11/98
5,793,735                       08/591,299                       08/11/98
5,793,740                       08/775,283                       08/11/98
5,793,747                       08/616,147                       08/11/98
5,793,749                       08/529,252                       08/11/98
5,793,768                       08/700,709                       08/11/98
5,793,769                       08/688,211                       08/11/98
5,793,782                       08/749,811                       08/11/98
5,793,790                       08/712,365                       08/11/98
5,793,797                       08/437,764                       08/11/98
5,793,802                       08/572,262                       08/11/98
5,793,806                       08/576,842                       08/11/98
5,793,808                       08/579,324                       08/11/98
5,793,814                       08/607,562                       08/11/98
5,793,815                       08/766,240                       08/11/98
5,793,816                       08/782,761                       08/11/98
5,793,820                       08/677,987                       08/11/98
5,793,840                       08/297,966                       08/11/98
5,793,841                       08/634,391                       08/11/98
5,793,856                       08/706,980                       08/11/98
5,793,862                       08/619,403                       08/11/98
5,793,869                       08/731,263                       08/11/98
5,793,875                       08/635,550                       08/11/98
5,793,878                       08/869,955                       08/11/98
5,793,886                       08/769,973                       08/11/98
5,793,895                       08/697,652                       08/11/98
5,793,896                       08/409,514                       08/11/98
5,793,903                       08/434,560                       08/11/98
5,793,908                       08/687,734                       08/11/98
5,793,910                       08/788,189                       08/11/98
5,793,912                       08/769,459                       08/11/98
5,793,916                       08/754,034                       08/11/98
5,793,917                       08/616,974                       08/11/98
5,793,920                       08/740,609                       08/11/98
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 338 

5,793,921                       08/741,608                       08/11/98
5,793,922                       08/544,176                       08/11/98
5,793,923                       08/710,543                       08/11/98
5,793,933                       08/895,997                       08/11/98
5,793,939                       08/733,324                       08/11/98
5,793,948                       08/563,004                       08/11/98
5,793,949                       08/623,681                       08/11/98
5,793,953                       08/499,199                       08/11/98
5,793,954                       08/575,506                       08/11/98
5,793,957                       08/733,341                       08/11/98
5,793,962                       08/641,387                       08/11/98
5,793,965                       08/408,633                       08/11/98
5,793,971                       08/569,243                       08/11/98
5,793,983                       08/589,276                       08/11/98
5,794,000                       08/707,962                       08/11/98
5,794,005                       08/363,546                       08/11/98
5,794,018                       08/398,164                       08/11/98
5,794,020                       08/663,982                       08/11/98
5,794,022                       08/751,948                       08/11/98
5,794,033                       08/547,635                       08/11/98
5,794,035                       08/858,196                       08/11/98
5,794,046                       08/869,647                       08/11/98
5,794,047                       08/870,749                       08/11/98
5,794,062                       08/423,560                       08/11/98
5,794,065                       08/646,075                       08/11/98
5,794,067                       08/536,134                       08/11/98
5,794,069                       08/572,265                       08/11/98
5,794,071                       08/510,500                       08/11/98
5,794,077                       08/740,392                       08/11/98
5,794,085                       08/777,483                       08/11/98
5,794,087                       08/686,806                       08/11/98
5,794,088                       08/854,545                       08/11/98
5,794,093                       08/807,814                       08/11/98
5,794,112                       08/883,060                       08/11/98
5,794,114                       08/517,879                       08/11/98
5,794,116                       08/511,853                       08/11/98
5,794,129                       08/678,996                       08/11/98
5,794,133                       08/700,996                       08/11/98
5,794,138                       08/805,619                       08/11/98
5,794,139                       08/541,528                       08/11/98
5,794,150                       08/660,206                       08/11/98
5,794,165                       08/803,375                       08/11/98
5,794,170                       08/557,209                       08/11/98
5,794,190                       08/338,158                       08/11/98
5,794,198                       08/547,544                       08/11/98
5,794,204                       08/536,563                       08/11/98
5,794,208                       08/609,828                       08/11/98
5,794,244                       08/658,039                       08/11/98
5,794,249 			08/576,106 			 08/11/98
 
		   PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON August 6, 2010
		    DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
 
Patent  	                Application                         Issue
Number          	           Number                            Date
 
6,427,241                       09/537,534                       08/06/02
6,427,244                       09/939,334                       08/06/02
6,427,245                       09/924,642                       08/06/02
6,427,248                       09/520,300                       08/06/02
6,427,253                       09/814,310                       08/06/02
6,427,255                       09/896,620                       08/06/02
6,427,257                       09/728,109                       08/06/02
6,427,261                       09/573,837                       08/06/02
6,427,266                       09/741,775                       08/06/02
6,427,267                       09/836,725                       08/06/02
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 339 

6,427,268                       09/494,021                       08/06/02
6,427,272                       09/870,760                       08/06/02
6,427,273                       09/891,252                       08/06/02
6,427,276                       09/922,020                       08/06/02
6,427,289                       09/804,545                       08/06/02
6,427,293                       09/625,424                       08/06/02
6,427,298                       09/909,721                       08/06/02
6,427,300                       09/813,388                       08/06/02
6,427,305                       09/422,538                       08/06/02
6,427,309                       09/634,758                       08/06/02
6,427,313                       09/770,207                       08/06/02
6,427,315                       09/333,907                       08/06/02
6,427,323                       09/859,690                       08/06/02
6,427,324                       09/114,790                       08/06/02
6,427,325                       09/544,114                       08/06/02
6,427,333                       09/483,307                       08/06/02
6,427,337                       09/641,850                       08/06/02
6,427,340                       09/963,406                       08/06/02
6,427,341                       08/928,045                       08/06/02
6,427,343                       09/585,777                       08/06/02
6,427,344                       09/366,479                       08/06/02
6,427,345                       09/189,443                       08/06/02
6,427,352                       09/558,212                       08/06/02
6,427,353                       09/086,102                       08/06/02
6,427,354                       09/314,022                       08/06/02
6,427,356                       09/397,734                       08/06/02
6,427,360                       09/769,865                       08/06/02
6,427,369                       09/537,928                       08/06/02
6,427,375                       09/842,462                       08/06/02
6,427,377                       09/698,658                       08/06/02
6,427,383                       09/485,106                       08/06/02
6,427,384                       09/373,890                       08/06/02
6,427,387                       09/427,813                       08/06/02
6,427,389                       09/723,998                       08/06/02
6,427,391                       09/425,725                       08/06/02
6,427,393                       09/771,176                       08/06/02
6,427,395                       09/513,184                       08/06/02
6,427,397                       09/674,901                       08/06/02
6,427,400                       09/791,696                       08/06/02
6,427,405                       09/674,494                       08/06/02
6,427,414                       09/662,562                       08/06/02
6,427,415                       09/192,906                       08/06/02
6,427,417                       09/478,441                       08/06/02
6,427,418                       09/551,057                       08/06/02
6,427,419                       09/781,717                       08/06/02
6,427,427                       09/583,615                       08/06/02
6,427,429                       09/840,509                       08/06/02
6,427,432                       09/623,909                       08/06/02
6,427,433                       09/671,805                       08/06/02
6,427,438                       09/708,707                       08/06/02
6,427,440                       09/574,615                       08/06/02
6,427,441                       09/751,767                       08/06/02
6,427,460                       09/537,665                       08/06/02
6,427,462                       09/669,908                       08/06/02
6,427,463                       09/505,390                       08/06/02
6,427,465                       09/627,485                       08/06/02
6,427,466                       09/733,957                       08/06/02
6,427,467                       09/895,240                       08/06/02
6,427,468                       09/639,467                       08/06/02
6,427,482                       09/674,727                       08/06/02
6,427,484                       09/972,808                       08/06/02
6,427,485                       09/913,185                       08/06/02
6,427,490                       09/622,077                       08/06/02
6,427,494                       09/554,228                       08/06/02
6,427,495                       09/589,344                       08/06/02
6,427,496                       09/760,573                       08/06/02
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 340 

6,427,498                       09/662,529                       08/06/02
6,427,504                       09/014,311                       08/06/02
6,427,505                       09/764,835                       08/06/02
6,427,506                       09/578,061                       08/06/02
6,427,515                       09/620,967                       08/06/02
6,427,520                       09/733,118                       08/06/02
6,427,523                       09/401,776                       08/06/02
6,427,531                       09/437,583                       08/06/02
6,427,543                       09/816,595                       08/06/02
6,427,546                       09/729,840                       08/06/02
6,427,547                       09/779,181                       08/06/02
6,427,549                       09/757,805                       08/06/02
6,427,552                       09/693,670                       08/06/02
6,427,553                       09/701,995                       08/06/02
6,427,557                       09/762,335                       08/06/02
6,427,567                       09/596,155                       08/06/02
6,427,571                       09/644,834                       08/06/02
6,427,572                       09/801,145                       08/06/02
6,427,573                       08/938,875                       08/06/02
6,427,581                       10/028,628                       08/06/02
6,427,582                       10/055,084                       08/06/02
6,427,583                       09/371,688                       08/06/02
6,427,584                       10/050,643                       08/06/02
6,427,585                       09/697,359                       08/06/02
6,427,596                       09/440,945                       08/06/02
6,427,602                       09/897,256                       08/06/02
6,427,605                       09/650,833                       08/06/02
6,427,606                       09/789,066                       08/06/02
6,427,613                       09/675,886                       08/06/02
6,427,614                       09/857,935                       08/06/02
6,427,615                       09/760,762                       08/06/02
6,427,618                       09/718,753                       08/06/02
6,427,620                       10/032,965                       08/06/02
6,427,625                       09/744,399                       08/06/02
6,427,628                       09/668,578                       08/06/02
6,427,641                       09/636,820                       08/06/02
6,427,642                       09/659,748                       08/06/02
6,427,644                       09/299,085                       08/06/02
6,427,646                       09/764,701                       08/06/02
6,427,647                       09/975,726                       08/06/02
6,427,649                       09/666,336                       08/06/02
6,427,650                       09/666,337                       08/06/02
6,427,651                       09/744,694                       08/06/02
6,427,653                       09/697,148                       08/06/02
6,427,657                       09/836,797                       08/06/02
6,427,659                       09/837,420                       08/06/02
6,427,666                       09/647,051                       08/06/02
6,427,669                       09/889,012                       08/06/02
6,427,670                       09/838,184                       08/06/02
6,427,678                       09/592,000                       08/06/02
6,427,695                       09/614,561                       08/06/02
6,427,698                       09/764,173                       08/06/02
6,427,699                       09/457,863                       08/06/02
6,427,700                       09/567,460                       08/06/02
6,427,701                       09/655,658                       08/06/02
6,427,703                       09/510,117                       08/06/02
6,427,706                       09/516,589                       08/06/02
6,427,710                       09/659,079                       08/06/02
6,427,711                       09/693,265                       08/06/02
6,427,712                       09/329,190                       08/06/02
6,427,718                       09/729,713                       08/06/02
6,427,719                       09/762,364                       08/06/02
6,427,722                       09/863,643                       08/06/02
6,427,729                       09/867,369                       08/06/02
6,427,732                       09/719,444                       08/06/02
6,427,734                       09/992,391                       08/06/02
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 341 

6,427,735                       09/793,178                       08/06/02
6,427,741                       09/445,864                       08/06/02
6,427,743                       09/429,078                       08/06/02
6,427,747                       09/096,285                       08/06/02
6,427,752                       09/496,752                       08/06/02
6,427,753                       09/242,136                       08/06/02
6,427,765                       09/435,805                       08/06/02
6,427,766                       09/833,313                       08/06/02
6,427,797                       09/780,309                       08/06/02
6,427,798                       09/615,802                       08/06/02
6,427,803                       09/754,138                       08/06/02
6,427,813                       09/463,166                       08/06/02
6,427,820                       09/601,164                       08/06/02
6,427,821                       09/693,018                       08/06/02
6,427,830                       09/128,120                       08/06/02
6,427,833                       09/671,655                       08/06/02
6,427,834                       09/828,790                       08/06/02
6,427,835                       09/730,726                       08/06/02
6,427,838                       09/591,979                       08/06/02
6,427,843                       09/320,530                       08/06/02
6,427,849                       09/893,783                       08/06/02
6,427,855                       09/500,091                       08/06/02
6,427,857                       09/535,393                       08/06/02
6,427,858                       09/746,115                       08/06/02
6,427,866                       09/630,106                       08/06/02
6,427,870                       09/852,271                       08/06/02
6,427,877                       09/741,390                       08/06/02
6,427,879                       09/449,296                       08/06/02
6,427,882                       09/817,549                       08/06/02
6,427,888                       09/641,309                       08/06/02
6,427,891                       09/558,958                       08/06/02
6,427,894                       09/692,406                       08/06/02
6,427,895                       09/625,334                       08/06/02
6,427,900                       09/455,690                       08/06/02
6,427,901                       09/774,850                       08/06/02
6,427,909                       09/465,289                       08/06/02
6,427,910                       09/465,291                       08/06/02
6,427,911                       09/465,292                       08/06/02
6,427,928                       09/656,424                       08/06/02
6,427,933                       09/509,616                       08/06/02
6,427,936                       09/692,300                       08/06/02
6,427,937                       09/646,717                       08/06/02
6,427,960                       09/680,744                       08/06/02
6,427,962                       09/567,461                       08/06/02
6,427,966                       09/382,741                       08/06/02
6,427,967                       09/232,559                       08/06/02
6,427,969                       09/843,677                       08/06/02
6,427,976                       09/464,012                       08/06/02
6,427,977                       09/549,437                       08/06/02
6,427,984                       09/637,484                       08/06/02
6,427,987                       09/400,505                       08/06/02
6,427,988                       09/191,452                       08/06/02
6,427,991                       09/633,086                       08/06/02
6,427,994                       09/632,183                       08/06/02
6,427,995                       09/560,266                       08/06/02
6,428,002                       09/522,050                       08/06/02
6,428,004                       09/613,678                       08/06/02
6,428,006                       09/531,128                       08/06/02
6,428,017                       09/583,414                       08/06/02
6,428,023                       09/911,115                       08/06/02
6,428,025                       09/741,545                       08/06/02
6,428,028                       09/455,083                       08/06/02
6,428,030                       09/837,256                       08/06/02
6,428,038                       09/644,535                       08/06/02
6,428,039                       09/600,126                       08/06/02
6,428,041                       09/989,915                       08/06/02
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 342 

6,428,047                       09/505,113                       08/06/02
6,428,049                       09/746,293                       08/06/02
6,428,054                       09/441,445                       08/06/02
6,428,055                       09/623,772                       08/06/02
6,428,063                       09/402,291                       08/06/02
6,428,065                       09/818,453                       08/06/02
6,428,066                       09/705,194                       08/06/02
6,428,069                       09/720,148                       08/06/02
6,428,077                       09/705,832                       08/06/02
6,428,078                       09/757,176                       08/06/02
6,428,081                       09/301,673                       08/06/02
6,428,083                       09/498,915                       08/06/02
6,428,087                       09/754,922                       08/06/02
6,428,088                       09/567,300                       08/06/02
6,428,089                       09/907,912                       08/06/02
6,428,091                       09/766,370                       08/06/02
6,428,093                       10/026,202                       08/06/02
6,428,094                       09/640,195                       08/06/02
6,428,096                       09/725,062                       08/06/02
6,428,097                       09/687,806                       08/06/02
6,428,102                       09/504,253                       08/06/02
6,428,108                       09/630,158                       08/06/02
6,428,112                       09/719,246                       08/06/02
6,428,114                       09/547,296                       08/06/02
6,428,119                       09/820,219                       08/06/02
6,428,125                       09/535,588                       08/06/02
6,428,144                       09/824,656                       08/06/02
6,428,154                       08/721,205                       08/06/02
6,428,167                       09/970,654                       08/06/02
6,428,172                       09/449,121                       08/06/02
6,428,184                       09/776,717                       08/06/02
6,428,188                       09/464,187                       08/06/02
6,428,205                       09/533,867                       08/06/02
6,428,211                       09/423,203                       08/06/02
6,428,218                       09/647,163                       08/06/02
6,428,221                       09/677,391                       08/06/02
6,428,236                       09/726,326                       08/06/02
6,428,238                       09/780,157                       08/06/02
6,428,239                       09/713,404                       08/06/02
6,428,242                       09/708,369                       08/06/02
6,428,245                       09/481,960                       08/06/02
6,428,251                       09/633,565                       08/06/02
6,428,254                       09/742,634                       08/06/02
6,428,258                       08/849,940                       08/06/02
6,428,259                       09/755,304                       08/06/02
6,428,268                       09/641,572                       08/06/02
6,428,277                       09/859,859                       08/06/02
6,428,289                       09/745,755                       08/06/02
6,428,301                       09/212,561                       08/06/02
6,428,306                       09/458,102                       08/06/02
6,428,307                       09/675,558                       08/06/02
6,428,316                       09/766,447                       08/06/02
6,428,317                       09/652,278                       08/06/02
6,428,320                       09/428,693                       08/06/02
6,428,322                       09/631,631                       08/06/02
6,428,327                       09/418,665                       08/06/02
6,428,332                       09/584,726                       08/06/02
6,428,333                       09/966,525                       08/06/02
6,428,334                       09/768,380                       08/06/02
6,428,342                       09/776,832                       08/06/02
6,428,346                       09/865,669                       08/06/02
6,428,352                       09/608,981                       08/06/02
6,428,357                       09/883,187                       08/06/02
6,428,358                       09/750,419                       08/06/02
6,428,359                       09/843,602                       08/06/02
6,428,363                       09/880,136                       08/06/02
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 343 

6,428,367                       09/510,965                       08/06/02
6,428,379                       09/814,967                       08/06/02
6,428,381                       09/734,263                       08/06/02
6,428,394                       09/541,144                       08/06/02
6,428,402                       09/948,129                       08/06/02
6,428,406                       09/757,710                       08/06/02
6,428,407                       09/146,852                       08/06/02
6,428,409                       09/933,507                       08/06/02
6,428,410                       09/811,650                       08/06/02
6,428,421                       09/630,493                       08/06/02
6,428,424                       09/904,642                       08/06/02
6,428,425                       09/380,770                       08/06/02
6,428,430                       09/545,204                       08/06/02
6,428,439                       09/678,718                       08/06/02
6,428,441                       09/649,202                       08/06/02
6,428,442                       09/529,212                       08/06/02
6,428,449                       09/574,575                       08/06/02
6,428,450                       09/861,499                       08/06/02
6,428,456                       09/601,206                       08/06/02
6,428,462                       09/526,322                       08/06/02
6,428,470                       09/382,495                       08/06/02
6,428,473                       09/639,488                       08/06/02
6,428,481                       09/580,639                       08/06/02
6,428,485                       09/537,613                       08/06/02
6,428,497                       09/944,018                       08/06/02
6,428,518                       09/434,975                       08/06/02
6,428,521                       09/940,645                       08/06/02
6,428,532                       09/460,860                       08/06/02
6,428,535                       09/555,966                       08/06/02
6,428,555                       09/593,975                       08/06/02
6,428,564                       09/451,330                       08/06/02
6,428,574                       09/484,544                       08/06/02
6,428,582                       08/592,898                       08/06/02
6,428,592                       09/808,356                       08/06/02
6,428,594                       09/642,396                       08/06/02
6,428,595                       09/554,694                       08/06/02
6,428,597                       09/674,735                       08/06/02
6,428,607                       09/602,719                       08/06/02
6,428,608                       09/748,624                       08/06/02
6,428,618                       09/780,058                       08/06/02
6,428,645                       08/867,617                       08/06/02
6,428,647                       09/668,470                       08/06/02
6,428,650                       09/633,791                       08/06/02
6,428,652                       09/495,533                       08/06/02
6,428,661                       09/642,158                       08/06/02
6,428,667                       09/686,147                       08/06/02
6,428,670                       09/443,720                       08/06/02
6,428,675                       09/615,432                       08/06/02
6,428,676                       09/708,168                       08/06/02
6,428,678                       09/622,557                       08/06/02
6,428,682                       09/508,242                       08/06/02
6,428,687                       09/622,224                       08/06/02
6,428,690                       09/661,013                       08/06/02
6,428,694                       09/441,570                       08/06/02
6,428,695                       09/791,765                       08/06/02
6,428,698                       09/367,491                       08/06/02
6,428,700                       09/655,675                       08/06/02
6,428,715                       09/692,961                       08/06/02
6,428,716                       09/569,910                       08/06/02
6,428,725                       09/600,328                       08/06/02
6,428,727                       09/506,265                       08/06/02
6,428,731                       09/623,443                       08/06/02
6,428,732                       09/328,338                       08/06/02
6,428,734                       09/505,433                       08/06/02
6,428,737                       08/981,467                       08/06/02
6,428,738                       09/083,943                       08/06/02
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 344 

6,428,747                       09/430,219                       08/06/02
6,428,760                       09/598,073                       08/06/02
6,428,778                       09/578,731                       08/06/02
6,428,783                       09/038,621                       08/06/02
6,428,785                       09/428,375                       08/06/02
6,428,791                       09/290,759                       08/06/02
6,428,798                       09/382,074                       08/06/02
6,428,803                       09/451,691                       08/06/02
6,428,808                       08/952,426                       08/06/02
6,428,816                       08/718,522                       08/06/02
6,428,819                       09/542,237                       08/06/02
6,428,822                       09/824,925                       08/06/02
6,428,823                       09/818,562                       08/06/02
6,428,827                       09/540,383                       08/06/02
6,428,830                       09/075,284                       08/06/02
6,428,833                       08/945,788                       08/06/02
6,428,837                       09/589,887                       08/06/02
6,428,838                       09/606,949                       08/06/02
6,428,840                       09/794,000                       08/06/02
6,428,843                       09/669,427                       08/06/02
6,428,844                       08/153,239                       08/06/02
6,428,845                       09/700,777                       08/06/02
6,428,847                       09/688,555                       08/06/02
6,428,850                       09/613,694                       08/06/02
6,428,851                       09/517,064                       08/06/02
6,428,852                       09/743,008                       08/06/02
6,428,855                       09/579,353                       08/06/02
6,428,861                       09/879,593                       08/06/02
6,428,863                       09/508,538                       08/06/02
6,428,864                       09/820,354                       08/06/02
6,428,865                       08/004,500                       08/06/02
6,428,869                       09/118,331                       08/06/02
6,428,873                       08/732,866                       08/06/02
6,428,877                       08/793,826                       08/06/02
6,428,880                       09/700,705                       08/06/02
6,428,882                       09/079,238                       08/06/02
6,428,886                       08/966,168                       08/06/02
6,428,894                       08/868,772                       08/06/02
6,428,896                       09/098,743                       08/06/02
6,428,897                       09/454,932                       08/06/02
6,428,902                       08/514,782                       08/06/02
6,428,913                       09/330,164                       08/06/02
6,428,915                       09/404,088                       08/06/02
6,428,916                       09/468,027                       08/06/02
6,428,924                       09/076,869                       08/06/02
6,428,928                       09/520,797                       08/06/02
6,428,932                       09/574,957                       08/06/02
6,428,937                       09/572,723                       08/06/02
6,428,946                       09/851,890                       08/06/02
6,428,947                       09/755,419                       08/06/02
6,428,948                       09/805,335                       08/06/02
6,428,974                       09/859,213                       08/06/02
6,428,975                       09/483,228                       08/06/02
6,428,977                       08/580,031                       08/06/02
6,428,979                       09/375,417                       08/06/02
6,428,982                       09/587,754                       08/06/02
6,428,987                       09/735,372                       08/06/02
6,428,993                       08/881,742                       08/06/02
6,428,995                       09/742,737                       08/06/02
6,428,999                       09/160,036                       08/06/02
6,429,002                       08/069,458                       08/06/02
6,429,004                       09/609,566                       08/06/02
6,429,005                       09/632,155                       08/06/02
6,429,006                       09/508,277                       08/06/02
6,429,010                       09/129,668                       08/06/02
6,429,019                       09/487,512                       08/06/02
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 345 

6,429,023                       09/357,204                       08/06/02
6,429,028                       09/934,647                       08/06/02
6,429,031                       09/725,268                       08/06/02
6,429,033                       09/865,851                       08/06/02
6,429,038                       08/720,003                       08/06/02
6,429,039                       09/900,022                       08/06/02
6,429,045                       09/779,215                       08/06/02
6,429,066                       09/465,097                       08/06/02
6,429,067                       09/765,036                       08/06/02
6,429,068                       09/897,868                       08/06/02
6,429,077                       09/452,106                       08/06/02
6,429,078                       09/817,118                       08/06/02
6,429,079                       09/576,233                       08/06/02
6,429,080                       09/793,517                       08/06/02
6,429,082                       09/684,118                       08/06/02
6,429,084                       09/885,828                       08/06/02
6,429,090                       09/513,308                       08/06/02
6,429,091                       09/733,324                       08/06/02
6,429,099                       09/478,037                       08/06/02
6,429,101                       09/240,753                       08/06/02
6,429,105                       09/612,960                       08/06/02
6,429,113                       09/518,447                       08/06/02
6,429,122                       09/925,820                       08/06/02
6,429,139                       09/466,628                       08/06/02
6,429,149                       09/511,394                       08/06/02
6,429,157                       09/254,211                       08/06/02
6,429,163                       09/821,769                       08/06/02
6,429,173                       09/721,648                       08/06/02
6,429,174                       09/754,134                       08/06/02
6,429,182                       10/008,906                       08/06/02
6,429,188                       09/446,352                       08/06/02
6,429,193                       09/486,020                       08/06/02
6,429,195                       09/654,156                       08/06/02
6,429,203                       09/551,016                       08/06/02
6,429,215                       09/893,568                       08/06/02
6,429,218                       09/711,376                       08/06/02
6,429,219                       09/564,070                       08/06/02
6,429,220                       09/786,291                       08/06/02
6,429,225                       09/802,270                       08/06/02
6,429,226                       09/562,447                       08/06/02
6,429,229                       09/646,059                       08/06/02
6,429,233                       09/830,371                       08/06/02
6,429,237                       09/832,429                       08/06/02
6,429,245                       08/931,169                       08/06/02
6,429,251                       09/729,933                       08/06/02
6,429,252                       09/381,972                       08/06/02
6,429,257                       09/339,689                       08/06/02
6,429,263                       09/756,695                       08/06/02
6,429,264                       09/842,172                       08/06/02
6,429,270                       09/895,939                       08/06/02
6,429,272                       09/957,379                       08/06/02
6,429,282                       09/668,556                       08/06/02
6,429,284                       09/858,681                       08/06/02
6,429,289                       08/265,428                       08/06/02
6,429,291                       08/477,831                       08/06/02
6,429,292                       09/151,957                       08/06/02
6,429,297                       09/496,744                       08/06/02
6,429,302                       09/490,818                       08/06/02
6,429,308                       09/582,224                       08/06/02
6,429,309                       09/921,203                       08/06/02
6,429,312                       09/812,199                       08/06/02
6,429,313                       09/822,109                       08/06/02
6,429,317                       09/117,089                       08/06/02
6,429,319                       09/767,668                       08/06/02
6,429,323                       09/598,933                       08/06/02
6,429,327                       09/487,420                       08/06/02
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 346 

6,429,332                       08/456,085                       08/06/02
6,429,335                       10/019,196                       08/06/02
6,429,340                       09/963,421                       08/06/02
6,429,342                       09/611,499                       08/06/02
6,429,345                       09/598,460                       08/06/02
6,429,347                       09/844,227                       08/06/02
6,429,348                       09/073,148                       08/06/02
6,429,353                       09/047,910                       08/06/02
6,429,374                       09/790,510                       08/06/02
6,429,384                       09/588,836                       08/06/02
6,429,387                       09/319,779                       08/06/02
6,429,391                       09/664,098                       08/06/02
6,429,401                       09/970,454                       08/06/02
6,429,402                       09/587,183                       08/06/02
6,429,409                       09/756,367                       08/06/02
6,429,425                       09/340,402                       08/06/02
6,429,427                       09/538,886                       08/06/02
6,429,433                       09/522,737                       08/06/02
6,429,438                       09/351,964                       08/06/02
6,429,441                       09/498,923                       08/06/02
6,429,443                       09/589,029                       08/06/02
6,429,444                       09/382,051                       08/06/02
6,429,458                       09/628,905                       08/06/02
6,429,463                       09/620,117                       08/06/02
6,429,469                       09/705,031                       08/06/02
6,429,473                       08/690,629                       08/06/02
6,429,477                       09/702,315                       08/06/02
6,429,478                       09/645,061                       08/06/02
6,429,487                       09/755,118                       08/06/02
6,429,488                       09/791,273                       08/06/02
6,429,495                       09/208,478                       08/06/02
6,429,501                       09/522,171                       08/06/02
6,429,507                       09/541,843                       08/06/02
6,429,508                       09/677,598                       08/06/02
6,429,510                       09/871,445                       08/06/02
6,429,517                       09/418,974                       08/06/02
6,429,521                       09/531,177                       08/06/02
6,429,523                       09/755,899                       08/06/02
6,429,527                       09/764,047                       08/06/02
6,429,545                       09/470,597                       08/06/02
6,429,551                       09/647,259                       08/06/02
6,429,557                       09/790,465                       08/06/02
6,429,558                       09/806,015                       08/06/02
6,429,559                       09/618,418                       08/06/02
6,429,560                       09/420,109                       08/06/02
6,429,570                       09/640,492                       08/06/02
6,429,572                       09/584,863                       08/06/02
6,429,575                       09/403,850                       08/06/02
6,429,598                       09/718,338                       08/06/02
6,429,603                       09/559,174                       08/06/02
6,429,605                       09/703,572                       08/06/02
6,429,608                       09/789,313                       08/06/02
6,429,613                       09/790,659                       08/06/02
6,429,614                       09/673,037                       08/06/02
6,429,616                       09/820,487                       08/06/02
6,429,619                       09/785,688                       08/06/02
6,429,622                       09/711,998                       08/06/02
6,429,631                       09/794,363                       08/06/02
6,429,640                       09/643,902                       08/06/02
6,429,644                       09/527,577                       08/06/02
6,429,652                       09/598,621                       08/06/02
6,429,655                       09/773,420                       08/06/02
6,429,656                       09/824,373                       08/06/02
6,429,658                       09/412,097                       08/06/02
6,429,660                       09/748,881                       08/06/02
6,429,668                       09/624,137                       08/06/02
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 347 

6,429,673                       09/429,215                       08/06/02
6,429,675                       09/293,449                       08/06/02
6,429,677                       09/501,654                       08/06/02
6,429,694                       09/471,522                       08/06/02
6,429,704                       09/675,547                       08/06/02
6,429,718                       09/469,334                       08/06/02
6,429,738                       09/623,576                       08/06/02
6,429,743                       09/759,157                       08/06/02
6,429,745                       09/984,796                       08/06/02
6,429,755                       09/772,459                       08/06/02
6,429,759                       09/503,393                       08/06/02
6,429,760                       09/692,784                       08/06/02
6,429,767                       09/552,936                       08/06/02
6,429,778                       09/960,567                       08/06/02
6,429,779                       09/745,869                       08/06/02
6,429,787                       09/394,126                       08/06/02
6,429,791                       09/800,299                       08/06/02
6,429,794                       09/609,048                       08/06/02
6,429,796                       09/616,235                       08/06/02
6,429,802                       09/457,749                       08/06/02
6,429,831                       09/903,197                       08/06/02
6,429,834                       09/421,402                       08/06/02
6,429,840                       09/831,904                       08/06/02
6,429,860                       09/594,208                       08/06/02
6,429,874                       09/142,658                       08/06/02
6,429,878                       09/473,389                       08/06/02
6,429,894                       09/450,820                       08/06/02
6,429,895                       08/996,287                       08/06/02
6,429,898                       09/024,946                       08/06/02
6,429,899                       09/351,847                       08/06/02
6,429,923                       09/247,059                       08/06/02
6,429,926                       09/756,405                       08/06/02
6,429,936                       09/369,526                       08/06/02
6,429,966                       09/572,577                       08/06/02
6,429,967                       09/807,829                       08/06/02
6,429,978                       09/777,958                       08/06/02
6,429,979                       09/791,771                       08/06/02
6,429,981                       09/782,525                       08/06/02
6,429,989                       09/592,740                       08/06/02
6,429,993                       09/408,049                       08/06/02
6,429,995                       09/299,893                       08/06/02
6,429,997                       09/282,740                       08/06/02
6,430,001                       08/405,278                       08/06/02
6,430,003                       10/023,814                       08/06/02
6,430,011                       09/556,055                       08/06/02
6,430,013                       09/456,043                       08/06/02
6,430,014                       09/635,722                       08/06/02
6,430,015                       09/773,743                       08/06/02
6,430,017                       08/967,152                       08/06/02
6,430,030                       09/770,357                       08/06/02
6,430,043                       09/699,861                       08/06/02
6,430,045                       09/868,890                       08/06/02
6,430,046                       09/924,470                       08/06/02
6,430,056                       09/916,261                       08/06/02
6,430,083                       09/606,577                       08/06/02
6,430,091                       09/773,621                       08/06/02
6,430,096                       09/703,768                       08/06/02
6,430,097                       09/900,023                       08/06/02
6,430,108                       09/581,273                       08/06/02
6,430,112                       08/774,126                       08/06/02
6,430,114                       09/569,613                       08/06/02
6,430,118                       09/376,780                       08/06/02
6,430,121                       09/549,700                       08/06/02
6,430,124                       09/466,756                       08/06/02
6,430,127                       09/282,336                       08/06/02
6,430,130                       09/268,614                       08/06/02
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 348 

6,430,139                       09/671,710                       08/06/02
6,430,141                       09/288,390                       08/06/02
6,430,143                       09/538,701                       08/06/02
6,430,154                       09/636,479                       08/06/02
6,430,156                       09/221,531                       08/06/02
6,430,157                       09/047,815                       08/06/02
6,430,161                       09/758,154                       08/06/02
6,430,166                       09/377,031                       08/06/02
6,430,179                       09/256,160                       08/06/02
6,430,187                       09/325,185                       08/06/02
6,430,197                       09/079,930                       08/06/02
6,430,204                       09/376,292                       08/06/02
6,430,207                       09/396,597                       08/06/02
6,430,208                       09/037,704                       08/06/02
6,430,211                       09/393,040                       08/06/02
6,430,221                       09/392,078                       08/06/02
6,430,230                       09/343,630                       08/06/02
6,430,241                       09/376,945                       08/06/02
6,430,242                       09/330,713                       08/06/02
6,430,244                       09/286,561                       08/06/02
6,430,254                       09/730,960                       08/06/02
6,430,256                       09/845,242                       08/06/02
6,430,258                       09/817,975                       08/06/02
6,430,260                       09/752,014                       08/06/02
6,430,272                       09/070,150                       08/06/02
6,430,276                       09/420,872                       08/06/02
6,430,287                       08/924,069                       08/06/02
6,430,291                       09/031,687                       08/06/02
6,430,292                       09/110,144                       08/06/02
6,430,294                       09/362,148                       08/06/02
6,430,295                       08/890,768                       08/06/02
6,430,308                       09/229,989                       08/06/02
6,430,310                       09/580,045                       08/06/02
6,430,312                       09/221,473                       08/06/02
6,430,316                       08/658,590                       08/06/02
6,430,318                       09/217,431                       08/06/02
6,430,324                       09/378,209                       08/06/02
6,430,329                       09/545,191                       08/06/02
6,430,335                       09/649,455                       08/06/02
6,430,338                       09/568,972                       08/06/02
6,430,340                       09/315,030                       08/06/02
6,430,347                       09/645,025                       08/06/02
6,430,350                       09/529,328                       08/06/02
6,430,352                       09/532,296                       08/06/02
6,430,355                       09/125,091                       08/06/02
6,430,362                       09/059,355                       08/06/02
6,430,367                       09/716,939                       08/06/02
6,430,373                       09/580,224                       08/06/02
6,430,375                       09/820,713                       08/06/02
6,430,380                       09/757,371                       08/06/02
6,430,394                       09/336,378                       08/06/02
6,430,422                       09/620,379                       08/06/02
6,430,428                       09/065,055                       08/06/02
6,430,429                       09/453,421                       08/06/02
6,430,430                       09/561,956                       08/06/02
6,430,432                       09/469,457                       08/06/02
6,430,443                       09/551,154                       08/06/02
6,430,444                       09/623,688                       08/06/02
6,430,451                       09/259,651                       08/06/02
6,430,453                       09/185,743                       08/06/02
6,430,455                       09/236,425                       08/06/02
6,430,464                       09/265,020                       08/06/02
6,430,470                       09/697,430                       08/06/02
6,430,496                       08/980,645                       08/06/02
6,430,514                       09/697,668                       08/06/02
6,430,523                       09/828,274                       08/06/02
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 349 

6,430,526                       09/218,918                       08/06/02
6,430,529                       09/259,512                       08/06/02
6,430,538                       09/070,636                       08/06/02
6,430,540                       09/498,465                       08/06/02
6,430,541                       09/560,319                       08/06/02
6,430,546                       09/284,963                       08/06/02
6,430,548                       08/182,886                       08/06/02
6,430,551                       09/167,424                       08/06/02
6,430,561                       09/429,963                       08/06/02
6,430,579                       09/473,859                       08/06/02
6,430,586                       09/328,304                       08/06/02
6,430,593                       09/037,173                       08/06/02
6,430,598                       09/240,638                       08/06/02
6,430,624                       09/503,797                       08/06/02
6,430,632                       09/322,603                       08/06/02
6,430,643                       09/389,438                       08/06/02
6,430,658                       09/315,540                       08/06/02
6,430,667                       09/548,949                       08/06/02
6,430,670                       09/703,536                       08/06/02
6,430,672                       09/617,829                       08/06/02
6,430,678                       09/363,463                       08/06/02
6,430,679                       09/165,521                       08/06/02
6,430,681                       09/336,075                       08/06/02
6,430,683                       09/344,023                       08/06/02
6,430,687                       09/292,192                       08/06/02
6,430,701                       09/204,761                       08/06/02
6,430,707                       09/282,684                       08/06/02
6,430,717                       09/609,775                       08/06/02
6,430,729                       09/494,975                       08/06/02
6,430,733                       09/296,369                       08/06/02
6,430,738 			08/087,824 			 08/06/02
 
		   PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON August 8, 2010
		    DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
 
Patent  	                Application                         Issue
Number          	           Number                            Date
 
7,086,092                       11/282,383                       08/08/06
7,086,094                       10/992,541                       08/08/06
7,086,101                       10/876,289                       08/08/06
7,086,106                       11/104,052                       08/08/06
7,086,108                       11/341,612                       08/08/06
7,086,110                       10/777,512                       08/08/06
7,086,114                       09/990,074                       08/08/06
7,086,115                       10/799,894                       08/08/06
7,086,116                       10/149,803                       08/08/06
7,086,117                       10/694,515                       08/08/06
7,086,120                       10/879,051                       08/08/06
7,086,122                       10/851,052                       08/08/06
7,086,123                       10/912,072                       08/08/06
7,086,124                       10/726,825                       08/08/06
7,086,126                       10/909,193                       08/08/06
7,086,129                       11/260,874                       08/08/06
7,086,130                       11/188,362                       08/08/06
7,086,136                       10/452,645                       08/08/06
7,086,139                       10/836,136                       08/08/06
7,086,147                       10/768,836                       08/08/06
7,086,156                       10/444,715                       08/08/06
7,086,163                       11/054,313                       08/08/06
7,086,172                       10/777,223                       08/08/06
7,086,176                       10/960,911                       08/08/06
7,086,192                       10/630,323                       08/08/06
7,086,197                       10/912,755                       08/08/06
7,086,201                       10/333,156                       08/08/06
7,086,202                       10/646,626                       08/08/06
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 350 

7,086,209                       10/096,011                       08/08/06
7,086,212                       10/124,774                       08/08/06
7,086,218                       11/207,035                       08/08/06
7,086,224                       11/147,517                       08/08/06
7,086,237                       10/853,995                       08/08/06
7,086,239                       10/683,731                       08/08/06
7,086,242                       10/483,081                       08/08/06
7,086,246                       10/785,812                       08/08/06
7,086,254                       10/171,547                       08/08/06
7,086,265                       10/512,803                       08/08/06
7,086,272                       10/866,269                       08/08/06
7,086,280                       10/679,883                       08/08/06
7,086,286                       11/160,120                       08/08/06
7,086,287                       10/452,605                       08/08/06
7,086,291                       10/835,030                       08/08/06
7,086,292                       10/893,441                       08/08/06
7,086,301                       10/947,338                       08/08/06
7,086,303                       10/190,994                       08/08/06
7,086,311                       10/940,628                       08/08/06
7,086,315                       10/945,059                       08/08/06
7,086,319                       10/724,610                       08/08/06
7,086,324                       10/499,899                       08/08/06
7,086,326                       10/145,983                       08/08/06
7,086,333                       10/773,470                       08/08/06
7,086,341                       10/379,421                       08/08/06
7,086,346                       10/942,064                       08/08/06
7,086,351                       10/839,823                       08/08/06
7,086,352                       10/841,600                       08/08/06
7,086,354                       10/697,749                       08/08/06
7,086,356                       10/896,283                       08/08/06
7,086,359                       11/131,361                       08/08/06
7,086,367                       10/919,641                       08/08/06
7,086,371                       10/898,263                       08/08/06
7,086,377                       10/362,265                       08/08/06
7,086,380                       11/167,101                       08/08/06
7,086,381                       10/201,199                       08/08/06
7,086,388                       10/634,085                       08/08/06
7,086,418                       11/031,319                       08/08/06
7,086,419                       11/070,588                       08/08/06
7,086,430                       10/499,795                       08/08/06
7,086,433                       10/643,171                       08/08/06
7,086,434                       10/727,314                       08/08/06
7,086,437                       09/685,466                       08/08/06
7,086,438                       09/651,786                       08/08/06
7,086,444                       10/855,742                       08/08/06
7,086,447                       10/942,256                       08/08/06
7,086,448                       11/064,652                       08/08/06
7,086,456                       10/877,716                       08/08/06
7,086,460                       10/618,785                       08/08/06
7,086,470                       10/764,192                       08/08/06
7,086,491                       10/392,655                       08/08/06
7,086,496                       11/098,513                       08/08/06
7,086,510                       10/670,760                       08/08/06
7,086,512                       10/960,111                       08/08/06
7,086,515                       10/643,661                       08/08/06
7,086,530                       10/803,523                       08/08/06
7,086,536                       10/797,074                       08/08/06
7,086,551                       10/621,549                       08/08/06
7,086,557                       10/667,527                       08/08/06
7,086,559                       10/698,428                       08/08/06
7,086,561                       10/715,021                       08/08/06
7,086,563                       10/478,607                       08/08/06
7,086,564                       10/308,908                       08/08/06
7,086,567                       10/202,059                       08/08/06
7,086,570                       10/511,082                       08/08/06
7,086,573                       11/044,357                       08/08/06
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 351 

7,086,575                       11/251,362                       08/08/06
7,086,577                       10/358,265                       08/08/06
7,086,579                       09/795,068                       08/08/06
7,086,581                       11/052,591                       08/08/06
7,086,582                       10/142,469                       08/08/06
7,086,599                       09/883,200                       08/08/06
7,086,607                       10/386,712                       08/08/06
7,086,609                       10/851,142                       08/08/06
7,086,616                       10/825,461                       08/08/06
7,086,624                       10/503,912                       08/08/06
7,086,632                       10/823,826                       08/08/06
7,086,635                       10/906,915                       08/08/06
7,086,640                       10/706,455                       08/08/06
7,086,642                       10/609,083                       08/08/06
7,086,647                       10/357,976                       08/08/06
7,086,651                       10/769,045                       08/08/06
7,086,662                       09/774,351                       08/08/06
7,086,664                       10/713,599                       08/08/06
7,086,667                       10/036,934                       08/08/06
7,086,671                       10/419,017                       08/08/06
7,086,672                       10/372,380                       08/08/06
7,086,678                       10/835,508                       08/08/06
7,086,680                       10/773,711                       08/08/06
7,086,682                       11/004,582                       08/08/06
7,086,683                       10/710,498                       08/08/06
7,086,684                       10/823,526                       08/08/06
7,086,694                       11/045,110                       08/08/06
7,086,695                       10/877,993                       08/08/06
7,086,702                       10/968,204                       08/08/06
7,086,706                       11/020,073                       08/08/06
7,086,733                       11/104,502                       08/08/06
7,086,737                       10/890,111                       08/08/06
7,086,738                       10/782,348                       08/08/06
7,086,748                       10/679,895                       08/08/06
7,086,752                       10/967,466                       08/08/06
7,086,754                       10/698,336                       08/08/06
7,086,755                       10/704,614                       08/08/06
7,086,759                       10/799,830                       08/08/06
7,086,760                       10/843,343                       08/08/06
7,086,766                       10/670,728                       08/08/06
7,086,776                       10/441,631                       08/08/06
7,086,791                       10/988,654                       08/08/06
7,086,793                       11/076,657                       08/08/06
7,086,800                       10/808,293                       08/08/06
7,086,803                       11/057,269                       08/08/06
7,086,811                       10/662,528                       08/08/06
7,086,816                       10/515,894                       08/08/06
7,086,827                       10/938,698                       08/08/06
7,086,851                       10/689,555                       08/08/06
7,086,853                       10/733,369                       08/08/06
7,086,859                       10/458,417                       08/08/06
7,086,865                       10/484,235                       08/08/06
7,086,867                       11/116,356                       08/08/06
7,086,869                       11/038,708                       08/08/06
7,086,877                       11/186,050                       08/08/06
7,086,883                       10/863,100                       08/08/06
7,086,884                       10/535,786                       08/08/06
7,086,889                       11/100,828                       08/08/06
7,086,893                       11/144,926                       08/08/06
7,086,896                       10/904,198                       08/08/06
7,086,900                       10/749,717                       08/08/06
7,086,901                       10/927,666                       08/08/06
7,086,905                       11/322,557                       08/08/06
7,086,911                       10/486,014                       08/08/06
7,086,914                       11/139,053                       08/08/06
7,086,920                       10/821,742                       08/08/06
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 352 

7,086,921                       10/790,616                       08/08/06
7,086,923                       10/708,630                       08/08/06
7,086,936                       10/743,923                       08/08/06
7,086,940                       10/277,774                       08/08/06
7,086,956                       10/966,368                       08/08/06
7,086,958                       11/214,024                       08/08/06
7,086,964                       10/652,233                       08/08/06
7,086,971                       10/778,829                       08/08/06
7,086,972                       10/811,267                       08/08/06
7,086,991                       10/199,551                       08/08/06
7,086,994                       09/369,508                       08/08/06
7,086,997                       10/755,436                       08/08/06
7,087,000                       10/803,372                       08/08/06
7,087,002                       10/462,869                       08/08/06
7,087,003                       11/053,637                       08/08/06
7,087,009                       11/175,611                       08/08/06
7,087,019                       10/758,079                       08/08/06
7,087,027                       10/131,407                       08/08/06
7,087,030                       10/359,670                       08/08/06
7,087,031                       10/302,311                       08/08/06
7,087,042                       10/956,787                       08/08/06
7,087,069                       10/333,832                       08/08/06
7,087,078                       10/432,156                       08/08/06
7,087,081                       10/666,451                       08/08/06
7,087,091                       11/296,682                       08/08/06
7,087,092                       11/040,960                       08/08/06
7,087,094                       10/653,725                       08/08/06
7,087,108                       10/503,068                       08/08/06
7,087,121                       10/263,125                       08/08/06
7,087,136                       10/840,572                       08/08/06
7,087,147                       10/720,521                       08/08/06
7,087,150                       10/138,359                       08/08/06
7,087,151                       10/361,023                       08/08/06
7,087,156                       10/322,417                       08/08/06
7,087,158                       10/928,132                       08/08/06
7,087,161                       09/689,831                       08/08/06
7,087,166                       09/968,225                       08/08/06
7,087,183                       11/165,728                       08/08/06
7,087,186                       10/301,876                       08/08/06
7,087,193                       10/432,111                       08/08/06
7,087,195                       10/450,134                       08/08/06
7,087,199                       10/629,556                       08/08/06
7,087,203                       09/988,850                       08/08/06
7,087,213                       11/054,585                       08/08/06
7,087,214                       10/353,788                       08/08/06
7,087,217                       10/766,279                       08/08/06
7,087,218                       10/792,013                       08/08/06
7,087,220                       10/857,493                       08/08/06
7,087,233                       10/189,240                       08/08/06
7,087,240                       09/340,338                       08/08/06
7,087,247                       10/416,472                       08/08/06
7,087,257                       10/436,808                       08/08/06
7,087,274                       11/018,121                       08/08/06
7,087,282                       10/619,642                       08/08/06
7,087,284                       10/944,421                       08/08/06
7,087,311                       11/207,463                       08/08/06
7,087,312                       10/757,837                       08/08/06
7,087,321                       10/829,011                       08/08/06
7,087,324                       10/664,066                       08/08/06
7,087,327                       10/440,025                       08/08/06
7,087,347                       10/639,296                       08/08/06
7,087,366                       10/731,462                       08/08/06
7,087,367                       11/038,397                       08/08/06
7,087,368                       11/263,157                       08/08/06
7,087,373                       10/161,613                       08/08/06
7,087,375                       09/599,877                       08/08/06
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 353 

7,087,382                       10/130,137                       08/08/06
7,087,403                       10/987,524                       08/08/06
7,087,404                       10/015,610                       08/08/06
7,087,405                       10/141,908                       08/08/06
7,087,407                       10/409,532                       08/08/06
7,087,417                       10/606,608                       08/08/06
7,087,420                       09/936,759                       08/08/06
7,087,421                       10/180,998                       08/08/06
7,087,428                       10/147,512                       08/08/06
7,087,435                       09/846,328                       08/08/06
7,087,443                       10/628,981                       08/08/06
7,087,446                       10/415,532                       08/08/06
7,087,447                       10/696,278                       08/08/06
7,087,463                       10/911,052                       08/08/06
7,087,470                       10/873,012                       08/08/06
7,087,475                       11/028,060                       08/08/06
7,087,477                       10/987,532                       08/08/06
7,087,486                       10/963,228                       08/08/06
7,087,501                       11/179,659                       08/08/06
7,087,506                       10/604,116                       08/08/06
7,087,507                       10/847,538                       08/08/06
7,087,513                       10/904,138                       08/08/06
7,087,529                       10/677,433                       08/08/06
7,087,531                       10/905,681                       08/08/06
7,087,532                       10/711,683                       08/08/06
7,087,548                       10/493,745                       08/08/06
7,087,549                       11/106,813                       08/08/06
7,087,552                       10/210,363                       08/08/06
7,087,558                       10/257,809                       08/08/06
7,087,567                       10/412,831                       08/08/06
7,087,570                       10/168,749                       08/08/06
7,087,576                       10/681,827                       08/08/06
7,087,582                       09/663,889                       08/08/06
7,087,597                       10/110,381                       08/08/06
7,087,601                       10/497,452                       08/08/06
7,087,602                       10/310,074                       08/08/06
7,087,605                       10/480,947                       08/08/06
7,087,615                       10/689,388                       08/08/06
7,087,616                       10/468,371                       08/08/06
7,087,617                       10/839,055                       08/08/06
7,087,618                       11/082,466                       08/08/06
7,087,622                       11/123,995                       08/08/06
7,087,629                       10/382,396                       08/08/06
7,087,630                       10/603,098                       08/08/06
7,087,634                       10/418,556                       08/08/06
7,087,635                       11/082,106                       08/08/06
7,087,649                       10/479,774                       08/08/06
7,087,659                       10/828,727                       08/08/06
7,087,660                       10/629,421                       08/08/06
7,087,661                       09/405,269                       08/08/06
7,087,664                       10/762,302                       08/08/06
7,087,670                       10/276,866                       08/08/06
7,087,671                       10/694,700                       08/08/06
7,087,681                       10/845,838                       08/08/06
7,087,682                       10/832,850                       08/08/06
7,087,683                       10/310,479                       08/08/06
7,087,684                       10/999,800                       08/08/06
7,087,689                       11/115,431                       08/08/06
7,087,701                       11/093,909                       08/08/06
7,087,711                       09/943,944                       08/08/06
7,087,716                       10/275,555                       08/08/06
7,087,719                       10/300,233                       08/08/06
7,087,730                       10/523,241                       08/08/06
7,087,732                       10/033,195                       08/08/06
7,087,735                       10/729,667                       08/08/06
7,087,737                       10/201,769                       08/08/06
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 354 

7,087,738                       09/907,942                       08/08/06
7,087,746                       10/482,957                       08/08/06
7,087,758                       10/474,084                       08/08/06
7,087,759                       10/856,983                       08/08/06
7,087,763                       10/738,940                       08/08/06
7,087,764                       10/366,356                       08/08/06
7,087,765                       10/797,355                       08/08/06
7,087,774                       11/017,166                       08/08/06
7,087,776                       11/092,316                       08/08/06
7,087,779                       10/932,564                       08/08/06
7,087,784                       10/809,125                       08/08/06
7,087,788                       10/916,355                       08/08/06
7,087,794                       10/295,419                       08/08/06
7,087,796                       11/154,400                       08/08/06
7,087,797                       10/474,679                       08/08/06
7,087,798                       10/526,016                       08/08/06
7,087,801                       10/686,680                       08/08/06
7,087,803                       10/673,372                       08/08/06
7,087,805                       10/277,305                       08/08/06
7,087,811                       09/857,841                       08/08/06
7,087,813                       10/059,909                       08/08/06
7,087,839                       10/193,565                       08/08/06
7,087,841                       10/095,651                       08/08/06
7,087,852                       10/950,005                       08/08/06
7,087,863                       11/285,078                       08/08/06
7,087,871                       10/701,336                       08/08/06
7,087,894                       10/498,317                       08/08/06
7,087,904                       10/451,755                       08/08/06
7,087,909                       10/975,874                       08/08/06
7,087,929                       10/826,364                       08/08/06
7,087,937                       11/184,971                       08/08/06
7,087,939                       11/074,041                       08/08/06
7,087,948                       10/995,444                       08/08/06
7,087,965                       10/830,347                       08/08/06
7,088,000                       10/904,439                       08/08/06
7,088,022                       10/705,629                       08/08/06
7,088,025                       11/060,405                       08/08/06
7,088,028                       10/934,779                       08/08/06
7,088,034                       10/887,814                       08/08/06
7,088,035                       10/193,230                       08/08/06
7,088,038                       10/612,117                       08/08/06
7,088,043                       11/070,082                       08/08/06
7,088,044                       11/103,435                       08/08/06
7,088,055                       10/725,553                       08/08/06
7,088,056                       10/506,445                       08/08/06
7,088,078                       10/860,907                       08/08/06
7,088,093                       10/747,681                       08/08/06
7,088,106                       11/022,245                       08/08/06
7,088,107                       10/536,996                       08/08/06
7,088,109                       10/955,627                       08/08/06
7,088,110                       10/915,235                       08/08/06
7,088,116                       11/054,564                       08/08/06
7,088,124                       11/280,008                       08/08/06
7,088,137                       10/838,391                       08/08/06
7,088,154                       11/037,790                       08/08/06
7,088,170                       10/827,783                       08/08/06
7,088,190                       10/709,811                       08/08/06
7,088,194                       10/762,338                       08/08/06
7,088,199                       10/857,742                       08/08/06
7,088,207                       10/444,591                       08/08/06
7,088,208                       10/756,342                       08/08/06
7,088,209                       09/984,181                       08/08/06
7,088,211                       10/621,208                       08/08/06
7,088,212                       11/274,593                       08/08/06
7,088,217                       10/332,898                       08/08/06
7,088,228                       10/801,747                       08/08/06
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 355 

7,088,253                       10/775,925                       08/08/06
7,088,272                       11/166,080                       08/08/06
7,088,282                       11/149,313                       08/08/06
7,088,292                       11/079,243                       08/08/06
7,088,293                       10/938,734                       08/08/06
7,088,295                       10/876,757                       08/08/06
7,088,296                       10/960,428                       08/08/06
7,088,307                       10/831,464                       08/08/06
7,088,314                       10/479,491                       08/08/06
7,088,324                       10/063,788                       08/08/06
7,088,343                       09/845,552                       08/08/06
7,088,377                       09/882,551                       08/08/06
7,088,385                       10/423,806                       08/08/06
7,088,395                       10/052,706                       08/08/06
7,088,396                       10/037,322                       08/08/06
7,088,405                       10/429,601                       08/08/06
7,088,418                       09/636,783                       08/08/06
7,088,421                       10/648,796                       08/08/06
7,088,422                       10/749,638                       08/08/06
7,088,435                       10/428,398                       08/08/06
7,088,444                       10/984,463                       08/08/06
7,088,448                       09/485,325                       08/08/06
7,088,453                       10/703,307                       08/08/06
7,088,468                       09/380,270                       08/08/06
7,088,470                       09/874,524                       08/08/06
7,088,491                       10/827,328                       08/08/06
7,088,496                       10/488,324                       08/08/06
7,088,527                       11/022,837                       08/08/06
7,088,529                       11/023,867                       08/08/06
7,088,530                       11/046,252                       08/08/06
7,088,536                       10/312,706                       08/08/06
7,088,550                       10/631,940                       08/08/06
7,088,572                       11/127,272                       08/08/06
7,088,578                       10/982,579                       08/08/06
7,088,580                       10/950,322                       08/08/06
7,088,581                       10/200,828                       08/08/06
7,088,584                       10/867,991                       08/08/06
7,088,587                       10/839,870                       08/08/06
7,088,589                       10/775,200                       08/08/06
7,088,594                       10/984,846                       08/08/06
7,088,611                       10/998,807                       08/08/06
7,088,612                       10/923,639                       08/08/06
7,088,622                       11/095,798                       08/08/06
7,088,638                       11/054,176                       08/08/06
7,088,643                       11/097,080                       08/08/06
7,088,650                       09/643,106                       08/08/06
7,088,662                       10/488,370                       08/08/06
7,088,669                       10/195,417                       08/08/06
7,088,684                       09/906,596                       08/08/06
7,088,686                       09/807,378                       08/08/06
7,088,693                       10/973,800                       08/08/06
7,088,715                       10/933,598                       08/08/06
7,088,730                       10/150,252                       08/08/06
7,088,744                       10/332,847                       08/08/06
7,088,745                       10/363,765                       08/08/06
7,088,757                       09/601,434                       08/08/06
7,088,762                       10/670,401                       08/08/06
7,088,766                       10/014,455                       08/08/06
7,088,769                       10/079,595                       08/08/06
7,088,775                       09/765,852                       08/08/06
7,088,779                       09/938,378                       08/08/06
7,088,790                       10/327,745                       08/08/06
7,088,795                       09/599,968                       08/08/06
7,088,822                       10/075,016                       08/08/06
7,088,823                       10/043,369                       08/08/06
7,088,827                       09/456,676                       08/08/06
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 356 

7,088,833                       10/049,147                       08/08/06
7,088,839                       10/115,528                       08/08/06
7,088,840                       10/714,628                       08/08/06
7,088,843                       10/006,294                       08/08/06
7,088,881                       10/130,166                       08/08/06
7,088,895                       10/761,989                       08/08/06
7,088,906                       09/549,592                       08/08/06
7,088,907                       09/504,740                       08/08/06
7,088,908                       11/108,441                       08/08/06
7,088,923                       11/090,492                       08/08/06
7,088,924                       11/090,501                       08/08/06
7,088,941                       10/751,909                       08/08/06
7,088,951                       10/443,894                       08/08/06
7,088,964                       10/677,704                       08/08/06
7,088,968                       10/020,423                       08/08/06
7,088,986                       10/277,876                       08/08/06
7,088,994                       09/908,026                       08/08/06
7,089,001                       09/980,949                       08/08/06
7,089,007                       11/142,802                       08/08/06
7,089,010                       10/025,409                       08/08/06
7,089,013                       10/896,185                       08/08/06
7,089,015                       10/619,444                       08/08/06
7,089,021                       10/484,337                       08/08/06
7,089,032                       10/297,800                       08/08/06
7,089,042                       10/753,077                       08/08/06
7,089,053                       10/110,590                       08/08/06
7,089,054                       10/285,313                       08/08/06
7,089,077                       11/160,719                       08/08/06
7,089,083                       10/411,184                       08/08/06
7,089,120                       09/915,813                       08/08/06
7,089,123                       10/261,563                       08/08/06
7,089,130                       10/923,709                       08/08/06
7,089,131                       10/104,139                       08/08/06
7,089,132                       10/709,805                       08/08/06
7,089,136                       10/604,414                       08/08/06
7,089,139                       10/919,170                       08/08/06
7,089,147                       11/046,785                       08/08/06
7,089,156                       09/918,986                       08/08/06
7,089,157                       10/492,779                       08/08/06
7,089,159                       09/822,512                       08/08/06
7,089,160                       10/042,539                       08/08/06
7,089,195                       09/846,431                       08/08/06
7,089,215                       10/761,404                       08/08/06
7,089,219                       11/090,737                       08/08/06
7,089,224                       10/411,829                       08/08/06
7,089,228                       10/125,190                       08/08/06
7,089,230                       10/164,767                       08/08/06
7,089,231                       10/334,268                       08/08/06
7,089,235                       10/418,592                       08/08/06
7,089,242                       09/515,021                       08/08/06
7,089,244                       10/440,442                       08/08/06
7,089,269                       10/660,224                       08/08/06
7,089,279                       09/439,130                       08/08/06
7,089,299                       10/047,831                       08/08/06
7,089,305                       09/963,144                       08/08/06
7,089,311                       09/773,437                       08/08/06
7,089,312                       09/957,823                       08/08/06
7,089,341                       10/815,247                       08/08/06
7,089,353                       10/322,996                       08/08/06
7,089,354                       10/630,527                       08/08/06
7,089,355                       10/680,655                       08/08/06
7,089,364                       10/825,188                       08/08/06
7,089,370                       10/675,170                       08/08/06
7,089,372                       10/725,853                       08/08/06
7,089,376                       10/442,485                       08/08/06
7,089,387                       10/645,742                       08/08/06
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 357 

7,089,392                       10/434,613                       08/08/06
7,089,401                       10/373,152                       08/08/06
7,089,403                       10/180,811                       08/08/06
7,089,406                       10/457,610                       08/08/06
7,089,408                       10/435,879                       08/08/06
7,089,411                       10/424,488                       08/08/06
7,089,414                       10/411,414                       08/08/06
7,089,419                       10/125,115                       08/08/06
7,089,425                       10/392,591                       08/08/06
7,089,440                       10/721,592                       08/08/06
7,089,441                       09/795,733                       08/08/06
7,089,446                       10/339,957                       08/08/06
7,089,451                       09/771,989                       08/08/06
7,089,456                       10/161,207                       08/08/06
7,089,457                       10/123,728                       08/08/06
7,089,461                       10/392,504                       08/08/06
7,089,474                       10/789,710                       08/08/06
7,089,482                       10/102,832                       08/08/06
7,089,499                       09/794,338                       08/08/06
7,089,504                       09/563,624                       08/08/06
7,089,505                       10/300,622                       08/08/06
7,089,507                       10/217,711                       08/08/06
7,089,511                       10/733,210                       08/08/06
7,089,512                       10/708,608                       08/08/06
7,089,513                       10/708,715                       08/08/06
7,089,514                       10/710,879                       08/08/06
7,089,518                       10/841,729                       08/08/06
7,089,520                       10/707,069                       08/08/06
7,089,521                       10/766,549                       08/08/06
7,089,534                       10/135,409                       08/08/06
7,089,535                       10/108,681                       08/08/06
7,089,540                       10/147,195                       08/08/06
7,089,542                       10/318,823                       08/08/06
7,089,545                       10/321,971                       08/08/06
7,089,551                       09/779,135                       08/08/06
7,089,554                       10/910,488                       08/08/06
7,089,555                       10/179,100                       08/08/06
7,089,562                       09/564,619                       08/08/06
7,089,575                       09/945,871                       08/08/06
7,089,578                       09/967,873                       08/08/06
7,089,593                       09/387,452                       08/08/06
7,089,594                       10/623,932                       08/08/06
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 358 

Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a Late Maintenance Fee from 08/30/2010
		 Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a
		     Late Maintenance Fee from 08/30/2010
 
Patent          Application     Filing          Issue	        Granted
Number          Number		Date            Date 	  	Date
 
5,607,096 	08/613,023 	03/11/96 	03/04/97        09/02/10
5,618,288 	08/589,284 	01/22/96 	04/08/97        08/31/10
5,640,825 	08/387,136 	02/10/95 	06/24/97        09/02/10
5,657,511 	08/576,939 	12/22/95 	08/19/97        08/31/10
5,664,018 	08/615,534 	03/12/96 	09/02/97        09/02/10
5,702,709 	08/423,099 	04/18/95 	12/30/97        09/01/10
5,772,819 	08/487,631 	06/07/95 	06/30/98        08/31/10
5,775,208 	08/504,240 	07/19/95 	07/07/98        09/02/10
5,775,988 	08/751,954 	11/18/96 	07/07/98        08/31/10
5,780,087 	08/717,764 	09/23/96 	07/14/98        08/30/10
6,114,153 	09/360,581 	07/26/99 	09/05/00        09/03/10
6,129,998 	09/058,262 	04/10/98 	10/10/00        09/04/10
6,143,392 	09/251,673 	02/17/99 	11/07/00        09/03/10
6,213,469 	09/027,789 	02/23/98 	04/10/01        09/02/10
6,285,659 	08/926,514 	09/10/97 	09/04/01        09/03/10
6,333,424 	09/269,974 	04/08/99 	12/25/01        08/30/10
6,345,828 	09/925,242 	08/08/01 	02/12/02        08/31/10
6,354,616 	09/413,338 	10/12/99 	03/12/02        08/31/10
6,382,657 	09/735,844 	12/13/00 	05/07/02        09/03/10
6,401,117 	09/282,790 	03/31/99 	06/04/02        09/03/10
6,406,844 	08/456,887 	06/01/95 	06/18/02        09/01/10
6,414,746 	09/449,091 	11/24/99 	07/02/02        08/31/10
6,421,730 	09/283,662 	04/01/99 	07/16/02        09/03/10
6,425,082 	09/619,022 	07/19/00 	07/23/02        09/03/10
6,752,713 	10/410,319 	04/09/03 	06/22/04        09/02/10
6,814,632 	10/162,950 	06/04/02 	11/09/04        08/30/10
6,859,841 	10/084,815 	02/27/02 	02/22/05        09/03/10
6,891,857 	09/560,672 	04/27/00 	05/10/05        09/03/10
6,907,490 	09/738,913 	12/13/00 	06/14/05        09/03/10
6,923,995 	10/107,944 	03/27/02 	08/02/05        08/30/10
6,935,359 	10/164,157 	06/06/02 	08/30/05        08/30/10
6,948,669 	10/186,580 	06/28/02 	09/27/05        09/01/10
6,965,798 	10/318,298 	12/13/02 	11/15/05        09/01/10
6,981,888 	11/053,303 	02/08/05 	01/03/06        09/02/10
6,994,661 	10/286,519 	11/01/02 	02/07/06        09/01/10
7,011,535 	10/713,375 	11/14/03 	03/14/06        08/30/10
7,058,789 	10/358,548 	02/04/03 	06/06/06        08/30/10
7,062,592 	10/392,560 	03/19/03 	06/13/06        08/31/10
7,071,415 	11/062,030 	02/18/05 	07/04/06        09/02/10
7,073,350 	10/826,438 	04/15/04 	07/11/06        09/01/10
7,080,168 	10/622,285 	07/18/03 	07/18/06        08/30/10
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 359 

Reissue Applications Filed
			   Reissue Application Filed
 
   6,542,564, Re. S.N. 12/850,600, Aug. 04, 2010, Cl. 375/000, METHOD AND
APPARATUS FOR COMPENSATING REPRODUCED AUDIO SIGNALS OF AN OPTICAL DISC, Jea
Ryong Cho, Owner of Record: LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Attorney or Agent: Esther
H. Choung, Ex. Gp.: 2611
 
   6,542,564, Re. S.N. 12/850,602, Aug. 04, 2010, Cl. 375/000, METHOD AND
APPARATUS FOR COMPENSATING REPRODUCED AUDIO SIGNALS OF AN OPTICAL DISC, Jea
Ryong Cho, Owner of Record: LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Attorney or Agent: Esther
H. Choung, Ex. Gp.: 2611
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 360 

Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed
		   Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed
 
   RE. 40,384, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,073, Requested Date: Jun. 29, 2010, Cl.
345/629, Title: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANIPULATING SCANNED DOCUMENTS IN
A COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN SYSTEM, Inventor: William Opincar et al., Owners of
Record: American Imaging Services, Inc., Dallas, TX, Attorney or Agent:
Storm, LLP., Dallas, TX, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Autodesk, Inc., San
Rafael, CA, Daniel M. DeVos, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, LLP.,
Sunnyvale, CA
 
   5,799,609, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,766, Requested Date: Jun. 25, 2010, Cl.
119/074, Title: ANIMAL WATERER, Inventor: Mary V. Burns, et al., Owners of
Record: Veterinary Ventures, Inc., Reno, NV, Attorney or Agent: Holland &
Hart, LLP., Denver, CO, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Barry Farris, Pollock
Pines, CA
 
   6,023,683, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,066, Requested Date: Jun. 25, 2010, Cl.
705/026, Title: ELECTRONIC SOURCING SYSTEM AND METHOD, Inventor: James M.
Johnson et al., Owners of Record: ePlus, Inc., Herndon, VA, Attorney or
Agent: Cha & Reiter, LLC., Paramus, NJ, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Lawson
Software, Inc., Robert A. Kalinsky, Merchant & Gould, PC., Minneapolis, MN
 
   6,315,616, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,768, Requested Date: Jul. 17, 2010, Cl.
439/638, Title: PLUG CONNECTOR AND SOCKET CONNECTOR, Inventor: Koji
Hayashi, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Law Office of Clement Cheng, Fountain
Valley, CA
 
   6,397,974, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,059, Requested Date: Jul. 14, 2010, Cl.
187/254, Title: TRACTION ELEVATOR SYSTEM USING FLEXIBLE, FLAT ROPE AND A
PERMANENT MAGNET MACHINE, Inventor: Leandre Adifon et al., Owners of
Record: Otis Elevator Company, Farmington, CT, Attorney or Agent: Otis
Elevator Company, Farmington, CT, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Robert J. Roby,
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP., Irvine, CA
 
   6,536,188, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,072, Requested Date: Jun. 29, 2010, Cl.
053/425, Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ASEPTIC PACKAGING, Inventor:
Thomas D. Taggart, Owners of Record: Steuben Foods Incorporated, Elma, NY,
Attorney or Agent: Schmeiser Olsen & Watts, Latham, NY, Ex. Gp.: 3993,
Requester: Joseph W. Holland, Holland Law Office, PLLC., Boise, ID
 
   6,590,269, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,061, Requested Date: Jun. 30, 2010, Cl.
257/432, Title: PACKAGE STRUCTURE FOR A PHOTOSENSITIVE CHIP, Inventor:
Jason Chuang et al., Owners of Record: Kingpak Technology, Inc., Taiwan,
Attorney or Agent: Pro-Techtor International Services, Saratoga, CA, Ex.
Gp.: 3992, Requester: Jay Chiu, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, LLP.,
Washington, DC
 
   6,702,857, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,067, Requested Date: Jun. 25, 2010, Cl.
623/023, Title: MEMBRANE FOR USE WITH IMPLANTABLE DEVICES, Inventor: James
H. Brauker et al., Owners of Record: Dexcom, Inc., San Diego, CA, Attorney
or Agent: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP., Irvine, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3993,
Requester: Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., Peter A. Socarras, Esq., Bozicevic
Field & Francis, LLP., East Palo Alto, CA
 
   7,090,506, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,062, Requested Date: Jun. 24, 2010, Cl.
439/067, Title: SIGNAL TRANSMISSION DEVICE HAVING FLEXIBLE PRINTED CIRCUIT
BOARDS, Inventor: Kuang-Tao Sung et al., Owners of Record: AU Optronics
Corp., Taiwan, Attorney or Agent: Thomas Kayden Horstemeyer & Risley, LLP.,
Atlanta, GA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Song K. Jung, Esquire, McKenna Long
& Aldridge, LLP., Washington, DC
 
   7,537,964, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,058, Requested Date: Jun. 23, 2010, Cl.
438/113, Title: METHOD OF FABRICATING A MINIATURE SILICON CONDENSER
MICROPHONE, Inventor: Anthony D. Minervini et al., Owners of Record:
Knowles Electronics, LLC., Chicago, IL, Attorney or Agent: Dykema Gossette,
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 361 

PLLC., Chicago, IL, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Robert M. Asher, Sunstein
Kann Murphy & Timbers, LLP., Boston, MA
 
   7,578,439, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,070, Requested Date: Jun. 28, 2010, Cl.
235/380, Title: SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR AUTHORIZING STORED VALUE CARD
TRANSACTIONS, Inventor: Phillip Craig Graves et al., Owners of Record:
e2INTERATIVE, Inc., Atlanta, GA, Attorney or Agent: Landmark Intellectual
Property Law, PLLC., Midlothian, VA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Kevin J.
Zimmer, Esq., Cooley, LLP., Washington, DC
 
   7,726,480, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,755, Requested Date: Jun. 10, 2010, Cl.
2Jun. 461, Title: DISPLAY PACK AND PACKAGING METHOD AND APPARATUS, Inventor:
Joseph Nazari, Owners of Record: Winterborne, Inc., Chatsworth, CA,
Attorney or Agent: Christi Parker & Hale, LLP., Pasadena, CA, Ex. Gp.:
3993, Requester: Robert M. DeWitty, Esq., Washington, DC
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 362 

Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed
		 Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed
 
   6,772,142, Reexam. C.N.: 95/000,554, Requested Date: Jun. 23, 2010, Cl.:
7Jul. 003, Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COLLECTING AND EXPRESSING
GEOGRAPHICALLY REFERENCED DATA, Inventor: Steven T. Kelling et al., Owners
of Record: Cornell Research Foundation, Inc., Ithaca, NY, Attorney or
Agent: Perkins Smith & Cohen, LLP., Boston, MA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester:
Third Party Requester: (Att'y Is: Michael V. Messinger, Sterne Kessler
Goldstein & Fox, PLLC., Washington, DC), Real Party in Interest: Google,
Inc. and Yahoo! Inc.
 
   7,015,868, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,390, Requested Date: Jul. 02, 2010, Cl.:
343/800, Title: MULTILEVEL ANTENNAE, Inventor: Carles Puente Baliarda et
al., Owners of Record: Fractus, SA., Spain, Attorney or Agent: Howison &
Arnott, LLP., Dallas, TX, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester:
Samsung Electronics Co., LTD; (Att'y Is: Tracy W. Druce, Novak Druce &
Quigg, LLP., Houston, TX), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party
Requester
 
   7,123,208, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,389, Requested Date: Jul. 01, 2010, Cl.:
343/800, Title: MULTILEVEL ANTENNAE, Inventor: Carles Puente Baliarda et
al., Owners of Record: Fractus, SA., Spain, Attorney or Agent: Howison &
Arnott, LLP., Dallas, TX, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester:
Samsung Electronics Co., LTD; (Att'y Is: Tracy W. Druce, Novak Druce &
Quigg, LLP., Houston, TX), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party
Requester
 
   7,155,439, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,391, Requested Date: Jul. 07, 2010 Cl.:
707/100, Title: MODULAR AND CUSTOMIZABLE PROCESS AND SYSTEM FOR CAPTURING
FIELD DOCUMENTATION DATA IN A COMPLEX PROJECT WORKFLOW SYSTEM, Inventor:
Warren Scott Cope, Owners of Record: Wellogix Technology Licensing, LLC.,
Houston, TX, Attorney or Agent: The Mathews Firm, Houston, TX, Ex. Gp.:
3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: SAP America; (Att'y Is: Joseph T.
Jakubek, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP., Portland, OR), Real Party in Interest:
Same As Third Party Requester
 
   7,253,892, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,386, Requested Date: Jun. 26, 2010, Cl.:
356/632, Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MEASURING A CHARACTERISTIC OF A
PLASTIC CONTAINER, Inventor: Frank E. Semersky, Owners of Record: Petwall,
LLC., Holland, OH, Attorney or Agent: Fraser Clemens Martin & Miller, LLC.,
Perrysburg, OH, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: Krones AG;
(Att'y Is: Thomas P. Canty, Leydig Voit & Mayer, LTD., Chicago, IL), Real
Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
 
   7,606,382, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,388, Requested Date: Jul. 01, 2010, Cl.:
381/380, Title: BTE/CIC AUDITORY DEVICE AND MODULAR CONNECTOR SYSTEM
THEREFOR, Inventor: Jim Feeley et al., Owners of Record: Hear-Wear
Technologies, LLC., Tulsa, OK, Attorney or Agent: Fulbright & Jaworski,
LLP., Dallas, TX, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: K/S
HIMPP; (Att'y Is: Michael V. Messinger, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox,
PLLC., Washington, DC), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party
Requester
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 363 

Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations Due to Failure to Renew
		Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations
			    Due To Failure to Renew
 
   15 U.S.C. 1059 provides that each trademark registration may be renewed
for periods of ten years from the end of the expiring period upon payment
of the prescribed fee and the filing of an acceptable application for
renewal. This may be done at any time within one year before the expiration
of the period for which the registration was issued or renewed, or it may
be done within six months after such expiration on payment of an additional
fee.
   According to the records of the Office, the trademark registrations
listed below are expired due to failure to renew in accordance with 15
U.S.C. 1059.
 
		    TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS WHICH EXPIRED
			       September 3, 2010
			    DUE TO FAILURE TO RENEW
 
Reg. Number 		      Serial Number 			Reg. Date
 
  692,290        	       72/075,588   		       02/02/1960
  885,094        	       72/315,823   		       01/27/1970
  885,028        	       72/318,262   		       01/27/1970
  884,942        	       72/320,374   		       01/27/1970
1,130,143        	       73/117,814   		       01/29/1980
1,129,772        	       73/187,218   		       01/29/1980
1,130,078        	       73/188,475   		       01/29/1980
1,130,061        	       73/190,417   		       01/29/1980
1,522,302        	       73/635,331   		       01/31/1989
1,579,988        	       73/685,032   		       01/30/1990
1,580,416        	       73/730,280   		       01/30/1990
1,579,676        	       73/757,776   		       01/30/1990
1,580,718        	       73/759,271   		       01/30/1990
1,580,104        	       73/760,169   		       01/30/1990
1,580,378        	       73/761,329   		       01/30/1990
1,579,956        	       73/762,681   		       01/30/1990
1,579,961        	       73/766,959   		       01/30/1990
1,580,108        	       73/774,259   		       01/30/1990
1,580,109        	       73/774,292   		       01/30/1990
1,579,681        	       73/780,214   		       01/30/1990
1,580,216        	       73/784,245   		       01/30/1990
1,580,440        	       73/789,662   		       01/30/1990
1,580,520        	       73/792,238   		       01/30/1990
1,580,669        	       73/803,088   		       01/30/1990
1,580,395        	       73/803,238   		       01/30/1990
1,580,781        	       73/804,464   		       01/30/1990
1,579,688        	       73/807,930   		       01/30/1990
1,580,263        	       73/808,510   		       01/30/1990
2,312,748        	       75/138,530   		       02/01/2000
2,312,846        	       75/336,497   		       02/01/2000
2,312,880        	       75/354,996   		       02/01/2000
2,313,060        	       75/438,494   		       02/01/2000
2,313,150        	       75/457,680   		       02/01/2000
2,313,185        	       75/465,540   		       02/01/2000
2,313,401        	       75/509,794   		       02/01/2000
2,313,564        	       75/541,034   		       02/01/2000
2,313,698   		       75/564,390   		       02/01/2000
2,314,484   		       75/629,732   		       02/01/2000
2,314,538   		       75/634,655   		       02/01/2000
2,314,617   		       75/643,886   		       02/01/2000
2,314,674   		       75/655,794   		       02/01/2000
2,314,745   		       75/672,825   		       02/01/2000
  692,486   		       72/073,637   		       02/02/1960
  884,867   		       72/321,835   		       01/27/1970
1,580,093   		       73/796,831   		       01/30/1990
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 364 

1,580,619   		       73/810,796   		       01/30/1990
2,314,820   		       74/731,253   		       02/01/2000
2,314,821   		       74/732,550   		       02/01/2000
2,314,825   		       75/054,084   		       02/01/2000
2,312,742   		       75/101,592   		       02/01/2000
2,314,831   		       75/106,734   		       02/01/2000
2,312,745   		       75/111,755   		       02/01/2000
2,312,747   		       75/129,457   		       02/01/2000
2,312,765   		       75/190,039   		       02/01/2000
2,312,766   		       75/190,861   		       02/01/2000
2,314,842   		       75/200,456   		       02/01/2000
2,314,843   		       75/218,681   		       02/01/2000
2,314,845   		       75/224,312   		       02/01/2000
2,315,039   		       75/230,755   		       02/01/2000
2,312,776   		       75/232,711   		       02/01/2000
2,314,849   		       75/235,469   		       02/01/2000
2,312,782   		       75/240,074   		       02/01/2000
2,314,854   		       75/249,476   		       02/01/2000
2,312,787   		       75/250,166   		       02/01/2000
2,314,855   		       75/252,717   		       02/01/2000
2,312,792   		       75/270,324   		       02/01/2000
2,314,866   		       75/286,348   		       02/01/2000
2,312,805   		       75/295,128   		       02/01/2000
2,314,871   		       75/300,956   		       02/01/2000
2,314,876   		       75/307,205   		       02/01/2000
2,312,812   		       75/309,343   		       02/01/2000
2,314,878   		       75/311,835   		       02/01/2000
2,312,819   		       75/318,695   		       02/01/2000
2,312,828   		       75/322,742   		       02/01/2000
2,314,891        	       75/336,882   		       02/01/2000
2,312,863        	       75/345,823   		       02/01/2000
2,315,049        	       75/346,708   		       02/01/2000
2,314,901        	       75/348,029   		       02/01/2000
2,314,906        	       75/351,135   		       02/01/2000
2,312,886        	       75/357,580   		       02/01/2000
2,312,903        	       75/370,611   		       02/01/2000
2,312,905        	       75/371,221   		       02/01/2000
2,312,908        	       75/373,388   		       02/01/2000
2,314,917        	       75/375,715   		       02/01/2000
2,312,912        	       75/377,054   		       02/01/2000
2,314,919        	       75/377,278   		       02/01/2000
2,312,916        	       75/380,335   		       02/01/2000
2,314,920        	       75/381,464   		       02/01/2000
2,314,926        	       75/385,244   		       02/01/2000
2,312,924        	       75/385,571   		       02/01/2000
2,312,930        	       75/389,018   		       02/01/2000
2,312,931        	       75/389,173   		       02/01/2000
2,312,936        	       75/390,228   		       02/01/2000
2,314,929        	       75/390,434   		       02/01/2000
2,312,937        	       75/391,572   		       02/01/2000
2,314,930        	       75/391,889   		       02/01/2000
2,312,940        	       75/394,826   		       02/01/2000
2,312,941        	       75/394,827   		       02/01/2000
2,315,054        	       75/395,901   		       02/01/2000
2,314,934        	       75/397,327   		       02/01/2000
2,312,958        	       75/403,464   		       02/01/2000
2,312,960        	       75/404,241   		       02/01/2000
2,312,962        	       75/405,921   		       02/01/2000
2,312,963        	       75/406,044   		       02/01/2000
2,312,964        	       75/406,856   		       02/01/2000
2,312,967        	       75/407,937   		       02/01/2000
2,312,969        	       75/408,273   		       02/01/2000
2,312,972        	       75/410,160   		       02/01/2000
2,312,976        	       75/410,808   		       02/01/2000
2,312,979        	       75/411,328   		       02/01/2000
2,312,996        	       75/415,532   		       02/01/2000
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 365 

2,313,005        	       75/418,620   		       02/01/2000
2,313,010        	       75/419,443   		       02/01/2000
2,313,013        	       75/422,035   		       02/01/2000
2,314,951        	       75/426,205   		       02/01/2000
2,313,022        	       75/427,302   		       02/01/2000
2,313,023        	       75/427,399   		       02/01/2000
2,314,952        	       75/427,629   		       02/01/2000
2,313,025        	       75/427,973   		       02/01/2000
2,313,027        	       75/428,288   		       02/01/2000
2,313,028        	       75/428,289   		       02/01/2000
2,313,031        	       75/429,716   		       02/01/2000
2,314,955        	       75/431,336   		       02/01/2000
2,313,037        	       75/431,791   		       02/01/2000
2,313,041        	       75/432,697   		       02/01/2000
2,313,049        	       75/436,034   		       02/01/2000
2,313,052        	       75/436,541   		       02/01/2000
2,313,053        	       75/436,607   		       02/01/2000
2,314,965   		       75/439,080   		       02/01/2000
2,313,085   		       75/444,573   		       02/01/2000
2,313,097   		       75/447,233   		       02/01/2000
2,313,109   		       75/449,138   		       02/01/2000
2,314,978   		       75/452,297   		       02/01/2000
2,313,128   		       75/453,641   		       02/01/2000
2,314,982   		       75/454,856   		       02/01/2000
2,313,144   		       75/456,900   		       02/01/2000
2,313,152   		       75/458,227   		       02/01/2000
2,313,157   		       75/459,599   		       02/01/2000
2,313,167   		       75/462,533   		       02/01/2000
2,313,179   		       75/464,451   		       02/01/2000
2,313,183   		       75/465,425   		       02/01/2000
2,314,993   		       75/469,139   		       02/01/2000
2,313,213   		       75/470,666   		       02/01/2000
2,313,230   		       75/475,389   		       02/01/2000
2,313,246   		       75/479,272   		       02/01/2000
2,313,249   		       75/479,604   		       02/01/2000
2,313,252   		       75/480,214   		       02/01/2000
2,313,253   		       75/480,625   		       02/01/2000
2,313,259   		       75/481,464   		       02/01/2000
2,315,066   		       75/486,081   		       02/01/2000
2,313,298   		       75/487,051   		       02/01/2000
2,315,000   		       75/490,307   		       02/01/2000
2,313,312   		       75/490,396   		       02/01/2000
2,313,313   		       75/490,399   		       02/01/2000
2,313,327   		       75/492,737   		       02/01/2000
2,315,068   		       75/495,724   		       02/01/2000
2,313,354   		       75/498,750   		       02/01/2000
2,315,006   		       75/502,683   		       02/01/2000
2,313,387   		       75/506,567   		       02/01/2000
2,313,388   		       75/506,593   		       02/01/2000
2,315,012   		       75/506,791   		       02/01/2000
2,313,394   		       75/508,674   		       02/01/2000
2,313,395   		       75/509,012   		       02/01/2000
2,313,399   		       75/509,097   		       02/01/2000
2,313,402   		       75/509,868   		       02/01/2000
2,315,013   		       75/510,341   		       02/01/2000
2,313,407   		       75/511,345   		       02/01/2000
2,315,015   		       75/512,101   		       02/01/2000
2,313,419   		       75/515,182   		       02/01/2000
2,313,425   		       75/517,442   		       02/01/2000
2,313,428   		       75/518,323   		       02/01/2000
2,313,429   		       75/518,437   		       02/01/2000
2,313,448   		       75/521,090   		       02/01/2000
2,313,451   		       75/521,353   		       02/01/2000
2,313,456   		       75/522,018   		       02/01/2000
2,313,461   		       75/523,583   		       02/01/2000
2,313,465   		       75/524,267   		       02/01/2000
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 366 

2,313,475   		       75/526,100   		       02/01/2000
2,313,476   		       75/526,102   		       02/01/2000
2,313,478   		       75/526,754   		       02/01/2000
2,313,483   		       75/527,040   		       02/01/2000
2,313,484   		       75/527,070   		       02/01/2000
2,313,495   		       75/529,332   		       02/01/2000
2,313,496        	       75/529,351   		       02/01/2000
2,313,497        	       75/529,353   		       02/01/2000
2,313,499        	       75/529,657   		       02/01/2000
2,313,503        	       75/530,108   		       02/01/2000
2,313,504        	       75/530,611   		       02/01/2000
2,313,505        	       75/530,637   		       02/01/2000
2,313,508        	       75/531,057   		       02/01/2000
2,313,513        	       75/531,788   		       02/01/2000
2,313,516        	       75/532,129   		       02/01/2000
2,313,523        	       75/533,283   		       02/01/2000
2,313,537        	       75/536,345   		       02/01/2000
2,313,548        	       75/538,500   		       02/01/2000
2,313,553        	       75/539,928   		       02/01/2000
2,313,556        	       75/540,075   		       02/01/2000
2,313,581        	       75/545,266   		       02/01/2000
2,313,583        	       75/545,670   		       02/01/2000
2,313,589        	       75/546,214   		       02/01/2000
2,313,603        	       75/548,885   		       02/01/2000
2,313,605        	       75/549,089   		       02/01/2000
2,313,606        	       75/549,166   		       02/01/2000
2,313,611        	       75/550,724   		       02/01/2000
2,315,025        	       75/551,049   		       02/01/2000
2,313,622        	       75/552,206   		       02/01/2000
2,313,636        	       75/553,935   		       02/01/2000
2,313,637        	       75/553,946   		       02/01/2000
2,313,640        	       75/554,125   		       02/01/2000
2,315,027        	       75/554,482   		       02/01/2000
2,315,028        	       75/556,009   		       02/01/2000
2,313,654        	       75/556,315   		       02/01/2000
2,313,685        	       75/562,345   		       02/01/2000
2,313,686        	       75/562,577   		       02/01/2000
2,313,689        	       75/563,007   		       02/01/2000
2,313,695        	       75/563,945   		       02/01/2000
2,313,699        	       75/564,396   		       02/01/2000
2,313,700        	       75/564,500   		       02/01/2000
2,313,704        	       75/565,340   		       02/01/2000
2,313,714        	       75/566,968   		       02/01/2000
2,313,721        	       75/568,044   		       02/01/2000
2,313,725        	       75/568,349   		       02/01/2000
2,313,732        	       75/568,663   		       02/01/2000
2,313,736        	       75/568,917   		       02/01/2000
2,313,742        	       75/569,601   		       02/01/2000
2,313,747        	       75/570,041   		       02/01/2000
2,313,752        	       75/570,432   		       02/01/2000
2,313,753        	       75/570,457   		       02/01/2000
2,313,761        	       75/571,477   		       02/01/2000
2,313,788        	       75/574,200   		       02/01/2000
2,313,795        	       75/575,137   		       02/01/2000
2,313,797        	       75/575,268   		       02/01/2000
2,313,798        	       75/575,540   		       02/01/2000
2,313,806        	       75/576,704   		       02/01/2000
2,313,809        	       75/576,833   		       02/01/2000
2,313,810        	       75/576,992   		       02/01/2000
2,313,817        	       75/578,288   		       02/01/2000
2,313,819        	       75/578,503   		       02/01/2000
2,313,820   		       75/578,575   		       02/01/2000
2,313,825   		       75/578,771   		       02/01/2000
2,313,830   		       75/579,107   		       02/01/2000
2,313,833   		       75/579,519   		       02/01/2000
2,313,835   		       75/579,600   		       02/01/2000
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 367 

2,313,845   		       75/580,105   		       02/01/2000
2,313,852   		       75/580,579   		       02/01/2000
2,313,855   		       75/581,371   		       02/01/2000
2,313,859   		       75/581,486   		       02/01/2000
2,313,862   		       75/581,886   		       02/01/2000
2,313,863   		       75/581,950   		       02/01/2000
2,313,866   		       75/582,139   		       02/01/2000
2,313,877   		       75/583,531   		       02/01/2000
2,313,893   		       75/585,786   		       02/01/2000
2,313,904   		       75/587,195   		       02/01/2000
2,313,915   		       75/588,533   		       02/01/2000
2,313,919   		       75/588,884   		       02/01/2000
2,313,926   		       75/589,364   		       02/01/2000
2,313,931   		       75/590,505   		       02/01/2000
2,313,942   		       75/591,526   		       02/01/2000
2,313,966   		       75/593,325   		       02/01/2000
2,313,970   		       75/593,443   		       02/01/2000
2,313,971   		       75/593,465   		       02/01/2000
2,313,977   		       75/593,629   		       02/01/2000
2,313,981   		       75/593,825   		       02/01/2000
2,313,989   		       75/594,185   		       02/01/2000
2,314,005   		       75/595,269   		       02/01/2000
2,314,012   		       75/595,854   		       02/01/2000
2,314,018   		       75/596,003   		       02/01/2000
2,314,024   		       75/596,692   		       02/01/2000
2,314,028   		       75/596,982   		       02/01/2000
2,314,029   		       75/597,087   		       02/01/2000
2,314,031   		       75/597,304   		       02/01/2000
2,314,034   		       75/597,476   		       02/01/2000
2,314,045   		       75/598,228   		       02/01/2000
2,314,058   		       75/598,956   		       02/01/2000
2,314,060   		       75/599,287   		       02/01/2000
2,314,070   		       75/599,752   		       02/01/2000
2,314,074   		       75/599,839   		       02/01/2000
2,314,075   		       75/599,840   		       02/01/2000
2,314,078   		       75/600,144   		       02/01/2000
2,314,094   		       75/600,884   		       02/01/2000
2,314,102   		       75/601,375   		       02/01/2000
2,314,106   		       75/601,396   		       02/01/2000
2,314,113   		       75/601,623   		       02/01/2000
2,314,114   		       75/601,713   		       02/01/2000
2,314,138   		       75/603,795   		       02/01/2000
2,314,142   		       75/604,032   		       02/01/2000
2,314,145   		       75/604,138   		       02/01/2000
2,315,096   		       75/604,367   		       02/01/2000
2,314,153   		       75/604,924   		       02/01/2000
2,314,159   		       75/605,401   		       02/01/2000
2,314,162   		       75/605,570   		       02/01/2000
2,314,165   		       75/605,799   		       02/01/2000
2,314,172   		       75/606,504   		       02/01/2000
2,314,187        	       75/607,643   		       02/01/2000
2,314,195        	       75/608,308   		       02/01/2000
2,314,198        	       75/608,487   		       02/01/2000
2,314,214        	       75/609,375   		       02/01/2000
2,314,228        	       75/610,636   		       02/01/2000
2,314,229        	       75/610,970   		       02/01/2000
2,314,231        	       75/610,984   		       02/01/2000
2,314,233        	       75/611,090   		       02/01/2000
2,314,236        	       75/611,430   		       02/01/2000
2,314,247        	       75/612,046   		       02/01/2000
2,314,248        	       75/612,047   		       02/01/2000
2,314,250        	       75/612,156   		       02/01/2000
2,314,255        	       75/612,398   		       02/01/2000
2,314,257        	       75/612,591   		       02/01/2000
2,314,258        	       75/613,076   		       02/01/2000
2,314,263        	       75/613,082   		       02/01/2000
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 368 

2,314,292        	       75/614,625   		       02/01/2000
2,314,295        	       75/614,655   		       02/01/2000
2,314,297        	       75/614,801   		       02/01/2000
2,314,300        	       75/615,160   		       02/01/2000
2,314,315        	       75/616,361   		       02/01/2000
2,314,318        	       75/616,683   		       02/01/2000
2,314,324        	       75/617,122   		       02/01/2000
2,314,325        	       75/617,127   		       02/01/2000
2,314,328        	       75/617,329   		       02/01/2000
2,314,336        	       75/618,174   		       02/01/2000
2,314,338        	       75/618,326   		       02/01/2000
2,314,342        	       75/618,617   		       02/01/2000
2,314,357        	       75/619,652   		       02/01/2000
2,314,358        	       75/619,656   		       02/01/2000
2,314,369        	       75/620,247   		       02/01/2000
2,314,382        	       75/621,084   		       02/01/2000
2,314,389        	       75/621,655   		       02/01/2000
2,314,391        	       75/621,926   		       02/01/2000
2,314,399        	       75/622,473   		       02/01/2000
2,314,403        	       75/622,682   		       02/01/2000
2,314,412        	       75/623,550   		       02/01/2000
2,314,414        	       75/623,614   		       02/01/2000
2,314,427        	       75/624,577   		       02/01/2000
2,314,429        	       75/624,717   		       02/01/2000
2,314,444        	       75/625,893   		       02/01/2000
2,314,445        	       75/625,981   		       02/01/2000
2,314,453        	       75/626,878   		       02/01/2000
2,314,454        	       75/626,892   		       02/01/2000
2,314,455        	       75/626,893   		       02/01/2000
2,314,461        	       75/627,131   		       02/01/2000
2,314,482        	       75/629,675   		       02/01/2000
2,315,099        	       75/630,226   		       02/01/2000
2,314,507        	       75/631,585   		       02/01/2000
2,314,520   		       75/633,284   		       02/01/2000
2,314,522   		       75/633,476   		       02/01/2000
2,314,536   		       75/634,568   		       02/01/2000
2,314,543   		       75/635,293   		       02/01/2000
2,314,558   		       75/636,852   		       02/01/2000
2,314,560   		       75/636,900   		       02/01/2000
2,314,561   		       75/636,902   		       02/01/2000
2,314,562   		       75/636,959   		       02/01/2000
2,314,563   		       75/637,006   		       02/01/2000
2,314,568   		       75/637,149   		       02/01/2000
2,315,103   		       75/638,949   		       02/01/2000
2,314,589   		       75/639,653   		       02/01/2000
2,314,591   		       75/640,321   		       02/01/2000
2,314,600   		       75/641,210   		       02/01/2000
2,315,106   		       75/641,963   		       02/01/2000
2,314,622   		       75/644,487   		       02/01/2000
2,314,630   		       75/645,491   		       02/01/2000
2,314,637   		       75/646,598   		       02/01/2000
2,314,641   		       75/647,091   		       02/01/2000
2,314,650   		       75/648,269   		       02/01/2000
2,314,660   		       75/650,271   		       02/01/2000
2,314,669   		       75/652,452   		       02/01/2000
2,314,678   		       75/656,204   		       02/01/2000
2,314,679   		       75/656,205   		       02/01/2000
2,314,683   		       75/656,946   		       02/01/2000
2,314,690   		       75/659,634   		       02/01/2000
2,314,692   		       75/659,685   		       02/01/2000
2,314,693   		       75/659,845   		       02/01/2000
2,314,696   		       75/660,356   		       02/01/2000
2,314,699   		       75/661,588   		       02/01/2000
2,314,701   		       75/662,171   		       02/01/2000
2,314,706   		       75/663,837   		       02/01/2000
2,314,710   		       75/664,045   		       02/01/2000
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 369 

2,314,725   		       75/668,866   		       02/01/2000
2,314,729   		       75/669,680   		       02/01/2000
2,314,746   		       75/672,912   		       02/01/2000
2,314,754   		       75/676,249   		       02/01/2000
2,314,761   		       75/676,877   		       02/01/2000
2,314,768   		       75/678,663   		       02/01/2000
2,314,771   		       75/679,837   		       02/01/2000
2,314,772   		       75/679,839   		       02/01/2000
2,314,773   		       75/680,655   		       02/01/2000
2,314,776   		       75/680,920   		       02/01/2000
2,314,785   		       75/684,396   		       02/01/2000
2,314,792   		       75/689,600   		       02/01/2000
2,314,798   		       75/694,576   		       02/01/2000
2,314,802   		       75/697,980   		       02/01/2000
2,315,123   		       75/754,846   		       02/01/2000
2,322,722   		       75/263,280   		       02/29/2000
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 370 

Service by Publication
			    Service by Publication
 
   A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed,
and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known
address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice
is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or
legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this
publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default.
 
Jam Web designs Inc., Oklahoma City, OK, Registration No. 2981108 for the
mark "SPIRITSITES", Cancellation No. 92052695.
 
						 	   MILLICENT CANADY
				      Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
							 LYNNE G. BERESFORD
						Commissioner for Trademarks
 
 
			    Service by Publication
 
   A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed,
and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known
address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice
is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or
legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this
publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default.
 
Infragas North America Inc., Edmunton, Canada, Registration No. 2921903 for
the mark "BOOSTERCAT", Cancellation No. 92052567.
 
						 	      MONIQUE TYSON
						       Paralegal Specialist
			   	      Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
							 LYNNE G. BERESFORD
						Commissioner for Trademarks
 
 
			    Service by Publication
 
   A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed,
and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known
address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice
is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or
legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this
publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default.
 
Gwendolyn Goodloe, Prairie Village, Kansas, Registration No. 2871665 for the
mark "LIMELIGHT", Cancellation No. 92052474.
 
						            NICOLE M. THEIR
						       Paralegal Specialist
			   	      Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
							 LYNNE G. BERESFORD
						Commissioner for Trademarks
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 371 

37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
		       37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
 
   Notice is hereby given of the filing of a national stage application with
a petition under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without
the signature of all inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventors. The inventor
whose signature is missing (Roger Jinteh Arrigo Chen) may join in the
application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying
with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is PCT/US08/04467 and
was filed on in the names of Mark A. Akeson, David W. Deamer, William B.
Dunbar, Seico Benner, Roger Jinteh Arrigo Chen, Noah A.Wilson, Kate Lieberman,
Robin Abu-Shumays, Nicholas Hurt, Daniel Branton, entitled COMPOSITIONS,
DEVICES, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING A NANOPORE. The national stage
application is assigned number 12/450,633 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of
22 July 2010.
 
 
		       37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
 
   Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of all the inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known addresses of the non-signing inventors. The
inventors whose signatures are missing (Hiroki NAKAE, Atsuhiko MINEKAWA, and
Takeshi KURONO) may join in the application by promptly filing an appropriate
oath or declaration complying with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application
number is PCT/JP2007/075133 and was filed 27 December 2007 in the names of
Hiroki NAKAE, Haruka UESAKA, Atsuhiko MINEKAWA, and Takeshi KURONO for the
invention entitled VACUUM BLOOD COLLECTION TUBE. The national stage number is
12/520,994 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of 07 October 2009.
 
 
		       37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
 
   Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of all the inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor. The inventor
whose signature is missing (Nikhil R. Jana) may join in the application by
promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying with 37 CFR 1.63.
The international application number is PCT/US2007/002536 and was filed 31
January 2007 in the names of Jackie Y. Ying, Nandanan Erathodiyil and Nikhil
R. Jana for the invention entitled POLYMER-COATED NANOPARTICLES. The national
stage number is 12/449,227 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of 09 August 2010.
 
 
		       37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
 
   Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of all the inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor. The inventor
whose signature is missing (Anne Philippi) may join in the application by
promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying with 37 CFR 1.63.
The international application number is PCT/EP2008/054378 and was filed 10
April 2007 in the names of Anne Philippi, Jorg Hager and Francis Rousseau for
the invention entitled HUMAN DIABETES SUSCEPTIBILITY TNFRSF10A GENE. The
national stage number is 12/593,077 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of 02
July 2010.
 
 
		       37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
 
   Notice is hereby given of the filing of a national stage application with
a petition under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without
the signature of all inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor. The inventor
whose signature is missing (Konstantinos Arapoglou) may join in the
application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying
with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is PCT/DE2008/000627
and was filed on 15 April 2008 in the names Michael Menzel, Henning Rorup and
Konstantinos Arapoglou for the invention entitled DENTAL IMPLANT SYSTEM. The
national stage application number is 12/596,372 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371 date
of 23 June 2010.
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 372 

Examination Guidelines Update: Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex
			    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
			  Patent and Trademark Office
			 [Docket No.: PTO-P-2010-0055]
 
			Examination Guidelines Update:
			Developments in the Obviousness
			 Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex
 
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
 
ACTION: Notice.
 
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is
issuing an update (2010 KSR Guidelines Update) to its obviousness
guidelines for its personnel to be used when applying the law of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. This 2010 KSR Guidelines Update highlights
case law developments on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 since the 2007
decision by the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) in KSR Int'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc. These guidelines are intended to be used by Office
personnel in conjunction with the guidance in the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure when applying the law of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103. Members of the public are invited to provide comments on the 2010 KSR
Guidelines Update. The Office is especially interested in receiving
suggestions of recent decisional law in the field of obviousness that would
have particular value as teaching tools.
 
DATES: Effective Date: This 2010 KSR Guidelines Update is effective
September 1, 2010.
 
ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update may be sent
by electronic mail message over the Internet addressed to
KSR_Guidance@uspto.gov, or submitted by mail addressed to: Mail Stop
Comments - Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA
22313-1450. Although comments may be submitted by mail, the Office prefers
to receive comments via the Internet.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Kahler Fonda or Pinchus M.
Laufer, Legal Advisors, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of
the Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at
(571) 272-7754 or (571) 272-7726; by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments
Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA
22313-1450; or by facsimile transmission to (571) 273-7754, marked to the
attention of Kathleen Kahler Fonda.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 
   1. Introduction. The purpose of this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update is to
remind Office personnel of the principles of obviousness explained by the
Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S 398 (2007) (KSR),
and to provide additional guidance in view of decisions by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) since
KSR. This body of case law developed over the past three years provides
additional examples that will be useful to Office personnel as well as
practitioners during the examination process. Although every question of
obviousness must be decided on its own facts, these cases begin to clarify
the contours of the obviousness inquiry after KSR, and help to show when a
rejection on this basis is proper and when it is not.
 
   This 2010 KSR Guidelines Update does not constitute substantive rule
making and hence does not have the force and effect of law. It has been
developed as a matter of internal Office management and is not intended to
create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any
party against the Office. Rejections will continue to be based upon the
substantive law, and it is these rejections that are appealable.
Consequently, any failure by Office personnel to follow this 2010 KSR
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 373 

Guidelines Update is neither appealable nor petitionable.
 
   After a review of the principles of obviousness and Office policy as
reflected in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), this 2010 KSR
Guidelines Update addresses a number of issues that arise when Office
personnel consider whether or not a claimed invention is obvious. The
concepts discussed are grounded in Federal Circuit cases, and correlated
with existing Office policy as appropriate. A number of cases which have
been selected for their instructional value on the issue of obviousness
will be discussed in detail.
 
   The law of obviousness will continue to be refined, and Office personnel
are encouraged to maintain an awareness of precedential case law from the
Federal Circuit and precedential decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences (Board) in this area. The Office will train Office
personnel and update the MPEP as necessary to reflect the current state of
the law.
 
   2. Principles of Obviousness and the Guidelines. In response to the
Supreme Court's April 2007 decision in KSR, the Office developed guidelines
for patent examiners to follow when determining obviousness of a claimed
invention and published these guidelines in the Federal Register and
Official Gazette. See Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness
Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 72 FR 57526 (Oct. 10, 2007), 1324 Off.
Gaz. Pat. Office 23 (Nov. 6, 2007) (2007 KSR Guidelines). The 2007 KSR
Guidelines have been incorporated in the MPEP. See MPEP Sec.  2141 (8th ed.
2001) (Rev. 6, Sept. 2007). The purpose of the 2007 KSR Guidelines was to
give Office personnel practical guidance on how to evaluate obviousness
issues under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in accordance with the Supreme Court's
instruction in KSR. The 2007 KSR Guidelines also alerted Office personnel
to the importance of considering rebuttal evidence submitted by patent
applicants in response to obviousness rejections.
 
   The 2007 KSR Guidelines pointed out, as had the Supreme Court in KSR,
that the factual inquiries announced in Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1,
17-18 (1966) (scope and content of the prior art; differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art; level of ordinary skill in the art;
and secondary indicia of nonobviousness), remain the foundation of any
determination of obviousness. It remains true that "[t]he determination of
obviousness is dependent on the facts of each case." Sanofi-Synthelabo v.
Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Graham, 383 U.S.
at 17-18 (1966)). As for the reasoning required to support an obviousness
determination, the 2007 KSR Guidelines noted that the teaching-suggestion-
motivation (TSM) test was but one possible approach. The 2007 KSR
Guidelines identified six other rationales gleaned from the KSR decision as
examples of appropriate lines of reasoning that could also be used. The six
other rationales identified in the 2007 KSR Guidelines are: (1) Combining
prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(2) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
predictable results; (3) use of a known technique to improve similar
devices, methods, or products in the same way; (4) applying a known
technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to
yield predictable results; (5) obvious to try - choosing from a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation
of success; and (6) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt
variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based
on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are
predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Any rationale employed
must provide a link between the factual findings and the legal conclusion
of obviousness.
 
   It is important for Office personnel to recognize that when they do
choose to formulate an obviousness rejection using one of the rationales
suggested by the Supreme Court in KSR and discussed in the 2007 KSR
Guidelines, they are to adhere to the instructions provided in the MPEP
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 374 

regarding the necessary factual findings. However, the 2007 KSR Guidelines
also stressed that while the Graham inquiries and the associated reasoning
are crucial to a proper obviousness determination, the Supreme Court in KSR
did not place any limit on the particular approach to be taken to formulate
the line of reasoning. In other words, the KSR decision is not to be seen
as replacing a single test for obviousness - the TSM test - with the seven
rationales listed in the 2007 KSR Guidelines. See MPEP §§ 2141 and 2143
(8th ed. 2001) (Rev. 8, July 2010) (references to the MPEP are to Revision
8 of the 8th Edition of the MPEP unless otherwise indicated). It remains
Office policy that appropriate factual findings are required in order to
apply the enumerated rationales properly. If a rejection has been made that
omits one of the required factual findings, and in response to the
rejection a practitioner or inventor points out the omission, Office
personnel must either withdraw the rejection, or repeat the rejection
including all required factual findings.
 
   3. The Impact of the KSR Decision. KSR's renewed emphasis on the
foundational principles of Graham coupled with its abrogation of the strict
TSM test have clearly impacted the manner in which Office personnel and
practitioners carry out the business of prosecuting patent applications
with regard to issues of obviousness. However, Office personnel as well as
practitioners should also recognize the significant extent to which the
obviousness inquiry has remained constant in the aftermath of KSR.
 
   In footnote 2 of the 2007 KSR Guidelines, the Office acknowledged that
ongoing developments in the law of obviousness were to be expected in the
wake of the KSR decision. That footnote also stated that it was "not clear
which Federal Circuit decisions will retain their viability" after KSR. See
2007 KSR Guidelines, 72 FR at 57,528 n.2. The edition of the MPEP that was
current when the KSR decision was handed down had made the following
statement in § 2144:
 
   The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be
expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or
impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established
scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law.
 
   MPEP § 2144 (8th ed. 2001) (Rev. 5, Aug. 2006) (citing five pre-KSR
Federal Circuit opinions and two decisions of the Board). The KSR decision
has reinforced those earlier decisions that validated a more flexible
approach to providing reasons for obviousness. However, the Supreme Court's
pronouncement in KSR has at the same time clearly undermined the continued
viability of cases such as In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
insofar as Lee appears to require a strict basis in record evidence as a
reason to modify the prior art.
 
   The Supreme Court's flexible approach to the obviousness inquiry is
reflected in numerous pre-KSR decisions, as can be seen in a review of MPEP
§ 2144. This section provides many lines of reasoning to support a
determination of obviousness based upon earlier legal precedent that had
condoned the use of particular examples of what may be considered common
sense or ordinary routine practice (e.g., making integral, changes in
shape, making adjustable). Thus, the type of reasoning sanctioned by the
opinion in KSR has long been a part of the patent examination process. See
MPEP § 2144.
 
   Although the KSR approach is flexible with regard to the line of
reasoning to be applied, the 2007 KSR Guidelines and MPEP § 2143 state:
"The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit." MPEP § 2143. In Ball Aerosol
v. Limited Brands, 555 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit
offered additional instruction as to the need for an explicit analysis. The
Federal Circuit explained, as is consistent with the 2007 KSR Guidelines,
that the Supreme Court's requirement for an explicit analysis does not
require record evidence of an explicit teaching of a motivation to combine
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 375 

in the prior art.
 
   [T]he analysis that "should be made explicit" refers not to the
teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court's
analysis * * *. Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court,
the district court therefore erred by failing to take account of "the
inferences and creative steps," or even routine steps, that an inventor
would employ and by failing to find a motivation to combine related pieces
from the prior art.
 
   Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 993. The Federal Circuit's directive in Ball
Aerosol was addressed to a lower court, but it applies to Office personnel
as well. When setting forth a rejection, Office personnel are to continue
to make appropriate findings of fact as explained in MPEP §§ 2141 and 2143,
and must provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention. This requirement for explanation remains even in
situations in which Office personnel may properly rely on intangible
realities such as common sense and ordinary ingenuity.
 
   When considering obviousness, Office personnel are cautioned against
treating any line of reasoning as a per se rule. MPEP § 2144 discusses
supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 by reliance on scientific theory
and legal precedent. In keeping with the flexible approach and the
requirement for explanation, Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as
a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately
supported. See MPEP § 2144.04. So, for example, automating a manual
activity, making portable, making separable, reversal or duplication of
parts, or purifying an old product may form the basis of a rejection.
However, such rationales should not be treated as per se rules, but rather
must be explained and shown to apply to the facts at hand. A similar caveat
applies to any obviousness analysis. Simply stating the principle (e.g.,
"art recognized equivalent," "structural similarity") without providing
an explanation of its applicability to the facts of the case at hand is
generally not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
 
   Many basic approaches that a practitioner may use to demonstrate
nonobviousness also continue to apply in the post-KSR era. Since it is now
clear that a strict TSM approach is not the only way to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness, it is true that practitioners have been required
to shift the emphasis of their nonobviousness arguments to a certain
degree. However, familiar lines of argument still apply, including teaching
away from the claimed invention by the prior art, lack of a reasonable
expectation of success, and unexpected results. Indeed, they may have even
taken on added importance in view of the recognition in KSR of a variety of
possible rationales.
 
   At the time the KSR decision was handed down, some observers questioned
whether the principles discussed were intended by the Supreme Court to
apply to all fields of inventive endeavor. Arguments were made that because
the technology at issue in KSR involved the relatively well-developed and
predictable field of vehicle pedal assemblies, the decision was relevant
only to such fields. The Federal Circuit has soundly repudiated such a
notion, stating that KSR applies across technologies:
 
   This court also declines to cabin KSR to the "predictable arts" (as
opposed to the "unpredictable art" of biotechnology). In fact, this record
shows that one of skill in this advanced art would find these claimed
"results" profoundly "predictable."
 
   In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Thus, Office
personnel should not withdraw any rejection solely on the basis that the
invention lies in a technological area ordinarily considered to be
unpredictable.
 
   The decisions of the Federal Circuit discussed in this 2010 KSR
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 376 

Guidelines Update provide Office personnel as well as practitioners with
additional examples of the law of obviousness. The purpose of the 2007 KSR
Guidelines was, as stated above, to help Office personnel to determine when
a claimed invention is not obvious, and to provide an appropriate
supporting rationale when an obviousness rejection is appropriate. Now that
a body of case law is available to guide Office personnel and practitioners
as to the boundaries between obviousness and nonobviousness, it is possible
in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update to contrast situations in which the
subject matter was found to have been obvious with those in which it was
determined not to have been obvious. Thus, Office personnel may use this
2010 KSR Guidelines Update in conjunction with the 2007 KSR Guidelines
(incorporated into MPEP §§ 2141 and 2143) to provide a more complete view
of the state of the law of obviousness.
 
   This 2010 KSR Guidelines Update provides a "teaching point" for each
discussed case. The "teaching point" may be used to quickly determine the
relevance of the discussed case, but should not be used as a substitute for
reading the remainder of the discussion of the case in this 2010 KSR
Guidelines Update. Nor should any case in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update
be applied or cited in an Office action solely on the basis of what is
stated in the "teaching point" for the case.
 
   4. Obviousness Examples from Federal Circuit Cases. The impact of the
Supreme Court's decision in KSR can be more readily understood in the
context of factual scenarios. The cases in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update
are broadly grouped according to obviousness concepts in order to provide
persons involved with patent prosecution with ready access to the examples
that are most pertinent to the issue at hand. The first three groups
correspond directly with three of the rationales identified in the 2007 KSR
Guidelines. These rationales - combining prior art elements, substituting
one known element for another, and obvious to try - have each been the
subject of a significant number of post-KSR obviousness decisions. The
fourth group focuses on issues concerning consideration of evidence during
prosecution. Office personnel as well as practitioners are reminded of the
technology-specific obviousness examples previously posted on the Office's
Web site at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=
leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/
opla/ksr/ksr_training_materials.htm.
 
   Although the other rationales discussed in the 2007 KSR Guidelines are
not the focus of separate discussions in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update,
it will be noted that obviousness concepts such as applying known
techniques, design choice, and market forces are addressed when they arise
in the selected cases. The cases included in this 2010 KSR Guidelines
Update reinforce the idea, presented in the 2007 KSR Guidelines, that there
may be more than one line of reasoning that can properly be applied to a
particular factual scenario. The selected decisions also illustrate the
overlapping nature of the lines of reasoning that may be employed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Although the 2007 KSR
Guidelines presented the rationales as discrete, self-contained lines of
reasoning, and they may indeed be employed that way, it is useful to
recognize that real-world situations may require analyses that may not be
so readily pigeon-holed into distinct categories.
 
   A. Combining Prior Art Elements. In discussing the obviousness rationale
concerning combining prior art elements, identified as Rationale A, the
2007 KSR Guidelines quoted KSR and noted that "it can be important to
identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in
the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new
invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. In view of the cases decided since
KSR, one situation when it is important to identify a reason to combine
known elements in a known manner to obtain predictable results is when the
combination requires a greater expenditure of time, effort, or resources
than the prior art teachings. Even though the components are known, the
combining step is technically feasible, and the result is predictable, the
claimed invention may nevertheless be nonobvious when the combining step
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 377 

involves such additional effort that no one of ordinary skill would have
undertaken it without a recognized reason to do so. When a combination
invention involves additional complexity as compared with the prior art,
the invention may be nonobvious unless an examiner can articulate a reason
for including the added features or steps. This is so even when the claimed
invention could have been readily implemented.
 
   Example 4.1. In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 536 F.3d 1361 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). Teaching point: Even where a general method that could have
been applied to make the claimed product was known and within the level of
skill of the ordinary artisan, the claim may nevertheless be nonobvious if
the problem which had suggested use of the method had been previously
unknown.
 
   The case of In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation is one in which the
claims in question were found to be nonobvious in the context of an
argument to combine prior art elements. The invention involved applying
enteric coatings to a drug in pill form for the purpose of ensuring that
the drug did not disintegrate before reaching its intended site of action.
The drug at issue was omeprazole, the generic name for gastric acid
inhibitor marketed as Prilosec[reg]. The claimed formulation included two
layers of coatings over the active ingredient.
 
   The district court found that Astra's patent in suit was infringed by
defendants Apotex and Impax. The district court rejected Apotex's defense
that the patents were invalid for obviousness. Apotex had argued that the
claimed invention was obvious because coated omeprazole tablets were known
from a prior art reference, and because secondary subcoatings in
pharmaceutical preparations generally were also known. There was no
evidence of unpredictability associated with applying two different enteric
coatings to omeprazole. However, Astra's reason for applying an intervening
subcoating between the prior art coating and omeprazole had been that the
prior art coating was actually interacting with omeprazole, thereby
contributing to undesirable degradation of the active ingredient. This
degradation of omeprazole by interaction with the prior art coating had not
been recognized in the prior art. Therefore, the district court reasoned
that based on the evidence available, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had no reason to include a subcoating in an omeprazole pill
formulation.
 
   The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that the
claimed invention was not obvious. Even though subcoatings for enteric drug
formulation were known, and there was no evidence of undue technical
hurdles or lack of a reasonable expectation of success, the formulation was
nevertheless not obvious because the flaws in the prior art formulation
that had prompted the modification had not been recognized. Thus there
would have been no reason to modify the initial formulation, even though
the modification could have been done. Moreover, a person of skill in the
art likely would have chosen a different modification even if he or she had
recognized the problem.
 
   Office personnel should note that in this case the modification of the
prior art that had been presented as an argument for obviousness was an
extra process step that added an additional component to a known,
successfully marketed formulation. The proposed modification thus amounted
to extra work and greater expense for no apparent reason. This is not the
same as combining known prior art elements A and B when each would have
been expected to contribute its own known properties to the final product.
In the Omeprazole case, in view of the expectations of those of ordinary
skill in the art, adding the subcoating would not have been expected to
confer any particular desirable property on the final product. Rather, the
final product obtained according to the proposed modifications would merely
have been expected to have the same functional properties as the prior art
product.
 
   The Omeprazole case can also be analyzed in view of the discovery of a
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 378 

previously unknown problem by the patentee. If the adverse interaction
between active agent and coating had been known, it might well have been
obvious to use a subcoating. However, since the problem had not been
previously known, there would have been no reason to incur additional time
and expense to add another layer, even though the addition would have been
technologically possible. This is true because the prior art of record
failed to mention any stability problem, despite the acknowledgment during
testimony at trial that there was a known theoretical reason that
omeprazole might be subject to degradation in the presence of the known
coating material.
 
   Example 4.2. Crocs, Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, 598
F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Teaching point: A claimed combination of prior
art elements may be nonobvious where the prior art teaches away from the
claimed combination and the combination yields more than predictable
results.
 
   The case of Crocs, Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission is a
decision in which the claimed foam footwear was held by the Federal Circuit
to be nonobvious over a combination of prior art references.
 
   The claims involved in the obviousness issue were from Crocs' U.S.
Patent No. 6,993,858, and were drawn to footwear in which a one-piece
molded foam base section formed the top of the shoe (the upper) and the
sole. A strap also made of foam was attached to the foot opening of the
upper, such that the strap could provide support to the Achilles portion of
the wearer's foot. The strap was attached via connectors that allowed it to
be in contact with the base section, and to pivot relative to the base
section. Because both the base portion and the strap were made of foam,
friction between the strap and the base section allowed the strap to
maintain its position after pivoting. In other words, the foam strap did
not fall under the force of gravity to a position adjacent to the heel of
the base section.
 
   The International Trade Commission (ITC) determined that the claims
were obvious over the combination of two pieces of prior art. The first
was the Aqua Clog, which was a shoe that corresponded to the base section
of the footwear of the `858' patent. The second was the Aguerre patent,
which taught heel straps made of elastic or another flexible material. In
the ITC's view, the claimed invention was obvious because the prior art
Aqua Clog differed from the claimed invention only as to the presence of
the strap, and a suitable strap was taught by Aguerre.
 
   The Federal Circuit disagreed. The Federal Circuit stated that the prior
art did not teach foam heel straps, or that a foam heel strap should be
placed in contact with a foam base. The Federal Circuit pointed out that
the prior art actually counseled against using foam as a material for the
heel strap of a shoe.
 
   The record shows that the prior art would actually discourage and teach
away from the use of foam straps. An ordinary artisan in this field would
not add a foam strap to the foam Aqua Clog because foam was likely to
stretch and deform, in addition to causing discomfort for a wearer. The
prior art depicts foam as unsuitable for straps.
 
Id. at 1309.
 
   The Federal Circuit continued, stating that even if - contrary to fact -
the claimed invention had been a combination of elements that were known in
the prior art, the claims still would have been nonobvious. There was
testimony in the record that the loose fit of the heel strap made the shoe
more comfortable for the wearer than prior art shoes in which the heel
strap was constantly in contact with the wearer's foot. In the claimed
footwear, the foam heel strap contacted the wearer's foot only when needed
to help reposition the foot properly in the shoe, thus reducing wearer
discomfort that could arise from constant contact. This desirable feature
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 379 

was a result of the friction between the base section and the strap that
kept the strap in place behind the Achilles portion of the wearer's foot.
The Federal Circuit pointed out that this combination "yielded more than
predictable results." Id. at 1310. Aguerre had taught that friction between
the base section and the strap was a problem rather than an advantage, and
had suggested the use of nylon washers to reduce friction. Thus the Federal
Circuit stated that even if all elements of the claimed invention had been
taught by the prior art, the claims would not have been obvious because the
combination yielded more than predictable results.
 
   The Federal Circuit's discussion in Crocs serves as a reminder to Office
personnel that merely pointing to the presence of all claim elements in the
prior art is not a complete statement of a rejection for obviousness. In
accordance with MPEP § 2143 A(3), a proper rejection based on the rationale
that the claimed invention is a combination of prior art elements also
includes a finding that results flowing from the combination would have
been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2143
A(3). If results would not have been predictable, Office personnel should
not enter an obviousness rejection using the combination of prior art
elements rationale, and should withdraw such a rejection if it has been
made.
 
   Example 4.3. Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356
(Fed. Cir. 2008). Teaching point: A claimed invention is likely to be
obvious if it is a combination of known prior art elements that would
reasonably have been expected to maintain their respective properties or
functions after they have been combined.
 
   Sundance involved a segmented and mechanized cover for trucks, swimming
pools, or other structures. The claim was found to be obvious over the
prior art applied.
 
   A first prior art reference taught that a reason for making a segmented
cover was ease of repair, in that a single damaged segment could be readily
removed and replaced when necessary. A second prior art reference taught
the advantages of a mechanized cover for ease of opening. The Federal
Circuit noted that the segmentation aspect of the first reference and the
mechanization function of the second perform in the same way after
combination as they had before. The Federal Circuit further observed that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that adding
replaceable segments as taught by the first reference to the mechanized
cover of the other would result in a cover that maintained the advantageous
properties of both of the prior art covers.
 
   Thus, the Sundance case points out that a hallmark of a proper
obviousness rejection based on combining known prior art elements is that
one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the
elements to maintain their respective properties or functions after they
have been combined.
 
   Example 4.4. Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335 (Fed Cir. 2009).
Teaching point: A combination of known elements would have been prima facie
obvious if an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized an apparent
reason to combine those elements and would have known how to do so.
 
   In the case of Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., an "apparent reason to
combine" in conjunction with the technical ability to optimize led to the
conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious.
 
   The invention in question was a method of treating meat to reduce the
incidence of pathogens, by spraying the meat with an antibacterial solution
under specified conditions. The parties did not dispute that a single prior
art reference had taught all of the elements of the claimed invention,
except for the pressure limitation of "at least 50 psi."
 
   FMC had argued at the district court that the claimed invention would
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 380 

have been obvious in view of the first prior art reference mentioned above
in view of a second reference that had taught the advantages of spray-
treating at pressures of 20 to 150 psi when treating meat with a different
antibacterial agent. The district court did not find FMC's argument to be
convincing, and denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law that the
claim was obvious.
 
   Disagreeing with the district court, the Federal Circuit stated that
"there was an apparent reason to combine these known elements - namely to
increase contact between the [antibacterial solution] and the bacteria on
the meat surface and to use the pressure to wash additional bacteria off
the meat surface." Id. at 1350. The Federal Circuit explained that because
the second reference had taught "using high pressure to improve the
effectiveness of an antimicrobial solution when sprayed onto meat, and
because an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized the reasons for
applying [the claimed antibacterial solution] using high pressure and would
have known how to do so, Ecolab's claims combining high pressure with other
limitations disclosed in FMC's patent are invalid as obvious." Id.
 
   When considering the question of obviousness, Office personnel should
keep in mind the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill. In Ecolab, the
Federal Circuit stated:
 
   Ecolab's expert admitted that one skilled in the art would know how to
adjust application parameters to determine the optimum parameters for a
particular solution. The question then is whether it would have been
obvious to combine the high pressure parameter disclosed in the Bender
patent with the PAA methods disclosed in FMC's `676 patent. The answer is
yes.
 
Id. If optimization of the application parameters had not been within the
level of ordinary skill in the art, the outcome of the Ecolab case may well
have been different.
 
   Example 4.5. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., No. 2009-1412,  - F.3d - , 2010 WL
2901839 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2010). Teaching point: The scope of analogous
art is to be construed broadly and includes references that are reasonably
pertinent to the problem that the inventor was trying to solve. Common
sense may be used to support a legal conclusion of obviousness so long as
it is explained with sufficient reasoning.
 
   In the case of Wyers v. Master Lock Co., the Federal Circuit held that
the claimed barbell-shaped hitch pin locks used to secure trailers to
vehicles were obvious.
 
   The court discussed two different sets of claims in Wyers, both drawn to
improvements over the prior art hitch pin locks. The first improvement was
a removable sleeve that could be placed over the shank of the hitch pin
lock so that the same lock could be used with towing apertures of varying
sizes. The second improvement was an external flat flange seal adapted to
protect the internal lock mechanism from contaminants. Wyers had admitted
that each of several prior art references taught every element of the
claimed inventions except for the removable sleeve and the external
covering. Master Lock had argued that these references, in combination with
additional references teaching the missing elements, would have rendered
the claims obvious.
 
   The court first addressed the question of whether the additional
references relied on by Master Lock were analogous prior art. As to the
reference teaching the sleeve improvement, the court concluded that it
dealt specifically with using a vehicle to tow a trailer, and was
therefore in the same field of endeavor as Wyers' sleeve improvement. The
reference teaching the sealing improvement dealt with a padlock rather than
a lock for a tow hitch. The court noted that Wyers' specification had
characterized the claimed invention as being in the field of locking
devices, thus at least suggesting that the sealed padlock reference was in
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 381 

the same field of endeavor. However, the court also observed that even if
sealed padlocks were not in the same field of endeavor, they were
nevertheless reasonably pertinent to the problem of avoiding contamination
of a locking mechanism for tow hitches. The court explained that the
Supreme Court's decision in KSR "directs [it] to construe the scope of
analogous art broadly." Wyers, slip. op. at 12. For these reasons, the
court found that Master Lock's asserted references were analogous prior
art, and therefore relevant to the obviousness inquiry.
 
   The court then turned to the question of whether there would have been
adequate motivation to combine the prior art elements as had been urged by
Master Lock. The court recalled the Graham inquiries, and also emphasized
the "expansive and flexible" post-KSR approach to obviousness that must not
"deny factfinders recourse to common sense." Wyers, slip op. at 13 (quoting
KSR, 550 U.S. at 415 and 421). The court stated:
 
   KSR and our later cases establish that the legal determination of
obviousness may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense, in
lieu of expert testimony * * *.
 
   Thus, in appropriate cases, the ultimate inference as to the existence
of a motivation to combine references may boil down to a question of
"common sense," appropriate for resolution on summary judgment or JMOL.
 
Id. at 15 (citing Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324,
1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 993).
 
   After reviewing these principles, the court proceeded to explain why
adequate motivation to combine had been established in this case. With
regard to the sleeve improvement, it pointed out that the need for
different sizes of hitch pins was well known in the art, and that this was
a known source of inconvenience and expense for users. The court also
mentioned the marketplace aspect of the issue, noting that space on store
shelves was at a premium, and that removable sleeves addressed this
economic concern. As to the sealing improvement, the court pointed out that
both internal and external seals were well-known means to protect locks
from contaminants. The court concluded that the constituent elements were
being employed in accordance with their recognized functions, and would
have predictably retained their respective functions when combined as
suggested by Master Lock. The court cited In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,
904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) for the proposition that a reasonable expectation of
success is a requirement for a proper determination of obviousness.
 
   Office personnel should note that although the Federal Circuit invoked
the idea of common sense in support of a conclusion of obviousness, it did
not end its explanation there. Rather, the court explained why a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in view of the
facts relevant to the case, would have found the claimed inventions to have
been obvious. As stated in the MPEP:
 
   The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear
articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been
obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated
that "[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."
 
MPEP § 2141 III. Office personnel should continue to provide a reasoned
explanation for every obviousness rejection.
 
   Example 4.6. DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567
F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Teaching point: Predictability as discussed in
KSR encompasses the expectation that prior art elements are capable of
being combined, as well as the expectation that the combination would have
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 382 

worked for its intended purpose. An inference that a claimed combination
would not have been obvious is especially strong where the prior art's
teachings undermine the very reason being proffered as to why a person of
ordinary skill would have combined the known elements.
 
   The claim in DePuy Spine was directed to a polyaxial pedicle screw used
in spinal surgeries that included a compression member for pressing a screw
head against a receiver member. A prior art reference (Puno) disclosed all
of the elements of the claim except for the compression member. Instead,
the screw head in Puno was separated from the receiver member to achieve a
shock absorber effect, allowing some motion between receiver member and the
vertebrae. The missing compression member was readily found in another
prior art reference (Anderson), which disclosed an external fracture
immobilization splint for immobilizing long bones with a swivel clamp
capable of polyaxial movement until rigidly secured by a compression
member. It was asserted during trial that a person of ordinary skill would
have recognized that the addition of Anderson's compression member to
Puno's device would have achieved a rigidly locked polyaxial pedicle screw
covered by the claim.
 
   In conducting its analysis, the Federal Circuit noted that the
"predictable result" discussed in KSR refers not only to the expectation
that prior art elements are capable of being physically combined, but also
that the combination would have worked for its intended purpose. In this
case, it was successfully argued that Puno "teaches away" from a rigid
screw because Puno warned that rigidity increases the likelihood that the
screw will fail within the human body, rendering the device inoperative for
its intended purpose. In fact, the reference did not merely express a
general preference for pedicle screws having a "shock absorber" effect, but
rather expressed concern for failure and stated that the shock absorber
feature "decrease[s] the chance of failure of the screw of the bone-screw
interface" because "it prevent[s] direct transfer of load from the rod to
the bone-screw interface." Thus, the alleged reason to combine the prior
art elements of Puno and Anderson - increasing the rigidity of the screw -
ran contrary to the prior art that taught that increasing rigidity would
result in a greater likelihood of failure. In view of this teaching and the
backdrop of collective teachings of the prior art, the Federal Circuit
determined that Puno teaches away from the proposed combination such that a
person of ordinary skill would have been deterred from combining the
references as proposed. Secondary considerations evaluated by the Federal
Circuit relating to failure by others and copying also supported the view
that the combination would not have been obvious at the time of the
invention.
 
   B. Substituting One Known Element for Another. As explained in the 2007
KSR Guidelines, the substitution rationale applies when the claimed
invention can be viewed as resulting from substituting a known element for
an element of a prior art invention. The rationale applies when one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been technologically capable of making
the substitution, and the result obtained would have been predictable. See
MPEP § 2143(B).
 
   Example 4.7. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2007). Teaching point: When determining whether a reference in a different
field of endeavor may be used to support a case of obviousness (i.e., is
analogous), it is necessary to consider the problem to be solved.
 
   The claimed invention in ICON was directed to a treadmill with a folding
tread base that swivels into an upright storage position, including a gas
spring connected between the tread base and the upright structure to assist
in stably retaining the tread base in the storage position. On
reexamination, the examiner rejected the claims as obvious based on a
combination of references including an advertisement (Damark) for a folding
treadmill demonstrating all of the claim elements other than the gas
spring, and a patent (Teague) with a gas spring. Teague was directed to a
bed that folds into a cabinet using a novel dual-action spring that
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 383 

reverses force as the mechanism passes a neutral position, rather than a
single-action spring that would provide a force pushing the bed closed at
all times. The dual-action spring reduced the force required to open the
bed from the closed position, while reducing the force required to lift the
bed from the open position.
 
   The Federal Circuit addressed the propriety of making the combination
since Teague comes from a different field than the application. Teague was
found to be reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed in the
application because the folding mechanism did not require any particular
focus on treadmills, but rather generally addressed problems of supporting
the weight of such a mechanism and providing a stable resting position.
 
   Other evidence was considered concerning whether one skilled in the art
would have been led to combine the teachings of Damark and Teague.
Appellant argued that Teague teaches away from the invention because it
directs one skilled in the art not to use single-action springs and does
not satisfy the claim limitations as the dual-action springs would render
the invention inoperable. The Federal Circuit considered the arguments and
found that while Teague at most teaches away from using single-action
springs to decrease the opening force, it actually instructed that single-
action springs provide the result desired by the inventors, which was to
increase the opening force provided by gravity. As to inoperability, the
claims were not limited to single-action springs and were so broad as to
encompass anything that assists in stably retaining the tread base, which
is the function that Teague accomplished. Additionally, the fact that the
counterweight mechanism from Teague used a large spring, which appellant
argued would overpower the treadmill mechanism, ignores the modifications
that one skilled in the art would make to a device borrowed from the prior
art. One skilled in the art would size the components from Teague
appropriately for the application.
 
   ICON is another useful example for understanding the scope of analogous
art. The art applied concerned retaining mechanisms for folding beds, not
treadmills. When determining whether a reference may properly be applied to
an invention in a different field of endeavor, it is necessary to consider
the problem to be solved. It is certainly possible that a reference may be
drawn in such a way that its usefulness as a teaching is narrowly
restricted. However, in ICON, the "treadmill" concept was too narrow a lens
through which to view the art in light of the prior art teachings
concerning the problem to be solved. The Teague reference was analogous art
because "Teague and the current application both address the need to stably
retain a folding mechanism," id. at 1378, and because "nothing about ICON's
folding mechanism requires any particular focus on treadmills," id. at
1380.
 
   ICON is also informative as to the relationship between the problem to
be solved and existence of a reason to combine. "Indeed, while perhaps not
dispositive of the issue, the finding that Teague, by addressing a similar
problem, provides analogous art to ICON's application goes a long way
towards demonstrating a reason to combine the two references. Because
ICON's broad claims read on embodiments addressing that problem as]
described by Teague, the prior art here indicates a reason to incorporate
its teachings." Id. at 1380-81.
 
   The Federal Circuit's discussion in ICON also makes clear that if the
reference does not teach that a combination is undesirable, then it cannot
be said to teach away. An assessment of whether a combination would render
the device inoperable must not "ignore the modifications that one skilled
in the art would make to a device borrowed from the prior art." Id. at
1382.
 
   Example 4.8. Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir.
2008). Teaching point: Analogous art is not limited to references in the
field of endeavor of the invention, but also includes references that would
have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as useful for
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 384 

applicant's purpose.
 
   Agrizap involved a stationary pest control device for electrocution of
pests such as rats and gophers, in which the device is set in an area where
the pest is likely to encounter it. The only difference between the claimed
device and the prior art stationary pest control device was that the
claimed device employed a resistive electrical switch, while the prior art
device used a mechanical pressure switch. A resistive electrical switch was
taught in two prior art patents, in the contexts of a hand-held pest
control device and a cattle prod.
 
   In determining that the claimed invention was obvious, the Federal
Circuit noted that "[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive
electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch" employed in the prior
art device. Id. at 1344. In this case, the prior art concerning the hand-
held devices revealed that the function of the substituted resistive
electrical switch was well known and predictable, and that it could be used
in a pest control device. According to the Federal Circuit, the references
that taught the hand-held devices showed that "the use of an animal body as
a resistive switch to complete a circuit for the generation of an electric
charge was already well known in the prior art." Id. Finally, the Federal
Circuit noted that the problem solved by using the resistive electrical
switch in the prior art hand-held devices - malfunction of mechanical
switches due to dirt and dampness - also pertained to the prior art
stationary pest control device.
 
   The Federal Circuit recognized Agrizap as "a textbook case of when the
asserted claims involve a combination of familiar elements according to
known methods that does no more than yield predictable results." Id.
Agrizap exemplifies a strong case of obviousness based on simple
substitution that was not overcome by the objective evidence of
nonobviousness offered. It also demonstrates that analogous art is not
limited to the field of applicant's endeavor, in that one of the references
that used an animal body as a resistive switch to complete a circuit for
the generation of an electric charge was not in the field of pest control.
 
   Example 4.9. Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). Teaching point: Because Internet and Web browser technologies
had become commonplace for communicating and displaying information, it
would have been obvious to adapt existing processes to incorporate them for
those functions.
 
   The invention at issue in Muniauction was a method for auctioning
municipal bonds over the Internet. A municipality could offer a package of
bond instruments of varying principal amounts and maturity dates, and an
interested buyer would then submit a bid comprising a price and interest
rate for each maturity date. It was also possible for the interested buyer
to bid on a portion of the offering. The claimed invention considered all
of the noted parameters to determine the best bid. It operated on
conventional Web browsers and allowed participants to monitor the course of
the auction.
 
   The only difference between the prior art bidding system and the claimed
invention was the use of a conventional Web browser. At trial, the district
court had determined that Muniauction's claims were not obvious. Thomson
argued that the claimed invention amounted to incorporating a Web browser
into a prior art auction system, and was therefore obvious in light of KSR.
Muniauction rebutted the argument by offering evidence of skepticism by
experts, copying, praise, and commercial success. Although the district
court found the evidence to be persuasive of nonobviousness, the Federal
Circuit disagreed. It noted that a nexus between the claimed invention and
the proffered evidence was lacking because the evidence was not coextensive
with the claims at issue. For this reason, the Federal Circuit determined
that Muniauction's evidence of secondary considerations was not entitled to
substantial weight.
 
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 385 

   The Federal Circuit analogized this case to Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc.
v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007), cited in the 2007
KSR Guidelines. The Leapfrog case involved a determination of obviousness
based on application of modern electronics to a prior art mechanical
children's learning device. In Leapfrog, the court had noted that market
pressures would have prompted a person of ordinary skill to use modern
electronics in the prior art device. Similarly in Muniauction, market
pressures would have prompted a person of ordinary skill to use a
conventional Web browser in a method of auctioning municipal bonds.
 
   Example 4.10. Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293
(Fed. Cir. 2007). Teaching point: A chemical compound would have been
obvious over a mixture containing that compound as well as other compounds
where it was known or the skilled artisan had reason to believe that some
desirable property of the mixture was derived in whole or in part from the
claimed compound, and separating the claimed compound from the mixture was
routine in the art.
 
   In Aventis, the claims were drawn to the 5(S) stereoisomer of the blood
pressure drug ramipril in stereochemically pure form, and to compositions
and methods requiring 5(S) ramipril. The 5(S) stereoisomer is one in which
all five stereocenters in the ramipril molecule are in the S rather than
the R configuration. A mixture of various stereoisomers including 5(S)
ramipril had been taught by the prior art. The question before the court
was whether the purified single stereoisomer would have been obvious over
the known mixture of stereoisomers.
 
   The record showed that the presence of multiple S stereocenters in drugs
similar to ramipril was known to be associated with enhanced therapeutic
efficacy. For example, when all of the stereocenters were in the S form in
the related drug enalapril (SSS enalapril) as compared with only two
stereocenters in the S form (SSR enalapril), the therapeutic potency was
700 times as great. There was also evidence to indicate that conventional
methods could be used to separate the various stereoisomers of ramipril.
 
   The district court saw the issue as a close case, because, in its view,
there was no clear motivation in the prior art to isolate 5(S) ramipril.
However, the Federal Circuit disagreed, and found that the claims would
have been obvious. The Federal Circuit cautioned that requiring such a
clearly stated motivation in the prior art to isolate 5(S) ramipril ran
counter to the Supreme Court's decision in KSR. The
court stated:
 
   Requiring an explicit teaching to purify the 5(S) stereoisomer from a
mixture in which it is the active ingredient is precisely the sort of rigid
application of the TSM test that was criticized in KSR.
 
   Id. at 1301. The Aventis court also relied on the settled principle that
in chemical cases, structural similarity can provide the necessary reason
to modify prior art teachings. The Federal Circuit also addressed the kind
of teaching that would be sufficient in the absence of an explicitly stated
prior art-based motivation, explaining that an expectation of similar
properties in light of the prior art can be sufficient, even without an
explicit teaching that the compound will have a particular utility.
 
   In the chemical arts, the cases involving so-called "lead compounds"
form an important subgroup of the obviousness cases that are based on
substitution. The Federal Circuit has had a number of opportunities since
the KSR decision to discuss the circumstances under which it would have
been obvious to modify a known compound to arrive at a claimed compound.
The following cases explore the selection of a lead compound, the need to
provide a reason for any proposed modification, and the predictability of
the result.
 
   Example 4.11. Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy's Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353
(Fed. Cir. 2008). Teaching point: A claimed compound would not have been
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 386 

obvious where there was no reason to modify the closest prior art lead
compound to obtain the claimed compound and the prior art taught that
modifying the lead compound would destroy its advantageous property. Any
known compound may serve as a lead compound when there is some reason for
starting with that lead compound and modifying it to obtain the claimed
compound.
 
   Eisai concerns the pharmaceutical compound rabeprazole. Rabeprazole is a
proton pump inhibitor for treating stomach ulcers and related disorders.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment of
nonobviousness, stating that no reason had been advanced to modify the
prior art compound in a way that would destroy an advantageous property.
 
   Co-defendant Teva based its obviousness argument on the structural
similarity between rabeprazole and lansoprazole. The compounds were
recognized as sharing a common core, and the Federal Circuit characterized
lansoprazole as a "lead compound." The prior art compound lansoprazole was
useful for the same indications as rabeprazole, and differed from
rabeprazole only in that lansoprazole has a trifluoroethoxy substituent at
the 4-position of the pyridine ring, while rabeprazole has a methoxypropoxy
substituent. The trifluoro substituent of lansoprazole was known to be a
beneficial feature because it conferred lipophilicity to the compound. The
ability of a person of ordinary skill to carry out the modification to
introduce the methoxypropoxy substituent, and the predictability of the
result were not addressed.
 
   Despite the significant similarity between the structures, the Federal
Circuit did not find any sufficient reason to modify the lead compound.
According to the Federal Circuit:
 
   Obviousness based on structural similarity thus can be proved by
identification of some motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill
in the art to select and then modify a known compound (i.e. a lead
compound) in a particular way to achieve the claimed compound. * * * In
keeping with the flexible nature of the obviousness inquiry, KSR Int'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739, 167 L.Ed.2d 705
(2007), the requisite motivation can come from any number of sources and
need not necessarily be explicit in the art. See Aventis Pharma Deutschland
GmbH v. Lupin, Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Rather "it is
sufficient to show that the claimed and prior art compounds possess a
`sufficiently close relationship * * * to create an expectation,' in light
of the totality of the prior art, that the new compound will have `similar
properties' to the old." Id. (quoting Dillon, 919 F.2d at 692).
 
   Eisai, 533 F.3d at 1357. The prior art taught that introducing a
fluorinated substituent was known to increase lipophilicity, so a skilled
artisan would have expected that replacing the trifluoroethoxy substituent
with a methoxypropoxy substituent would have reduced the lipophilicity of
the compound. Thus, the prior art created the expectation that rabeprazole
would be less useful than lansoprazole as a drug for treating stomach
ulcers and related disorders because the proposed modification would have
destroyed an advantageous property of the prior art compound. The compound
was not obvious as argued by Teva because, upon consideration of all of the
facts of the case, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would not have had a reason to modify lansoprazole so as to form
rabeprazole.
 
   Office personnel are cautioned that the term "lead compound" in a
particular opinion can have a contextual meaning that may vary from the way
a pharmaceutical chemist might use the term. In the field of pharmaceutical
chemistry, the term "lead compound" has been defined variously as "a
chemical compound that has pharmacological or biological activity and whose
chemical structure is used as a starting point for chemical modifications
in order to improve potency, selectivity, or pharmacokinetic parameters;"
"[a] compound that exhibits pharmacological properties which suggest its
development;" and "a potential drug being tested for safety and efficacy."
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 387 

See, e.g.,http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=
leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_compound,
accessed January 13, 2010; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.
cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.combichemistry.com/
glossary_k.html, accessed January 13, 2010; and http://frwebgate.access.
gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.
building biotechnology.com/glossary4.php,accessed January 13, 2010.
 
   The Federal Circuit in Eisai makes it clear that from the perspective of
the law of obviousness, any known compound might possibly serve as a lead
compound: "Obviousness based on structural similarity thus can be proved by
identification of some motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill
in the art to select and then modify a known compound (i.e. a lead '
compound) in a particular way to achieve the claimed compound." Eisai, 533
F.3d at 1357. Thus, Office personnel should recognize that a proper
obviousness rejection of a claimed compound that is useful as a drug might
be made beginning with an inactive compound, if, for example, the reasons
for modifying a prior art compound to arrive at the claimed compound have
nothing to do with pharmaceutical activity. The inactive compound would not
be considered to be a lead compound by pharmaceutical chemists, but could
potentially be used as such when considering obviousness. Office personnel
might also base an obviousness rejection on a known compound that
pharmaceutical chemists would not select as a lead compound due to expense,
handling issues, or other business considerations. However, there must be
some reason for starting with that lead compound other than the mere fact
that the "lead compound" merely exists. See Altana Pharma AG v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 999, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding
that there must be some reason "to select and modify a known compound");
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Labs, Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2008).
 
   Example 4.12. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Teaching point: It is not necessary to
select a single compound as a "lead compound" in order to support an
obviousness rejection. However, where there was reason to select and modify
the lead compound to obtain the claimed compound, but no reasonable
expectation of success, the claimed compound would not have been obvious.
 
   A chemical compound was also found to be nonobvious in Procter & Gamble.
The compound at issue was risedronate - the active ingredient of Procter &
Gamble's osteoporosis drug Actonel[reg]. Risedronate is an example of a
bisphosphonate, which is a class of compounds known to inhibit bone
resorption.
 
   When Procter & Gamble sued Teva for infringement, Teva defended by
arguing invalidity for obviousness over one of Procter & Gamble's earlier
patents. The prior art patent did not teach risedronate, but instead taught
thirty-six other similar compounds including 2-pyr EHDP that were
potentially useful with regard to osteoporosis. Teva argued obviousness on
the basis of structural similarity to 2-pyr EHDP, which is a positional
isomer of risedronate.
 
   The district court found no reason to select 2-pyr EHDP as a lead
compound in light of the unpredictable nature of the art, and no reason to
modify it so as to obtain risedronate. In addition, there were unexpected
results as to potency and toxicity. Therefore the district court found that
Teva had not made a prima facie case, and even if it had, it was rebutted
by evidence of unexpected results.
 
   The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The Federal
Circuit did not deem it necessary in this case to consider the question of
whether 2-pyr EHDP had been appropriately selected as a lead compound.
Rather, the Federal Circuit stated that if 2-pyr EHDP is presumed to be an
appropriate lead compound, there must be both a reason to modify it so as
to make risedronate, and a reasonable expectation of success. Here there
was no evidence that the necessary modifications would have been routine,
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 388 

so there would have been no reasonable expectation of success.
 
   Procter & Gamble is also informative in its discussion of the treatment
of secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Although the court found
that no prima facie case of obviousness had been presented, it proceeded to
analyze Procter & Gamble's proffered evidence countering the alleged prima
facie case in some detail, thus shedding light on the proper treatment of
such evidence.
 
   The Federal Circuit noted in dicta that even if a prima facie case of
obviousness had been established, sufficient evidence of unexpected results
was introduced to rebut such a showing. At trial, the witnesses
consistently testified that the properties of risedronate were not
expected, offering evidence that researchers did not predict either the
potency or the low dose at which the compound was effective, and that the
superior properties were unexpected and could not be predicted. Tests
comparing risedronate to a compound in the prior art reference showed that
risedronate outperformed the other compound by a substantial margin, could
be administered in a greater amount without an observable toxic effect, and
was not lethal at the same levels as the other compound. The weight of the
evidence and the credibility of the witnesses were sufficient to show
unexpected results that would have rebutted an obviousness determination.
Thus, nonobviousness can be shown when a claimed invention is shown to have
unexpectedly superior properties when compared to the prior art.
 
   The court then addressed the evidence of commercial success of
risedronate and the evidence that risedronate met a long-felt need. The
court pointed out that little weight was to be afforded to the commercial
success because the competing product was also assigned to Procter &
Gamble. However, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's
conclusion that risedronate met a long-felt, unsatisfied need. The court
rejected Teva's contention that because the competing drug was available
before Actonel[supreg], there was no unmet need that the invention
satisfied. The court emphasized that whether there was a long-felt
unsatisfied need is to be evaluated based on the circumstances as of the
filing date of the challenged invention - not as of the date that the
invention is brought to market.
 
   It should be noted that the lead compound cases do not stand for the
proposition that identification of a single lead compound is necessary in
every obviousness rejection of a chemical compound. For example, one might
envision a suggestion in the prior art to formulate a compound having
certain structurally defined moieties, or moieties with certain properties.
If a person of ordinary skill would have known how to synthesize such a
compound, and the structural and/or functional result could reasonably have
been predicted, then a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed
chemical compound might exist even without identification of a particular
lead compound. As a second example, it could be possible to view a claimed
compound as consisting of two known compounds attached via a chemical
linker. The claimed compound might properly be found to have been obvious
if there would have been a reason to link the two, if one of ordinary skill
would have known how to do so, and if the resulting compound would have
been the predictable result of the linkage procedure. Thus, Office
personnel should recognize that in certain situations, it may be proper to
reject a claimed chemical compound as obvious even without identifying a
single lead compound.
 
   Example 4.13. Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 566
F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Teaching point: Obviousness of a chemical
compound in view of its structural similarity to a prior art compound may
be shown by identifying some line of reasoning that would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to select and modify a prior art lead compound in
a particular way to produce the claimed compound. It is not necessary for
the reasoning to be explicitly found in the prior art of record, nor is it
necessary for the prior art to point to only a single lead compound.
 
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 389 

   Although the decision reached by the Federal Circuit in Altana involved
a motion for preliminary injunction and did not include a final
determination of obviousness, the case is nevertheless instructive as to
the issue of selecting a lead compound.
 
   The technology involved in Altana was the compound pantoprazole, which
is the active ingredient in Altana's antiulcer drug Protonix[supreg].
Pantoprazole belongs to a class of compounds known as proton pump
inhibitors that are used to treat gastric acid disorders
in the stomach.
 
   Altana accused Teva of infringement. The district court denied Altana's
motion for preliminary injunction for failure to establish a likelihood of
success on the merits, determining that Teva had demonstrated a substantial
question of invalidity for obviousness in light of one of Altana's prior
patents. Altana's patent discussed a compound referred to as compound 12,
which was one of eighteen compounds disclosed. The claimed compound
pantoprazole was structurally similar to compound 12. The district court
found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected compound 12
as a lead compound for modification, and the Federal Circuit affirmed.
 
   Obviousness of a chemical compound in view of its structural similarity
to a prior art compound may be shown by identifying some line of reasoning
that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to select and modify
the prior art compound in a particular way to produce the claimed compound.
The necessary line of reasoning can be drawn from any number of sources and
need not necessarily be explicitly found in the prior art of record. The
Federal Circuit determined that ample evidence supported the district
court's finding that compound 12 was a natural choice for further
development. For example, Altana's prior art patent claimed that its
compounds, including compound 12, were improvements over the prior art;
compound 12 was disclosed as one of the more potent of the eighteen
compounds disclosed; the patent examiner had considered the compounds of
Altana's prior art patent to be relevant during the prosecution of the
patent in suit; and experts had opined that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have selected the eighteen compounds to pursue further
investigation into their potential as proton pump inhibitors.
 
   In response to Altana's argument that the prior art must point to only a
single lead compound for further development, the Federal Circuit stated
that a "restrictive view of the lead compound test would present a rigid
test similar to the teaching-suggestion-motivation test that the Supreme
Court explicitly rejected in KSR * * *. The district court in this case
employed a flexible approach - one that was admittedly preliminary - and
found that the defendants had raised a substantial question that one of
skill in the art would have used the more potent compounds of [Altana's
prior art] patent, including compound 12, as a starting point from which to
pursue further development efforts. That finding was not clearly
erroneous." Id. at 1008.
 
   C. The "Obvious to Try" Rationale. The question of whether a claimed
invention can be shown to be obvious based on an "obvious to try" line of
reasoning has been explored extensively by the Federal Circuit in several
cases since the KSR decision. The 2007 KSR Guidelines explain, in view of
the Supreme Court's instruction, that this rationale is only appropriate
when there is a recognized problem or need in the art; there are a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need or
problem; and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued these
known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. The
case law in this area is developing quickly in the chemical arts, although
the rationale has been applied in other art areas as well.
 
   Some commentators on the KSR decision have expressed a concern that
because inventive activities are always carried out in the context of what
has come before and not in a vacuum, few inventions will survive scrutiny
under an obvious to try standard. The cases decided since KSR have proved
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 390 

this fear to have been unfounded. Courts appear to be applying the KSR
requirement for "a finite number of identified predictable solutions" in a
manner that places particular emphasis on predictability and the reasonable
expectations of those of ordinary skill in the art.
 
   In a recent Federal Circuit decision, the court pointed out the
challenging nature of the task faced by the courts - and likewise by Office
personnel - when considering the viability of an obvious to try argument:
"The evaluation of the choices made by a skilled scientist, when such
choices lead to the desired result, is a challenge to judicial
understanding of how technical advance is achieved in the particular field
of science or technology." Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544 F.3d 1341,
1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Federal Circuit cautioned that an obviousness
inquiry based on an obvious to try rationale must always be undertaken in
the context of the subject matter in question, "including the
characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the
nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior
art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest." Id.
 
   Example 4.14. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Teaching
point: A claimed polynucleotide would have been obvious over the known
protein that it encodes where the skilled artisan would have had a
reasonable expectation of success in deriving the claimed polynucleotide
using standard biochemical techniques, and the skilled artisan would have
had a reason to try to isolate the claimed polynucleotide. KSR applies to
all technologies, rather than just the "predictable" arts.
 
   The Federal Circuit's decision in In re Kubin was an affirmance of the
Board's decision in Ex parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Interf.
2007), and the Board in turn had affirmed the examiner's determination that
the claims in question would have been obvious over the prior art applied.
A discussion of Ex parte Kubin was included in the 2007 KSR Guidelines. See
2007 KSR Guidelines, 72 FR at 57532. The claimed invention in Kubin was an
isolated nucleic acid molecule. The claim stated that the nucleic acid
encoded a particular polypeptide. The encoded polypeptide was identified in
the claim by its partially specified sequence, and by its ability to bind
to a specified protein. A prior art patent to Valiante taught the
polypeptide encoded by the claimed nucleic acid, but did not disclose
either the sequence of the polypeptide, or the claimed isolated nucleic
acid molecule. However, Valiante did disclose that by employing
conventional methods, such as those disclosed by a prior art laboratory
manual by Sambrook, the sequence of the polypeptide could be determined,
and the nucleic acid molecule could be isolated. In view of Valiante's
disclosure of the polypeptide, and of routine prior art methods for
sequencing the polypeptide and isolating the nucleic acid molecule, the
Board found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reasonable expectation that a nucleic acid molecule within the claimed
scope could have been successfully obtained.
 
   Relying on In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1995), Appellant argued
that it was improper for the Office to use the polypeptide of the Valiante
patent together with the methods described in Sambrook to reject a claim
drawn to a specific nucleic acid molecule without providing a reference
showing or suggesting a structurally similar nucleic acid molecule. Citing
KSR, the Board stated that "when there is motivation to solve a problem and
there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or
her technical grasp. If this leads to anticipated success, it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." The
Board noted that the problem facing those in the art was to isolate a
specific nucleic acid, and there were a limited number of methods available
to do so. The Board concluded that the skilled artisan would have had
reason to try these methods with the reasonable expectation that at least
one would be successful. Thus, isolating the specific nucleic acid molecule
claimed was "the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
sense." The Board's reasoning was substantially adopted by the Federal
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 391 

Circuit. However, it is important to note that in the Kubin decision, the
Federal Circuit held that "the Supreme Court in KSR unambiguously
discredited" the Federal Circuit's decision in Deuel, insofar as it
"implies the obviousness inquiry cannot consider that the combination of
the claim's constituent elements was `obvious to try.'" Kubin, 561 F.3d at
1358. Instead, Kubin stated that KSR "resurrects" the Federal Circuit's own
wisdom in O'Farrell, in which "to differentiate between proper and improper
applications of `obvious to try,'" the Federal Circuit "outlined two
classes of situations where `obvious to try' is erroneously equated with
obviousness under § 103." Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359. These two classes of
situations are: (1) When what would have been "obvious to try" would have
been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until
one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave
either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as
to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful; and (2) when
what was "obvious to try" was to explore a new technology or general
approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the
prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the
claimed invention or how to achieve it. Id. (citing O'Farrell, 853 F.2d at
903).
 
   Example 4.15. Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd.,
492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Teaching point: A claimed compound would
not have been obvious where it was not obvious to try to obtain it from a
broad range of compounds, any one of which could have been selected as the
lead compound for further investigation, and the prior art taught away from
using a particular lead compound, and there was no predictability or
reasonable expectation of success in making the particular modifications
necessary to transform the lead compound into the claimed compound.
 
   Takeda is an example of a chemical case in which the Federal Circuit
found that the claim was not obvious. The claimed compound was
pioglitazone, a member of a class of drugs known as thiazolidinediones
(TZDs) marketed by Takeda as a treatment for Type 2 diabetes. The Takeda
case brings together the concept of a "lead compound" and the obvious-to-
try argument.
 
   Alphapharm had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the Food
and Drug Administration, which was a technical act of infringement of
Takeda's patent. When Takeda brought suit, Alphapharm's defense was that
Takeda's patent was invalid due to obviousness. Alphapharm argued that a
two-step modification - involving homologation and ring-walking - of a known
compound identified as "compound b" would have produced pioglitazone, and
that it was therefore obvious.
 
   The district court found that there would have been no reason to select
compound b as a lead compound. There were a large number of similar prior
art TZD compounds; fifty-four were specifically identified in Takeda's
prior patent, and the district court observed that "hundreds of millions"
were more generally disclosed. Although the parties agreed that compound b
represented the closest prior art, one reference had taught certain
disadvantageous properties associated with compound b, which according to
the district court would have taught the skilled artisan not to select that
compound as a lead compound. The district court found no prima facie case
of obviousness, and stated that even if a prima facie case had been
established, it would have been overcome in this case in view of the
unexpected lack of toxicity of pioglitazone.
 
   The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court, citing
the need for a reason to modify a prior art compound. The Federal Circuit
quoted KSR, stating:
 
   The KSR Court recognized that "[w]hen there is a design need or market
pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,
predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp." KSR, 127 S.Ct. at
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 392 

1732. In such circumstances, "the fact that a combination was obvious to
try might show that it was obvious under § 103." Id. That is not the case
here. Rather than identify predictable solutions for antidiabetic
treatment, the prior art disclosed a broad selection of compounds any one
of which could have been selected as a lead compound for further
investigation. Significantly, the closest prior art compound (compound b,
the 6-methyl) exhibited negative properties that would have directed one of
ordinary skill in the art away from that compound. Thus, this case fails to
present the type of situation contemplated by the Court when it stated that
an invention may be deemed obvious if it was "obvious to try." The evidence
showed that it was not obvious to try.
 
   Takeda, 492 F.3d at 1359.
   Accordingly, Office personnel should recognize that the obvious to try
rationale does not apply when the appropriate factual findings cannot be
made. In Takeda, there was a recognized need for treatment of diabetes.
However, there was no finite number of identified, predictable solutions to
the recognized need, and no reasonable expectation of success. There were
numerous known TZD compounds, and although one clearly represented the
closest prior art, its known disadvantages rendered it unsuitable as a
starting point for further research, and taught the skilled artisan away
from its use. Furthermore, even if there had been reason to select compound
b, there had been no predictability or reasonable expectation of success
associated with the particular modifications necessary to transform
compound b into the claimed compound pioglitazone. Thus, an obviousness
rejection based on an obvious to try rationale was not appropriate in this
situation.
 
   Example 4.16. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Labs, Inc., 520
F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Teaching point: Where the claimed anti-
convulsant drug had been discovered somewhat serendipitously in the course
of research aimed at finding a new anti-diabetic drug, it would not have
been obvious to try to obtain a claimed compound where the prior art did
not present a finite and easily traversed number of potential starting
compounds, and there was no apparent reason for selecting a particular
starting compound from among a number of unpredictable alternatives.
 
   The Ortho-McNeil case provides another example in which a chemical
compound was determined not to be obvious. The claimed subject matter was
topiramate, which is used as an anti-convulsant. As in DePuy Spine, whether
the combination would predictably be effective for its intended purpose is
part of the obviousness analysis.
 
   In the course of working toward a new anti-diabetic drug, Ortho-McNeil's
scientist had unexpectedly discovered that a reaction intermediate had
anti-convulsant properties. Mylan's defense of invalidity due to
obviousness rested on an obvious to try argument. However, Mylan did not
explain why it would have been obvious to begin with an anti-diabetic drug
precursor, especially the specific one that led to topiramate, if one had
been seeking an anti-convulsant drug. The district court ruled on summary
judgment that Ortho-McNeil's patent was not invalid for obviousness.
 
   The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Federal Circuit pointed out that there
was no apparent reason why a person of ordinary skill would have chosen the
particular starting compound or the particular synthetic pathway that led
to topiramate as an intermediate. Furthermore, there would have been no
reason to test that intermediate for anticonvulsant properties if treating
diabetes had been the goal. The Federal Circuit recognized an element of
serendipity in this case, which runs counter to the requirement for
predictability. Summarizing their conclusion with regard to Mylan's obvious
to try argument, the Federal Circuit stated:
 
   [T]his invention, contrary to Mylan's characterization, does not present
a finite (and small in the context of the art) number of options easily
traversed to show obviousness * * *. KSR posits a situation with a finite,
and in the context of the art, small or easily traversed, number of options
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 393 

that would convince an ordinarily skilled artisan of obviousness* * * .
[T]his clearly is not the easily traversed, small and finite number of
alternatives that KSR suggested might support an inference of obviousness.
 
   Id. at 1364. Thus, Ortho-McNeil helps to clarify the Supreme Court's
requirement in KSR for "a finite number" of predictable solutions when an
obvious to try rationale is applied: Under the Federal Circuit's case law
"finite" means "small or easily traversed" in the context of the art in
question. As taught in Abbott, discussed above, it is essential that the
inquiry be placed in the context of the subject matter at issue, and each
case must be decided on its own facts.
 
   Example 4.17. Bayer Schering Pharma A.G. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 575 F.3d
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Teaching point: A claimed compound would have been
obvious where it was obvious to try to obtain it from a finite and easily
traversed number of options that was narrowed down from a larger set of
possibilities by the prior art, and the outcome of obtaining the claimed
compound was reasonably predictable.
 
   In Bayer the claimed invention was an oral contraceptive containing
micronized drospirenone marketed as Yasmin[reg].
 
   The prior art compound drospirenone was known to be a poorly water-
soluble, acid-sensitive compound with contraceptive effects. It was also
known in the art that micronization improves the solubility of poorly water
soluble drugs.
 
   Based on the known acid sensitivity, Bayer had studied how effectively
an enteric-coated drospirenone tablet delivered a formulation as compared
to an intravenous injection of the same formulation to measure the
"absolute bioavailability" of the drug. Bayer added an unprotected (normal)
drospirenone tablet and compared its bioavailability to that of the
enteric-coated formulation and the intravenous delivery. Bayer expected to
find that the enteric-coated tablet would produce a lower bioavailability
than an intravenous injection, while the normal pill would produce an even
lower bioavailability than the enteric-coated tablet. However, they found
that despite observations that drospirenone would quickly isomerize in a
highly acidic environment (supporting the belief that an enteric coating
would be necessary to preserve bioavailability), the normal pill and the
enteric-coated pill resulted in the same bioavailability. Following this
study, Bayer developed micronized drospirenone in a normal pill, the basis
for the disputed patent.
 
   The district court found that a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have considered the prior art result that a structurally related
compound, spirorenone, though acid-sensitive, would nevertheless absorb in
vivo, would have suggested the same result for drospirenone. It also found
that while another reference taught that drospirenone isomerizes in vitro
when exposed to acid simulating the human stomach, a person of ordinary
skill would have been aware of the study's shortcomings, and would have
verified the findings as suggested by a treatise on the science of dosage
form design, which would have then showed that no enteric coating was
necessary.
 
   The Federal Circuit held that the patent was invalid because the claimed
formulation was obvious. The Federal Circuit reasoned that the prior art
would have funneled the formulator toward two options. Thus, the formulator
would not have been required to try all possibilities in a field unreduced
by the prior art. The prior art was not vague in pointing toward a general
approach or area of exploration, but rather guided the formulator precisely
to the use of either a normal pill or an enteric-coated pill.
 
   It is important for Office personnel to recognize that the mere
existence of a large number of options does not in and of itself lead to a
conclusion of nonobviousness. Where the prior art teachings lead one of
ordinary skill in the art to a narrower set of options, then that reduced
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 394 

set is the appropriate one to consider when determining obviousness using
an obvious to try rationale.
 
   Example 4.18. Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). Teaching point: A claimed isolated stereoisomer would not have
been obvious where the claimed stereoisomer exhibits unexpectedly strong
therapeutic advantages over the prior art racemic mixture without the
correspondingly expected toxicity, and the resulting properties of the
enantiomers separated from the racemic mixture were unpredictable.
 
   The case of Sanofi also sheds light on the obvious to try line of
reasoning. The claimed compound was clopidogrel, which is the
dextrorotatory isomer of methyl alpha-5(4,5,6,7-tetrahydro(3,2-
c)thienopyridyl)(2-chlorophenyl)-acetate. Clopidogrel is an anti-thrombotic
compound used to treat or prevent heart attack or stroke. The racemate, or
mixture of dextrorotatory and levorotatory (D- and L-) isomers of the
compound, was known in the prior art. The two forms had not previously been
separated, and although the mixture was known to have anti-thrombotic
properties, the extent to which each of the individual isomers contributed
to the observed properties of the racemate was not known and was not
predictable.
 
   The district court assumed that in the absence of any additional
information, the D-isomer would have been prima facie obvious over the
known racemate. However, in view of the evidence of unpredicted therapeutic
advantages of the D-isomer presented in the case, the district court found
that any prima facie case of obviousness had been overcome. At trial, the
experts for both parties testified that persons of ordinary skill in the
art could not have predicted the degree to which the isomers would have
exhibited different levels of therapeutic activity and toxicity. Both
parties' experts also agreed that the isomer with greater therapeutic
activity would most likely have had greater toxicity. Sanofi witnesses
testified that Sanofi's own researchers had believed that the separation of
the isomers was unlikely to have been productive, and experts for both
parties agreed that it was difficult to separate isomers at the time of the
invention. Nevertheless, when Sanofi ultimately undertook the task of
separating the isomers, it found that they had the "rare characteristic of
`absolute stereoselectivity,'" whereby the D-isomer provided all of the
favorable therapeutic activity but no significant toxicity, while the
L-isomer produced no therapeutic activity but virtually all of the
toxicity. Based on this record, the district court concluded that Apotex
had not met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that
Sanofi's patent was invalid for obviousness. The Federal Circuit affirmed
the district court's conclusion.
 
   Office personnel should recognize that even when only a small number of
possible choices exist, the obvious to try line of reasoning is not
appropriate when, upon consideration of all of the evidence, the outcome
would not have been reasonably predictable and the inventor would not have
had a reasonable expectation of success. In Bayer, there were art-based
reasons to expect that both the normal pill and the enteric-coated pill
would be therapeutically suitable, even though not all prior art studies
were in complete agreement. Thus, the result obtained was not unexpected.
In Sanofi, on the other hand, there was strong evidence that persons of
ordinary skill in the art, prior to the separation of the isomers, would
have had no reason to expect that the D-isomer would have such strong
therapeutic advantages as compared with the L-isomer. In other words, the
result in Sanofi was unexpected.
 
   Example 4.19. Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Technologies Corp., 603 F.3d
1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Teaching point: An obvious to try rationale may be
proper when the possible options for solving a problem were known and
finite. However, if the possible options were not either known or finite,
then an obvious to try rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion of
obviousness.
 
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 395 

   In Rolls-Royce the Federal Circuit addressed the obvious to try
rationale in the context of a fan blade for jet engines. The case had
arisen out of an interference proceeding. Finding that the district court
had correctly determined that there was no interference-in-fact because
Rolls-Royce's claims would not have been obvious in light of United's
application, the Federal Circuit affirmed.
 
   The Federal Circuit described the fan blade of the count as follows:
 
   Each fan blade has three regions - an inner, an intermediate, and an
outer region. The area closest to the axis of rotation at the hub is the
inner region. The area farthest from the center of the engine and closest
to the casing surrounding the engine is the outer region. The intermediate
region falls in between. The count defines a fan blade with a swept-
forward inner region, a swept-rearward intermediate region, and forward-
leaning outer region.
 
   Id. at 1328.
 
   United had argued that it would have been obvious for a person of
ordinary skill in the art to try a fan blade design in which the sweep
angle in the outer region was reversed as compared with prior art fan
blades from rearward to forward sweep, in order to reduce endwall shock.
The Federal Circuit disagreed with United's assessment that the claimed fan
blade would have been obvious based on an obvious to try rationale. The
Federal Circuit pointed out that in a proper obvious to try approach to
obviousness, the possible options for solving a problem must have been
"known and finite." Id. at 1339, citing Abbott, 544 F.3d at 1351. In this
case, there had been no suggestion in the prior art that would have
suggested that changing the sweep angle as Rolls-Royce had done would have
addressed the issue of endwall shock. Thus, the Federal Circuit concluded
that changing the sweep angle "would not have presented itself as an option
at all, let alone an option that would have been obvious to try." Rolls-
Royce, 603 F.3d at 1339. The decision in Rolls-Royce is a reminder to
Office personnel that the obvious to try rationale can properly be used to
support a conclusion of obviousness only when the claimed solution would
have been selected from a finite number of potential solutions known to
persons of ordinary skill in the art.
 
   Example 4.20. Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d
1324, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Teaching point: Where there were a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions and there is no evidence of
unexpected results, an obvious to try inquiry may properly lead to a legal
conclusion of obviousness. Common sense may be used to support a legal
conclusion of obviousness so long as it is explained with sufficient
reasoning.
 
   The Perfect Web case provides an example in which the Federal Circuit
held that a claimed method for managing bulk e-mail distribution was
obvious on the basis of an obvious to try argument. In Perfect Web, the
method required selecting the intended recipients, transmitting the
e-mails, determining how many of the e-mails had been successfully
received, and repeating the first three steps if a pre-determined minimum
number of intended recipients had not received the e-mail.
 
   The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's determination on
summary judgment that the claimed invention would have been obvious.
Failure to meet a desired quota of e-mail recipients was a recognized
problem in the field of e-mail marketing. The prior art had also
recognized three potential solutions: Increasing the size of the initial
recipient list; resending e-mails to recipients who did not receive them on
the first attempt; and selecting a new recipient list and sending e-mails
to them. The last option corresponded to the fourth step of the invention
as claimed.
 
   The Federal Circuit noted that based on "simple logic," selecting a new
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 396 

list of recipients was more likely to result in the desired outcome than
resending to those who had not received the e-mail on the first attempt.
There had been no evidence of any unexpected result associated with
selecting a new recipient list, and no evidence that the method would not
have had a reasonable likelihood of success. Thus, the Federal Circuit
concluded that, as required by KSR, there were a "finite number of
identified, predictable solutions," and that the obvious to try inquiry
properly led to the legal conclusion of
obviousness.
 
   The Federal Circuit in Perfect Web also discussed the role of common
sense in the determination of obviousness. The district court had cited KSR
for the proposition that "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton," and found that "the final step [of
the claimed invention] is merely the logical result of common sense
application of the maxim `try, try again.'" In affirming the district
court, the Federal Circuit undertook an extended discussion of common sense
as it has been applied to the obviousness inquiry, both before and since
the KSR decision.
 
   The Federal Circuit pointed out that application of common sense is not
really an innovation in the law of obviousness when it stated, "Common
sense has long been recognized to inform the analysis of obviousness if
explained with sufficient reasoning." Perfect Web, 587 F.3d at 1328
(emphasis added). The Federal Circuit then provided a review of a number of
precedential cases that inform the understanding of common sense, including
In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) (explaining that a patent
examiner may rely on "common knowledge and common sense of the person of
ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a
particular reference") and In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 1385 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (clarifying that a factual foundation is needed in order for an
examiner to invoke "good common sense" in a case in which "basic knowledge
and common sense was not based on any evidence in the record").
 
   The Federal Circuit implicitly acknowledged in Perfect Web that the
kind of strict evidence-based teaching, suggestion, or motivation
required in In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002), is not an
absolute requirement for an obviousness rejection in light of the
teachings of KSR. The Federal Circuit explained that "[a]t the time
[of the Lee decision], we required the PTO to identify record evidence
of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references."
However, Perfect Web went on to state that even under Lee, common sense
could properly be applied when analyzing evidence relevant to
obviousness. Citing DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir.
2006), two cases decided shortly before the Supreme Court's decision in
KSR, the Federal Circuit noted that although "a reasoned explanation
that avoids conclusory generalizations" is required to use common
sense, identification of a "specific hint or suggestion in a
particular reference" is not.
 
   5. Federal Circuit Cases Discussing Consideration of Evidence.
Office personnel should consider all rebuttal evidence that is timely
presented by the applicants when reevaluating any obviousness
determination. In the case of a claim rendered obvious by a combination
of prior art references, applicants may submit evidence or argument to
demonstrate that the results of the claimed combination were
unexpected.
 
   Another area that has thus far remained consistent with pre-KSR
precedent is the consideration of rebuttal evidence and secondary
considerations in the determination of obviousness. As reflected in the
MPEP, such evidence should not be considered simply for its
"knockdown" value; rather, all evidence must be reweighed to
determine whether the claims are nonobvious.
 
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 397 

   Once the applicant has presented rebuttal evidence, Office
personnel should reconsider any initial obviousness determination in
view of the entire record. See, e.g., In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 90
F.2d 943, 945, 14 USPQ2d 1741, 1743 (Fed. Cir. 1990). All the
rejections of record and proposed rejections and their bases should
be reviewed to confirm their continued viability.
 
   MPEP § 2141.
 
   Office personnel should not evaluate rebuttal evidence for its
"knockdown" value against the prima facie case, Piasecki, 745 F.2d
at 1473, 223 USPQ at 788, or summarily dismiss it as not compelling
or insufficient. If the evidence is deemed insufficient to rebut the
prima facie case of obviousness, Office personnel should
specifically set forth the facts and reasoning that justify this
conclusion.
 
   MPEP § 2145. The following cases exemplify the continued
application of these principles both at the Federal Circuit and within
the Office. Note that these principles were at issue in some of the
cases previously discussed, and have been addressed there in a more
cursory fashion.
   Example 5.1. PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., 491
F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Teaching point: Even though all evidence
must be considered in an obviousness analysis, evidence of
nonobviousness may be outweighed by contradictory evidence in the
record or by what is in the specification. Although a reasonable
expectation of success is needed to support a case of obviousness,
absolute predictability is not required.
 
   The claims at issue in PharmaStem were directed to compositions
comprising hematopoietic stem cells from umbilical cord or placental
blood, and to methods of using such compositions for treatment of blood
and immune system disorders. The composition claims required that the
stem cells be present in an amount sufficient to effect hematopoietic
reconstitution when administered to a human adult. The trial court had
found that PharmaStem's patents were infringed and not invalid on
obviousness or other grounds. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed
the district court, determining that the claims were invalid for
obviousness.
 
   The Federal Circuit discussed the evidence presented at trial. It
pointed out that the patentee, PharmaStem, had not invented an entirely
new procedure or new composition. Rather, PharmaStem's own
specification acknowledged that it was already known in the prior art
that umbilical cord and placental blood-based compositions contained
hematopoietic stem cells, and that hematopoietic stem cells were useful
for the purpose of hematopoietic reconstitution. PharmaStem's
contribution was to provide experimental proof that umbilical cord and
placental blood could be used to effect hematopoietic reconstitution in
mice. By extrapolation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
expected this reconstitution method to work in humans as well.
 
   The court rejected PharmaStem's expert testimony that hematopoietic
stem cells had not been proved to exist in cord blood prior to the
experiments described in PharmaStem's patents. The court explained that
the expert testimony was contrary to the inventors' admissions in the
specification, as well as prior art teachings that disclosed stem cells
in cord blood. In this case, PharmaStem's evidence of nonobviousness
was outweighed by contradictory evidence.
 
   Despite PharmaStem's useful experimental validation of
hematopoietic reconstitution using hematopoietic stem cells from
umbilical cord and placental blood, the Federal Circuit found that the
claims at issue would have been obvious. There had been ample
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 398 

suggestion in the prior art that the claimed method would have worked.
Absolute predictability is not a necessary prerequisite to a case of
obviousness. Rather, a degree of predictability that one of ordinary
skill would have found to be reasonable is sufficient. The Federal
Circuit concluded that "[g]ood science and useful contributions do not
necessarily result in patentability." Id. at 1364.
 
   Example 5.2. In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Teaching point: All evidence, including evidence rebutting a prima
facie case of obviousness, must be considered when properly presented.
 
   It was found to be an error in Sullivan for the Board to fail to
consider evidence submitted to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
 
   The claimed invention was directed to an antivenom composition
comprising F(ab) fragments used to treat venomous rattlesnake bites.
The composition was created from antibody molecules that include three
fragments, F(ab)2, F(ab) and F(c), which have separate
properties and utilities. There have been commercially available
antivenom products that consisted of whole antibodies and
F(ab)2 fragments, but researchers had not experimented with
antivenoms containing only F(ab) fragments because it was believed that
their unique properties would prevent them from decreasing the toxicity
of snake venom. The inventor, Sullivan, discovered that F(ab) fragments
are effective at neutralizing the lethality of rattlesnake venom, while
reducing the occurrence of adverse immune reactions in humans. On
appeal of the examiner's rejection, the Board held that the claim was
obvious because all the elements of the claimed composition were
accounted for in the prior art, and that the composition taught by that
prior art would have been expected by a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to neutralize the lethality of
the venom of a rattlesnake.
 
   Rebuttal evidence had not been considered by the Board because it
considered the evidence to relate to the intended use of the claimed
composition as an antivenom, rather than the composition itself.
Appellant successfully argued that even if the Board had shown a prima
facie case of obviousness, the extensive rebuttal evidence must be
considered. The evidence included three expert declarations submitted
to show that the prior art taught away from the claimed invention, an
unexpected property or result from the use of F(ab) fragment antivenom,
and why those having ordinary skill in the art expected antivenoms
comprising F(ab) fragments to fail. The declarations related to more
than the use of the claimed composition. While a statement of intended
use may not render a known composition patentable, the claimed
composition was not known, and whether it would have been obvious
depends upon consideration of the rebuttal evidence. Appellant did not
concede that the only distinguishing factor of its composition is the
statement of intended use and extensively argued that its claimed
composition exhibits the unexpected property of neutralizing the
lethality of rattlesnake venom while reducing the occurrence of adverse
immune reactions in humans. The Federal Circuit found that such a use
and unexpected property cannot be ignored - the unexpected property is
relevant and thus the declarations describing it should have been
considered.
 
   Nonobviousness can be shown when a person of ordinary skill in the
art would not have reasonably predicted the claimed invention based on
the prior art, and the resulting invention would not have been
expected. All evidence must be considered when properly presented.
 
   Example 5.3. Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2010). Teaching point: Evidence that has been properly
presented in a timely manner must be considered on the record. Evidence
of commercial success is pertinent where a nexus between the success of
the product and the claimed invention has been demonstrated.
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 399 

 
   The case of Hearing Components involved a disposable protective
covering for the portion of a hearing aid that is inserted into the ear
canal. The covering was such that it could be readily replaced by a
user as needed.
 
   At the district court, Shure had argued that Hearing Components'
patents were obvious over one or more of three different combinations
of prior art references. The jury disagreed, and determined that the
claims were nonobvious. The district court upheld the jury verdict,
stating that in view of the conflicting evidence presented by the
parties as to the teachings of the references, motivation to combine,
and secondary considerations, the nonobviousness verdict was
sufficiently grounded in the evidence.
 
   Shure appealed to the Federal Circuit, but the Federal Circuit
agreed with the district court that the jury's nonobviousness verdict
had been supported by substantial evidence. Although Shure had argued
before the jury that the Carlisle reference taught an ear piece
positioned inside the ear canal, Hearing Components' credible witness
countered that only the molded duct and not the ear piece itself was
taught by Carlisle as being inside the ear canal. On the issue of
combining references, Shure's witness had given testimony described as
"rather sparse, and lacking in specific details." Id. at 1364. In
contradistinction, Hearing Components' witness "described particular
reasons why one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to
combine the references." Id. Finally, as to secondary considerations,
the Federal Circuit determined that Hearing Components had shown a
nexus between the commercial success of its product and the patent by
providing evidence that "the licensing fee for a covered product was
more than cut in half immediately upon expiration" of the patent.
 
   Although the Hearing Components case involves substantial evidence
of nonobviousness in a jury verdict, it is nevertheless instructive for
Office personnel on the matter of weighing evidence. Office personnel
routinely must consider evidence in the form of prior art references,
statements in the specification, or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131 or
1.132. Other forms of evidence may also be presented during
prosecution. Office personnel are reminded that evidence that has been
presented in a timely manner should not be ignored, but rather should
be considered on the record. However, not all evidence need be accorded
the same weight. In determining the relative weight to accord to
rebuttal evidence, considerations such as whether a nexus exists
between the claimed invention and the proffered evidence, and whether
the evidence is commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, are
appropriate. The mere presence of some credible rebuttal evidence does
not dictate that an obviousness rejection must always be withdrawn. See
MPEP § 2145. Office personnel must consider the appropriate weight
to be accorded to each piece of evidence. An obviousness rejection
should be made or maintained only if evidence of obviousness outweighs
evidence of nonobviousness. See MPEP § 706(I) ("The standard to be
applied in all cases is the `preponderance of the evidence' test. In
other words, an examiner should reject a claim if, in view of the prior
art and evidence of record, it is more likely than not that the claim
is unpatentable."). MPEP § 716.01(d) provides further guidance on
weighing evidence in making a determination of patentability.
 
   Example 5.4. Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d 1310
(Fed. Cir. 2008). Teaching point: Evidence of secondary considerations
of obviousness such as commercial success and long-felt need may be
insufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness if the prima
facie case is strong. An argument for nonobviousness based on
commercial success or long-felt need is undermined when there is a
failure to link the commercial success or long-felt need to a claimed
feature that distinguishes over the prior art.
 
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 400 

   The claims at issue in Asyst concerned a processing system for
tracking articles such as silicon wafers which move from one processing
station to the next in a manufacturing facility. The claims required
that each processing station be in communication with a central control
unit. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the only
difference between the claimed invention and the prior art to Hesser
was that the prior art had taught the use of a bus for this
communication, while the claims required a multiplexer. At trial, the
jury had concluded that Hesser was not relevant prior art, but the
district court overturned that conclusion and issued a judgment as a
matter of law (JMOL) that the claims would have been obvious in view of
Hesser. Because the evidence showed that persons of ordinary skill in
the art would have been familiar with both the bus and the multiplexer,
and that they could have readily selected and employed one or the other
based on known considerations, the Federal Circuit affirmed the
district court's conclusion that the claims were invalid for
obviousness.
 
   The Federal Circuit also discussed arguments that the district court had
failed to consider the objective evidence of nonobviousness presented by
Asyst. Asyst had offered evidence of commercial success of its invention.
However, the Federal Circuit pointed out that Asyst had not provided the
required nexus between the commercial success and the claimed invention,
emphasizing that "Asyst's failure to link that commercial success to the
features of its invention that were not disclosed in Hesser undermines the
probative force of the evidence * * *." Id. at 1316. Asyst had also
offered evidence from others in the field praising the invention as
addressing a long-felt need. Once again, the Federal Circuit found the
argument to be unavailing in view of the prior art, stating that
"[w]hile the evidence shows that the overall system drew praise as a
solution to a felt need, there was no evidence that the success * * *
was attributable to the substitution of a multiplexer for a bus, which
was the only material difference between Hesser and the patented
invention." Id. The Federal Circuit also reiterated, citing pre-KSR
decisions, that "as we have often held, evidence of secondary
considerations does not always overcome a strong prima facie showing of
obviousness." Id. (citing Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714,
719-20 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757,
768 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
 
   When considering obviousness, Office personnel should carefully
weigh any properly presented objective evidence of nonobviousness
against the strength of the prima facie case. If the asserted evidence,
such as commercial success or satisfaction of a long-felt need, is
attributable to features already in the prior art, the probative value
of the evidence is reduced.
 
   6. Conclusion. This 2010 KSR Guidelines Update is intended to be
used by Office personnel in conjunction with the guidance provided in
MPEP Sec. § 2141 and 2143 (which incorporates the 2007 KSR
Guidelines) to clarify the contours of obviousness after KSR. It
addresses a number of issues that arise when Office personnel consider
whether or not a claimed invention is obvious. While Office personnel
are encouraged to make use of these tools, they are reminded that every
question of obviousness must be decided on its own facts. The Office
will continue to monitor the developing law of obviousness, and will
provide additional guidance and updates as necessary.
 
August 20, 2010   					    DAVID J. KAPPOS
					    Under Secretary of Commerce for
				  Intellectual Property and Director of the
				  United States Patent and Trademark Office
 
Appendix
 
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 401 

   The following table contains the cases set out as examples in
this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update and the teaching points of the case.
 
          Case                   	Teaching point
 
			 Combining Prior Art Elements
 
In re Omeprazole Patent         Even where a general method that
Litigation, 536 F.3d 1361       could have been applied to make the
(Fed. Cir. 2008).               claimed product was known and
                         	within the level of skill of the
                         	ordinary artisan, the claim may
                         	nevertheless be nonobvious if the
                         	problem which had suggested use of
                         	the method had been previously
                         	unknown.
Crocs, Inc. v. U.S. Int'l     	A claimed combination of prior art
Trade Comm'n., 598 F.3d   	elements may be nonobvious where
1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010).          the prior art teaches away from the
                         	claimed combination and the
                         	combination yields more than
                         	predictable results.
Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte       A claimed invention is likely to be
Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d     	obvious if it is a combination of
1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008).          known prior art elements that would
                         	reasonably have been expected to
                         	maintain their respective
                         	properties or functions after they
                         	have been combined.
Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.,      A combination of known elements
569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir.        would have been prima facie obvious
2009).                          if an ordinarily skilled artisan
                         	would have recognized an apparent
                         	reason to combine those elements
                         	and would have known how to do so.
Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 	The scope of analogous art is to be
No. 2009-1412, -F.3d-, 		construed broadly and includes
2010 WL 2901839 (Fed. 	        references that are reasonably
Cir. July 22, 2010).            pertinent to the problem that the
                         	inventor was trying to solve.
                         	Common sense may be used to support
                         	a legal conclusion of obviousness
                         	so long as it is explained with
                         	sufficient reasoning.
DePuy Spine, Inc. v. 		Predictability as discussed in KSR
Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 	encompasses the expectation that
Inc., 567 F.3d 1314             prior art elements are capable of
(Fed. Cir. 2009).               being combined, as well as the
                         	expectation that the combination
                         	would have worked for its intended
                         	purpose. An inference that a
                         	claimed combination would not have
                         	been obvious is especially strong
                         	where the prior art's teachings
                         	undermine the very reason being
                         	proffered as to why a person of
                         	ordinary skill would have combined
                         	the known elements.
 
		  Substituting One Known Element for Another
 
In re ICON Health & Fitness,    When determining whether a reference
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed.       in a different field of endeavor
Cir. 2007).                     may be used to support a case of
                         	obviousness (i.e., is analogous),
                         	it is necessary to consider the
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 402 

                         	problem to be solved.
Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream     Analogous art is not limited to
Corp., 520 F.3d 1337 (Fed.      references in the field of endeavor
Cir. 2008).                     of the invention, but also includes
                         	references that would have been
                         	recognized by those of ordinary
                         	skill in the art as useful for
                         	applicant's purpose.
Muniauction, Inc. v. 	        Because Internet and Web browser
Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d         technologies had become commonplace
1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008).          for communicating and displaying
                         	information, it would have been
                         	obvious to adapt existing processes
                         	to incorporate them for those
                         	functions.
Aventis Pharma Deutschland      A chemical compound would have been
v. Lupin, Ltd., 499 F.3d    	obvious over a mixture containing
1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007).          that compound as well as other
                         	compounds where it was known or the
                         	skilled artisan had reason to
                         	believe that some desirable
                         	property of the mixture was derived
                         	in whole or in part from the
                         	claimed compound, and separating
                         	the claimed compound from the
                         	mixture was routine in the art.
Eisai Co. Ltd. v.      		A claimed compound would not have
Dr. Reddy's Labs., Ltd.,    	been obvious where there was no
533 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir.        reason to modify the closest prior
2008).                          art lead compound to obtain the
                         	claimed compound and the prior art
                         	taught that modifying the lead
                         	compound would destroy its
                         	advantageous property. Any known
                         	compound may serve as a lead
                         	compound when there is some reason
                         	for starting with that lead
                         	compound and modifying it to obtain
                         	the claimed compound.
Procter & Gamble Co. v.       	It is not necessary to select a
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,     	single compound as a "lead
Inc., 566 F.3d 989        	compound" in order to support an
(Fed. Cir. 2009).               obviousness rejection. However,
                         	where there was reason to select
                         	and modify the lead compound to
                         	obtain the claimed compound, but no
                         	reasonable expectation of success,
                         	the claimed compound would not have
                         	been obvious.
Altana Pharma AG v.    		Obviousness of a chemical compound
Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,      	in view of its structural
566 F.3d 999                  	similarity to a prior art compound
(Fed. Cir. 2009).               may be shown by identifying some
                         	line of reasoning that would have
                         	led one of ordinary skill in the
                         	art to select and modify a prior
                         	art lead compound in a particular
                         	way to produce the claimed
                         	compound. It is not necessary for
                         	the reasoning to be explicitly
                         	found in the prior art of record,
                         	nor is it necessary for the prior
                         	art to point to only a single lead
                         	compound.
 
			 The Obvious To Try Rationale
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 403 

 
In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 		A claimed polynucleotide would have
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009).          been obvious over the known protein
                         	that it encodes where the skilled
                         	artisan would have had a reasonable
                         	expectation of success in deriving
                         	the claimed polynucleotide using
                         	standard biochemical techniques,
                         	and the skilled artisan would have
                         	had a reason to try to isolate the
                         	claimed polynucleotide. KSR applies
                         	to all technologies, rather than
                         	just the "predictable" arts.
Takeda Chem. Indus. v.   	A claimed compound would not have
Alphapharm Pty., Ltd.,     	been obvious where it was not
492 F.3d 1350                   obvious to try to obtain it from a
(Fed. Cir. 2007).               broad range of compounds, any one
                         	of which could have been selected
                         	as the lead compound for further
                         	investigation, and the prior art
                         	taught away from using a particular
                         	lead compound, and there was no
                         	predictability or reasonable
                         	expectation of success in making
                         	the particular modifications
                         	necessary to transform the lead
                         	compound into the claimed compound.
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical,   	Where the claimed anti-convulsant
Inc. v. Mylan Labs, Inc.,      	drug had been discovered somewhat
520 F.3d 1358           	serendipitously in the course of
(Fed. Cir. 2008).               research aimed at finding a new
                         	anti-diabetic drug, it would not
                         	have been obvious to try to obtain
                         	a claimed compound where the prior
                         	art did not present a finite and
                         	easily traversed number of
                         	potential starting compounds, and
                         	there was no apparent reason for
                         	selecting a particular starting
                         	compound from among a number of
                         	unpredictable alternatives.
Bayer Schering Pharma A.G.   	A claimed compound would have been
v. Barr Labs., Inc.,    	obvious where it was obvious to try
575 F.3d 1341                  	to obtain it from a finite and
(Fed. Cir. 2009).               easily traversed number of options
                         	that was narrowed down from a
                         	larger set of possibilities by the
                         	prior art, and the outcome of
                         	obtaining the claimed compound was
                         	reasonably predictable.
Sanofi-Synthelabo v.   		A claimed isolated stereoisomer
Apotex, Inc., 550      		would not have been obvious where
F.3d 1075                       the claimed stereoisomer exhibits
(Fed. Cir. 2008).               unexpectedly strong therapeutic
                         	advantages over the prior art
                         	racemic mixture without the
                         	correspondingly expected toxicity,
                         	and the resulting properties of the
                         	enantiomers separated from the
                         	racemic mixture were unpredictable.
Rolls-Royce, PLC v.        	An obvious to try rationale may be
United Technologies Corp.,   	proper when the possible options
603 F.3d 1325              	for solving a problem were known
(Fed. Cir. 2010).               and finite. However, if the
                         	possible options were not either
                         	known or finite, then an obvious to
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 404 

                         	try rationale cannot be used to
                         	support a conclusion of obviousness.
Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v.     Where there were a finite number of
InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324   	identified, predictable solutions
(Fed. Cir. 2009).             	and there is no evidence of
                         	unexpected results, an obvious to
                         	try inquiry may properly lead to a
                         	legal conclusion of obviousness.
                         	Common sense may be used to support
                         	a legal conclusion of obviousness
                         	so long as it is explained with
                         	sufficient reasoning.
 
			   Consideration of Evidence
 
PharmaStem Therapeutics,    	Even though all evidence must be
Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc.,       	considered in an obviousness
491 F.3d 1342              	analysis, evidence of
(Fed. Cir. 2007).               nonobviousness may be outweighed by
                         	contradictory evidence in the
                         	record or by what is in the
                         	specification. Although a
                         	reasonable expectation of success
                         	is needed to support a case of
                         	obviousness, absolute
                         	predictability is not required.
In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d      	All evidence, including evidence
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007).          rebutting a prima facie case of
                         	obviousness, must be considered
                         	when properly presented.
Hearing Components, Inc.   	Evidence that has been properly
v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d     	presented in a timely manner must
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010).          be considered on the record.
                         	Evidence of commercial success is
                         	pertinent where a nexus between the
                         	success of the product and the
                         	claimed invention has been demonstrated.
Asyst Techs., Inc. v.      	Evidence of secondary considerations
Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d    	of obviousness such as commercial
1310 (Fed. Cir. 2008).          success and long-felt need may be
                         	insufficient to overcome a prima
                         	facie case of obviousness if the
                         	prima facie case is strong. An
                         	argument for nonobviousness based
                         	on commercial success or long-felt
                         	need is undermined when there is a
                         	failure to link the commercial
                         	success or long-felt need to a
                         	claimed feature that distinguishes
                         	over the prior art.
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 405 

Notice Regarding the Elimination of the Fee for Petitions to Make Special Filed Under the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Programs
			    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
			  Patent and Trademark Office
			  [Docket No.: PTO-2010-0031]
 
		   Notice Regarding the Elimination of the
	      Fee for Petitions To Make Special Filed Under the
		   Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Programs
 
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
 
ACTION: Notice.
 
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is
eliminating the fee for the petition to make special under the Patent
Prosecution Highway (PPH) programs. Currently, applicants must pay a
petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(h) to have an application to enter into
the PPH program. With the elimination of the fee, applicants will no
longer have to pay the petition to make special fee in order to request
an application enter all current pilot and fully implemented PPH
programs. The elimination of the petition fee will simplify the PPH
requirements and is expected to encourage greater PPH participation.
 
   Since 2006, the USPTO has implemented the Patent Prosecution
Highway (PPH) programs with a number of patent offices as part of
efforts to pursue work sharing to avoid duplication of work among
patent offices, and for reducing its own pendency and backlog. Notices
regarding the PPH programs are available on the USPTO Web site at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=
leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/
pph/index.jsp. Until now, the PPH notices have indicated that a request
for participation in the PPH program must be accompanied by a petition to
make special under 37 CFR 1.102(d) along with the required petition fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h).
 
   The PPH applications have proven, on average, to take significantly
less time to prosecute than non-PPH applications. Using the PPH process
also increases the sharing and re-use of information (primarily search
and examination results) between the USPTO and its partner patent
offices. Improving the PPH framework to make it more user-friendly, and
thereby encourage greater participation by applicants, would support
the Office's goal to optimize both the quality and timeliness of
patents. Therefore, the USPTO has determined that all PPH applications
will now be advanced out of turn for examination under 37 CFR 1.102(a)
in order to expedite the business of the Office. Applications that are
advanced out of turn under 37 CFR 1.102(a) do not require the petition
fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h). Previously, applications were advanced
out of turn under 37 CFR 1.102(d).
 
DATES: Effective Date: May 25, 2010.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magdalen Greenlief, Office of the
Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at
571-272-8140, by facsimile transmission to 571-273-8140, or by mail
addressed to: Mail Stop Comments-Patents, Commissioner for Patents,
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PPH is a first concrete implementation of a
work-sharing framework which was jointly developed by the USPTO and the
Japan Patent Office (JPO) in 2006 as a pilot project. The objective of
the PPH is to promote work sharing while at the same time allowing
applicants to obtain patentability determinations faster in multiple
jurisdictions. The USPTO currently has PPH arrangements with ten patent
offices-those in Japan, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Korea, Canada,
Australia, the European Patent Office (EPO), Denmark, Germany, Singapore and
Finland. Notices regarding the PPH programs with these patent offices
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 406 

are available on the USPTO Web site at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.uspto.gov/
patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp.
 
   Under the PPH program, if an application filed in an Office of
First Filing (OFF) receives an indication that at least one claim is
patentable, a corresponding application with corresponding claims filed
in the USPTO as the Office of Second Filing (OSF) may be advanced out
of turn for examination. To have the request for participation in the
PPH accepted in the USPTO, an applicant must make available to the
USPTO the relevant work of the OFF as well as any necessary
translation. In addition, the request for participation in the PPH,
until now, had to be accompanied by a petition to make special under 37
CFR 1.102(d) along with the required petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(h).
 
   The PPH has proven to be a useful work-sharing vehicle, as shown by
the following statistics (as of February 2010):
 
    Over 2,500 PPH requests received by the USPTO since 2006;
 
    First action allowance rate for PPH applications is about
25%, about double the first action allowance rate for all applications;
 
    Overall allowance rate for PPH applications is about 93%,
about double the allowance rate for all applications; and
 
    The average number of actions per disposal for PPH
applications is about 1.7, which is significantly less than the number
of actions per disposal for non-PPH applications.
 
   While the PPH has been useful, it can be improved. The USPTO has
taken a number of steps, in concert with the Japan Patent Office (JPO)
and other PPH partners, to enhance the PPH framework to make it more
user friendly and thereby encourage greater participation. In January
2010, the USPTO, JPO and EPO began a test implementation of an expanded
PPH framework, to allow participation of the Patent Cooperation Treaty
(PCT) national/regional phase applications when the International
Authority has determined that one or more claims have novelty,
inventive step and industrial applicability in the international phase.
Previously, all PPH programs were confined to Paris Convention route
applications. The expectation is that by expanding the PPH to include
PCT work products, participation will increase.
 
   The USPTO is taking additional steps to enhance the PPH framework
to make the programs more user friendly and thereby encourage more
participation. All petitions to make special filed with a PPH request
on or after May 25, 2010 will be treated as a request that the Director
order their application be advanced out of turn to expedite the
business of the Office under 37 CFR 1.102(a), and the petition fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) will not be required. If the request for
participation in the PPH and the request to the Director are granted,
the application will be advanced out of turn for examination by order
of the Director under 37 CFR 1.102(a).
 
   Petitions to make special filed with a PPH request prior to May 25,
2010 will be treated under 37 CFR 1.102(d) and the petition fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) will be required.
 
May 18, 2010 						    DAVID J. KAPPOS
					    Under Secretary of Commerce for
				  Intellectual Property and Director of the
				  United States Patent and Trademark Office
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 407 

Reclassification Alert Report
			Reclassification Alert Report
 
   This report is a summary of classification changes which became effective
by issuance of Classification Orders from July through September 2010.
Information includes:
 
	. subclasses established or abolished
	. subclass title, indent, or position changes
	. changes to existing classes and subclass definitions
 
   This Reclassification Alert Report may appear from time to time in the
Official Gazette and is intended to provide an interim notice of
classification changes pending publication of thesechanges in the online
version of U.S. Patent Classification schedules and definitions available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/.
 
   The Classification Orders and Definitions cited in this report are also
available online at http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/.
 
			 RECLASSIFICATION ALERT REPORT
 
			      JULY-SEPTEMBER 2010
 
		FIRST		LAST				ORDER
CLASS		SUBCLASS	SUBCLASS 	ACTION		NUMBER
 
106						DEFN CHANGE	1896
178						DEFN CHANGE	1900
205						DEFN CHANGE	1900
235						DEFN CHANGE	1900
307						DEFN CHANGE	1900
315						DEFN CHANGE	1900
329						DEFN CHANGE	1900
332						DEFN CHANGE	1900
340						DEFN CHANGE	1895
342		357.01		357.09		ABOLISH		1895
342		357.1				ABOLISH		1895
342		357.11		357.17		ABOLISH		1895
342		357.2				ESTABLISH	1895
342		357.21		357.29		ESTABLISH	1895
342		357.3				ESTABLISH	1895
342		357.31		357.39		ESTABLISH	1895
342		357.395				ESTABLISH	1895
342		357.4				ESTABLISH	1895
342		357.41		357.49		ESTABLISH	1895
342		357.51		357.59		ESTABLISH	1895
342		357.61		357.69		ESTABLISH	1895
342		357.71		357.78		ESTABLISH	1895
346						DEFN CHANGE	1900
347						DEFN CHANGE	1900
348						DEFN CHANGE	1900
355						DEFN CHANGE	1900
358						DEFN CHANGE	1900
360						DEFN CHANGE	1900
361						DEFN CHANGE	1900
365						DEFN CHANGE	1900
369						DEFN CHANGE	1900
380						DEFN CHANGE	1895
386		1		131		ABOLISH		1900
386		200		361		ESTABLISH	1900
386		Class title			TITLE CHANGE	1900
396						DEFN CHANGE	1900
398						DEFN CHANGE	1900
399						DEFN CHANGE	1900
424						DEFN CHANGE	1896
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 408 

430						DEFN CHANGE	1900
435						DEFN CHANGE	1896
436						DEFN CHANGE	1896
455						DEFN CHANGE	1900
514		1.1		1.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		2		21		ABOLISH		1896
514		2.1		2.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		3.1		3.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		4.1		4.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		5.1		5.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		6.1		6.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		7.1		7.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		8.1		8.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		9.1		9.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		10.1		10.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		11.1		11.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		12.1		12.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		13.1		13.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		14.1		14.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		15.1		15.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		16.1		16.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		17.1		17.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		18.1		18.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		19.1		19.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		20.1		20.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		21.1		21.9		ESTABLISH	1896
514		21.91				ESTABLISH	1896
514		21.92				ESTABLISH	1896
530						DEFN CHANGE	1896
709						DEFN CHANGE	1900
714						DEFN CHANGE	1900
720						DEFN CHANGE	1900
725						DEFN CHANGE	1900
902						DEFN CHANGE	1900
930						DEFN CHANGE	1896
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 409 

Errata
				    Errata
 
   "All reference to Reexamination Certificate No. C1 6,797,286 to Bobrowski
of Scottsdale, AZ for METHODS AND PREPARATIONS OF EXTRACTS OF UNCARIA SPECIES
WITH REDUCED ALKALOID CONTENT appearing in the Official of January 06, 2009
should be Deleted, since the reexamination certificate has been vacated."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,784,299 to Dean A. Martin, et al of Solon,
IA for REFRIGERATOR ICE COMPARTMENT LATCH AND COVER appearing in the Official
Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,784,473 to Kimberly Nieves of Atlanta, GA
for NON-BURNING ROLLER AND CURL CLIPS appearing in the Official Gazette of
August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,784,523 to Jason Dondlinger, et al of
Bellevue, IA for TRACK AND GUIDE SYSTEM FOR A DOOR appearing in the Official
Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,785,157 to Charles Dudley Copper of
Hummelstown, PA for POWER UTILITY CONNECTOR WITH A PLURALITY OF CONDUCTOR
RECEIVING CHANNELS appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,785,362 to David Loew, et al of Menlo Park,
CA for ENDOPROSTHESIS HAVING FOOT EXTENSIONS appearing in the Official Gazette
of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,785,651 to Aiden Flanagan, et al of Galway,
Ireland for ENDOPROTHESES HAVING POROUS CLADDING PREPARED USING METAL
HYDRIDES appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,785,707 to Akiko Takahashi, et al of
Ibaraki-Shi, Japan for PRESSURE-SENSITIVE ADHESIVE SHEET appearing in the
Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,785,739 to Sun_Hee Bang of Busan-si Korea,
Republic of for SECONDARY BATTERY appearing in the Official Gazette of
August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,785,800 to Makoto Sawada of Aichi, Japan
for POLYPEPTIDES HAVING BRAIN-LOCALIZING ACTIVITY AND USES THEREOF appearing
in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,785,968 to Han Nae Kim of Seoul Korea,
Republic of for FORMING A BURIED BIT LINE IN A BULB-SHAPED TRENCH appearing
in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,786,018 to Kengo Akimoto, et al of Atsugi,
Japan for SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF appearing in
the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,786,087 to Larry R. Brown, et al of Newton,
MA for DELIVERY OF AS-OLIGONUCLEOTIDE MICROSPHERES TO INDUCE DENDRITIC
CELL TOLERANCE FOR THE TREATMENT OF AUTOIMMUNE TYPE 1 DIABETES appearing in
the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,786,218 to Casey D. Stokes of Novato, CA
for METHOD FOR PREPARING POLYOLEFINS CONTAINING VINYLIDINE END GROUPS USING
POLYMERIC NITROGEN COMPOUNDS appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31,
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 410 

2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,786,473 to Keun Kyu Song, et al of
Gyeonggi-Do Korea, Republic of for ORGANIC THIN FILM TRANSISTOR SUBSTRATE AND
METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME appearing in the Official Gazette of
August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,786,483 to Satoshi Murakami, et al of
Atsugi, Japan for SEMICONDUCTOR ELEMENT AND DISPLAY DEVICE USING THE SAME
appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since
no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,786,672 to Eui Jeong Hwang of Youngin-si
Korea, Republic of for SEALED OPPOSED DISCHARGE PLASMA DISPLAY PANEL appearing
in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,787,124 to Martinus Joseph Kok of Eindhoven,
Netherlands for APPARATUS FOR ANGULAR-RESOLVED SPECTROSCOPIC LITHOGRAPHY
CHARACTERIZATION appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should
be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,787,139 to Hideaki Sugimoto of Saitama,
Japan for PRINTING SYSTEM, IMAGE READING APPARATUS AND CONTROLLING METHOD OF
THE SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,787,181 to Damian Fiolka, et al of
Oberkochen, Germany for POLARIZATION-MODULATING OPTICAL ELEMENT appearing in
the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,787,236 to Neil Rasmussen, et al of Concord,
MA for TOOLLESS MOUNTING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AN ADJUSTABLE SCALABLE
RACK POWER SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of Auguts 31, 2010 should
be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,787,392 to James J. Morikuni, et al of
Itasca, IL for UNIVERSAL PLUG-AND-PLAY LATENCY AND DELAY COMPENSATION
appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since
no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,787,604 to Tracy A. Bathhurst, et al of
South Jordan, UT for SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING THE GATING OF
MICROPHONES IN A MULTI-POD CONFERENCE SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette
of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,787,738 to Ikuo Konishi, et al of Kawasaki,
Japan for MOUNTING MEMBER FOR FIXEDLY HOLDING CYLINDRICAL MOUNTED PART ON
PRINTED WIRING BOARD appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,787,758 to Takumi Kawahara, et al of Tokyo,
Japan for ELECTRONIC CAMERA appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31,
2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,787,925 to Moshe Refael of Nofit, Israel
for ENCAPSULATED MEDICAL IMAGING DEVICE AND METHOD appearing in the Official
Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to patent No. 7,787,940 to Kohei Iketani, et al of Saitama,
Japan for IMAGE DATA PROCESSOR, COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT, AND ELECTRONIC
ENDOSCOPE SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should
be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,787,944 to Johnathon E. Giftakis, et al of
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 411 

Maple Grove, MN for SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REGULATING CARDIAC TRIGGERED
THERAPY TO THE BRAIN appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,788,072 to Shilin Chen of The Woodlands, TX
for METHODS AND SYSTEMS TO PREDICT ROTARY DRILL BIT WALK AND TO DESIGN
ROTARY DRILL BITS AND OTHER DOWNHOLE TOOLS appearing in the Official Gazette
of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,788,190 to Stuart Crawford, et al of
Piedmont, CA for ARTICLE AND METHOD FOR FINDING A COMPACT REPRESENTATION TO
VISUALIZE COMPLEX DECISION TREES appearing in the Official Gazette of
August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,788,342 to John M. Payne, et al of Newport
Beach, CA for SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRANSMISSION OF DATA appearing in the
Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,788,512 to Johnathan F. Lee, et al of
Dublin, CA for OPERATING MODE FOR EXTREME POWER SAVINGS WHEN NO NETWORK
PRESENCE IS DETECTED appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,788,621 to Eiichi Konno, et al of Kawasaki,
Japan for METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CREATING LAYOUT MODEL, COMPUTER PRODUCT,
AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING DEVICE appearing in the Official Gazette of
August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
 
   "All reference to Patent No. 7,788,666 to Ernest J. Burger, et al of
Highland, NY for CONNECTION MANAGER, METHOD, SYSTEM AND PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR
CENTRALLY MANAGING COMPUTER APPLICATIONS appearing in the Official Gazette of
August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 412 

Erratum
				    Erratum
 
   In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in July 13, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,281,645, issue of
June 22, 2010. The information included in the certificate of correction
does not correspond to the text in the printed patent. No certificate of
correction should have issued to change the patent term adjustment.
 
 
				    Erratum
 
   In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in August 3, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,606,267, issue of
July 13, 2010. The certificate of correction is a duplicate of certificate
of correction issued on July 6, 2010.
 
 
				    Erratum
 
   In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in August 3, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,588,771, issue of
July 13, 2010. The certificate of correction is a duplicate of certificate
of correction issued on June 22, 2010.
 
 
				    Erratum
 
   In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in August 17, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,597,907, issue of
July 27, 2010. The certificate of correction is a duplicate of certificate
of correction issued on May 18, 2010.
 
 
				    Erratum
 
   In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in August 31, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,575,589, issue of
August 10, 2010. The certificate of correction is a duplicate of
certificate of correction issued on July 27, 2010.
 
 
				    Erratum
 
   In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in August 31, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,637,969, issue of
August 10, 2010. The certificate of correction is a duplicate of
certificate of correction issued on August 3, 2010.
 
 
				    Erratum
 
   In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in August 11, 2009
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,527,868, issue of
July 21, 2009. The certificate of correction is a duplicate of certificate
of correction issued on June 16, 2009.
 
 
				    Erratum
 
   In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in August 31, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,527,868, issue of
August 10, 2010. The certificate of correction is a duplicate of
certificate of correction issued on June 16, 2009.
 
 
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 413 

				    Erratum
 
   In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in July 6, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,718,573, issue of
June 15, 2010. The information included in the certificate of correction
does not correspond to the text in the printed patent. No certificate of
correction should have issued to change the patent term adjustment.
 
 
				    Erratum
 
   In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in March 30, 2010,
delete all reference to Patent No. 7,146,309, issue of March 9, 2010.
Petition under 37 CFR 178(a)(2) was not granted by the Office of Patent
Legal Administration (OPLA). The certificate of correction should have been
issued for patent.
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 414 

Certificates of Correction
			  Certificates of Correction
			     for September 7, 2010
 
5,341,371             7,571,661             7,575,192             7,578,205
5,379,431	      7,571,664		    7,575,200		  7,578,211
5,523,259	      7,571,665		    7,575,202		  7,578,222
5,598,374	      7,571,721		    7,575,235		  7,578,236
5,793,379	      7,571,725		    7,575,240		  7,578,243
5,841,402	      7,571,726		    7,575,249		  7,578,245
6,016,695	      7,571,732		    7,575,261		  7,578,295
6,156,501	      7,571,738		    7,575,280		  7,578,303
6,248,933	      7,571,750		    7,575,285		  7,578,317
6,274,186	      7,571,751		    7,575,291		  7,578,321
6,287,756	      7,571,772		    7,575,304		  7,578,337
6,363,164	      7,571,791		    7,575,324		  7,578,341
6,403,645	      7,571,797		    7,575,329		  7,578,360
6,405,123	      7,571,810		    7,575,384		  7,578,378
6,541,625	      7,571,827		    7,575,388		  7,578,410
6,573,340	      7,571,829		    7,575,405		  7,578,412
6,600,428	      7,571,831		    7,575,412		  7,578,419
6,636,534	      7,571,846		    7,575,414		  7,578,426
6,758,722	      7,571,878		    7,575,419		  7,578,434
6,770,789	      7,571,880		    7,575,421		  7,578,437
6,819,330	      7,571,907		    7,575,450		  7,578,452
6,823,032	      7,572,060		    7,575,536		  7,578,455
6,845,432	      7,572,062		    7,575,547		  7,578,460
7,013,896	      7,572,073		    7,575,557		  7,578,466
7,027,094	      7,572,082		    7,575,569		  7,578,468
7,032,508	      7,572,097		    7,575,571		  7,578,472
7,094,581	      7,572,099		    7,575,587		  7,578,473
7,129,304	      7,572,101		    7,575,589		  7,578,474
7,156,859	      7,572,166		    7,575,599		  7,578,481
7,192,927	      7,572,189		    7,575,600		  7,578,482
7,200,376	      7,572,206		    7,575,608		  7,578,484
7,303,867	      7,572,217		    7,575,612		  7,578,529
7,304,126	      7,572,223		    7,575,617		  7,578,534
7,312,242	      7,572,226		    7,575,618		  7,578,579
7,346,090	      7,572,232		    7,575,629		  7,578,595
7,374,487	      7,572,234		    7,575,655		  7,578,628
7,396,849	      7,572,237		    7,575,659		  7,578,636
7,408,989	      7,572,247		    7,575,662		  7,578,642
7,411,986	      7,572,254		    7,575,668		  7,578,645
7,413,157	      7,572,271		    7,575,670		  7,578,656
7,415,734	      7,572,272		    7,575,687		  7,578,657
7,422,034	      7,572,273		    7,575,697		  7,578,659
7,425,077	      7,572,286		    7,575,702		  7,578,674
7,432,271	      7,572,289		    7,575,706		  7,578,721
7,437,078	      7,572,292		    7,575,707		  7,578,735
7,443,960	      7,572,293		    7,575,717		  7,578,740
7,446,211	      7,572,302		    7,575,721		  7,578,741
7,460,431	      7,572,305		    7,575,736		  7,578,759
7,461,609	      7,572,315		    7,575,739		  7,578,762
7,465,707	      7,572,336		    7,575,744		  7,578,782
7,473,236	      7,572,347		    7,575,749		  7,578,788
7,474,307	      7,572,348		    7,575,769		  7,578,790
7,477,510	      7,572,357		    7,575,771		  7,578,802
7,478,193	      7,572,359		    7,575,781		  7,578,806
7,480,258	      7,572,360		    7,575,784		  7,578,812
7,482,355	      7,572,374		    7,575,789		  7,578,814
7,482,729	      7,572,385		    7,575,797		  7,578,820
7,488,735	      7,572,393		    7,575,799		  7,578,822
7,490,134	      7,572,394		    7,575,803		  7,578,823
7,490,435	      7,572,395		    7,575,809		  7,578,830
7,492,185	      7,572,396		    7,575,813		  7,578,836
7,495,415	      7,572,399		    7,575,815		  7,578,838
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 415 

7,496,370	      7,572,427		    7,575,816		  7,578,840
7,497,936	      7,572,433		    7,575,836		  7,578,858
7,499,456	      7,572,436		    7,575,844		  7,578,869
7,502,825	      7,572,441		    7,575,848		  7,578,870
7,503,220	      7,572,445		    7,575,852		  7,578,873
7,504,415	      7,572,459		    7,575,857		  7,578,881
7,506,106	      7,572,471		    7,575,861		  7,580,589
7,507,803	      7,572,476		    7,575,866		  7,581,108
7,508,576	      7,572,477		    7,575,872		  7,581,191
7,509,647	      7,572,478		    7,575,881		  7,583,722
7,514,130	      7,572,489		    7,575,886		  7,586,391
7,516,692	      7,572,493		    7,575,887		  7,593,904
7,517,903	      7,572,530		    7,575,901		  7,594,644
7,519,010	      7,572,537		    7,575,912		  7,596,660
7,519,011	      7,572,539		    7,575,913		  7,599,676
7,520,881	      7,572,557		    7,575,922		  7,599,795
7,521,418	      7,572,589		    7,575,923		  7,599,885
7,521,549	      7,572,591		    7,575,931		  7,602,250
7,524,466	      7,572,599		    7,575,933		  7,602,781
7,525,996	      7,572,600		    7,575,939		  7,603,339
7,527,336	      7,572,603		    7,575,950		  7,603,842
7,528,426	      7,572,605		    7,575,959		  7,604,796
7,529,810	      7,572,607		    7,575,965		  7,605,969
7,530,191	      7,572,620		    7,575,969		  7,606,241
7,531,087	      7,572,622		    7,576,002		  7,607,121
7,531,554	      7,572,627		    7,576,012		  7,608,451
7,531,960	      7,572,632		    7,576,017		  7,608,625
7,532,926	      7,572,634		    7,576,039		  7,609,196
7,532,954	      7,572,638		    7,576,042		  7,610,181
7,534,837	      7,572,639		    7,576,045		  7,611,338
7,544,512	      7,572,641		    7,576,050		  7,611,339
7,546,270	      7,572,660		    7,576,053		  7,611,613
7,547,167	      7,572,661		    7,576,062		  7,611,702
7,548,791	      7,572,668		    7,576,065		  7,613,710
7,550,141	      7,572,670		    7,576,067		  7,614,927
7,550,279	      7,572,675		    7,576,069		  7,616,985
7,550,497	      7,572,678		    7,576,070		  7,617,057
7,553,313	      7,572,693		    7,576,073		  7,617,289
7,554,012	      7,572,698		    7,576,086		  7,619,100
7,556,789	      7,572,709		    7,576,090		  7,622,270
7,557,115	      7,572,731		    7,576,132		  7,622,678
7,557,194	      7,572,732		    7,576,136		  7,628,226
7,558,294	      7,572,738		    7,576,140		  7,628,737
7,560,112	      7,572,741		    7,576,146		  7,629,603
7,560,242	      7,572,758		    7,576,155		  7,632,463
7,560,471	      7,572,761		    7,576,165		  7,632,919
7,560,611	      7,572,763		    7,576,169		  7,638,555
7,561,312	      7,572,793		    7,576,174		  7,638,868
7,562,032	      7,572,796		    7,576,175		  7,642,218
7,563,203	      7,572,798		    7,576,187		  7,642,328
7,563,273	      7,572,812		    7,576,216		  7,642,341
7,563,805	      7,572,818		    7,576,217		  7,642,370
7,563,943	      7,572,828		    7,576,219		  7,642,533
7,565,370	      7,572,846		    7,576,222		  7,647,008
7,565,914	      7,572,857		    7,576,233		  7,647,116
7,567,412	      7,572,878		    7,576,234		  7,650,659
7,568,242	      7,572,884		    7,576,242		  7,651,645
7,568,255	      7,572,885		    7,576,244		  7,651,981
7,568,260	      7,572,889		    7,576,251		  7,652,033
7,568,263	      7,572,890		    7,576,258		  7,652,054
7,568,265	      7,572,902		    7,576,264		  7,652,736
7,568,279	      7,572,913		    7,576,296		  7,652,946
7,568,282	      7,572,915		    7,576,320		  7,653,371
7,568,286	      7,572,918		    7,576,361		  7,655,943
7,568,299	      7,572,919		    7,576,382		  7,657,118
7,568,314	      7,572,923		    7,576,429		  7,657,997
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 416 

7,568,320	      7,572,926		    7,576,441		  7,658,753
7,568,344	      7,572,953		    7,576,451		  7,658,874
7,568,347	      7,572,989		    7,576,458		  7,659,125
7,568,411	      7,573,000		    7,576,469		  7,660,293
7,568,445	      7,573,002		    7,576,481		  7,660,485
7,568,468	      7,573,006		    7,576,482		  7,662,960
7,568,478	      7,573,059		    7,576,492		  7,667,884
7,568,484	      7,573,108		    7,576,508		  7,671,780
7,568,503	      7,573,111		    7,576,534		  7,672,186
7,568,552	      7,573,125		    7,576,535		  7,672,213
7,568,579	      7,573,137		    7,576,594		  7,673,331
7,568,619	      7,573,157		    7,576,631		  7,674,479
7,568,630	      7,573,161		    7,576,635		  7,674,605
7,568,635	      7,573,165		    7,576,636		  7,674,850
7,568,677	      7,573,171		    7,576,648		  7,676,610
7,568,685	      7,573,196		    7,576,696		  7,677,684
7,568,713	      7,573,217		    7,576,705		  7,677,977
7,568,729	      7,573,231		    7,576,706		  7,679,079
7,568,853	      7,573,238		    7,576,717		  7,679,633
7,568,899	      7,573,286		    7,576,723		  7,679,725
7,568,916	      7,573,326		    7,576,727		  7,679,788
7,568,966	      7,573,362		    7,576,737		  7,680,546
7,569,008	      7,573,398		    7,576,758		  7,680,601
7,569,035	      7,573,439		    7,576,759		  7,682,098
7,569,045	      7,573,440		    7,576,765		  7,682,238
7,569,049	      7,573,452		    7,576,766		  7,682,675
7,569,056	      7,573,458		    7,576,768		  7,682,939
7,569,058	      7,573,470		    7,576,783		  7,683,407
7,569,069	      7,573,475		    7,576,785		  7,683,834
7,569,082	      7,573,487		    7,576,797		  7,683,859
7,569,098	      7,573,489		    7,576,798		  7,683,934
7,569,099	      7,573,516		    7,576,800		  7,684,725
7,569,130	      7,573,525		    7,576,804		  7,686,173
7,569,132	      7,573,536		    7,576,814		  7,687,383
7,569,137	      7,573,547		    7,576,815		  7,687,550
7,569,172	      7,573,567		    7,576,844		  7,687,872
7,569,215	      7,573,597		    7,576,848		  7,689,503
7,569,233	      7,573,616		    7,576,864		  7,690,009
7,569,239	      7,573,622		    7,576,882		  7,690,854
7,569,245	      7,573,674		    7,576,944		  7,693,015
7,569,259	      7,573,682		    7,576,945		  7,693,318
7,569,265	      7,573,705		    7,576,946		  7,694,094
7,569,293	      7,573,713		    7,576,948		  7,694,305
7,569,309	      7,573,723		    7,576,956		  7,694,751
7,569,337	      7,573,727		    7,576,958		  7,696,737
7,569,346	      7,573,789		    7,576,966		  7,696,891
7,569,348	      7,573,803		    7,576,968		  7,698,051
7,569,353	      7,573,811		    7,576,972		  7,698,743
7,569,355	      7,573,815		    7,577,062		  7,699,668
7,569,383	      7,573,820		    7,577,065		  7,699,864
7,569,385	      7,573,830		    7,577,070		  7,700,276
7,569,387	      7,573,833		    7,577,076		  7,700,748
7,569,392	      7,573,834		    7,577,086		  7,700,788
7,569,395	      7,573,837		    7,577,090		  7,701,942
7,569,403	      7,573,847		    7,577,100		  7,702,306
7,569,412	      7,573,856		    7,577,101		  7,702,954
7,569,414	      7,573,857		    7,577,113		  7,702,983
7,569,468	      7,573,863		    7,577,115		  7,703,179
7,569,499	      7,573,864		    7,577,118		  7,703,668
7,569,508	      7,573,867		    7,577,120		  7,703,705
7,569,533	      7,573,869		    7,577,121		  7,703,859
7,569,536	      7,573,875		    7,577,122		  7,704,611
7,569,544	      7,573,876		    7,577,134		  7,704,879
7,569,545	      7,573,877		    7,577,138		  7,705,361
7,569,547	      7,573,878		    7,577,140		  7,706,039
7,569,564	      7,573,879		    7,577,147		  7,706,396
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 417 

7,569,565	      7,573,883		    7,577,156		  7,706,630
7,569,575	      7,573,887		    7,577,159		  7,708,478
7,569,580	      7,573,913		    7,577,161		  7,708,995
7,569,585	      7,573,942		    7,577,164		  7,709,962
7,569,594	      7,573,945		    7,577,166		  7,710,640
7,569,596	      7,573,960		    7,577,181		  7,711,029
7,569,665	      7,573,973		    7,577,196		  7,711,427
7,569,668	      7,573,986		    7,577,198		  7,711,653
7,569,679	      7,573,988		    7,577,200		  7,712,308
7,569,712	      7,573,989		    7,577,203		  7,713,330
7,569,729	      7,573,990		    7,577,209		  7,713,449
7,569,746	      7,574,014		    7,577,212		  7,713,524
7,569,747	      7,574,016		    7,577,221		  7,714,012
7,569,748	      7,574,018		    7,577,222		  7,714,681
7,569,758	      7,574,027		    7,577,227		  7,715,437
7,569,805	      7,574,029		    7,577,228		  7,715,464
7,569,839	      7,574,030		    7,577,239		  7,716,735
7,569,843	      7,574,031		    7,577,241		  7,717,996
7,569,854	      7,574,032		    7,577,248		  7,718,160
7,569,873	      7,574,038		    7,577,260		  7,718,286
7,569,882	      7,574,039		    7,577,264		  7,718,385
7,569,888	      7,574,057		    7,577,280		  7,718,803
7,569,907	      7,574,066		    7,577,291		  7,719,201
7,569,966	      7,574,090		    7,577,293		  7,720,378
7,570,030	      7,574,120		    7,577,296		  7,720,538
7,570,076	      7,574,129		    7,577,339		  7,720,549
7,570,151	      7,574,130		    7,577,363		  7,721,027
7,570,293	      7,574,138		    7,577,366		  7,722,083
7,570,390	      7,574,143		    7,577,398		  7,722,491
7,570,428	      7,574,147		    7,577,410		  7,722,920
7,570,454	      7,574,169		    7,577,412		  7,722,990
7,570,461	      7,574,170		    7,577,438		  7,723,252
7,570,469	      7,574,176		    7,577,451		  7,723,958
7,570,475	      7,574,183		    7,577,454		  7,724,611
7,570,491	      7,574,185		    7,577,466		  7,724,616
7,570,504	      7,574,190		    7,577,472		  7,724,845
7,570,527	      7,574,214		    7,577,477		  7,725,582
7,570,556	      7,574,220		    7,577,480		  7,725,866
7,570,563	      7,574,224		    7,577,481		  7,726,298
7,570,570	      7,574,230		    7,577,485		  7,726,357
7,570,577	      7,574,237		    7,577,497		  7,726,554
7,570,584	      7,574,244		    7,577,500		  7,726,675
7,570,586	      7,574,248		    7,577,501		  7,727,474
7,570,595	      7,574,249		    7,577,504		  7,727,519
7,570,599	      7,574,282		    7,577,506		  7,727,866
7,570,604	      7,574,293		    7,577,516		  7,729,046
7,570,605	      7,574,307		    7,577,526		  7,730,121
7,570,611	      7,574,308		    7,577,530		  7,730,160
7,570,628	      7,574,335		    7,577,553		  7,730,193
7,570,641	      7,574,340		    7,577,573		  7,730,665
7,570,644	      7,574,351		    7,577,584		  7,730,697
7,570,646	      7,574,352		    7,577,587		  7,731,947
7,570,650	      7,574,365		    7,577,598		  7,732,156
7,570,655	      7,574,366		    7,577,599		  7,732,199
7,570,662	      7,574,381		    7,577,600		  7,732,405
7,570,663	      7,574,382		    7,577,602		  7,732,490
7,570,666	      7,574,385		    7,577,603		  7,732,667
7,570,672	      7,574,388		    7,577,604		  7,733,872
7,570,685	      7,574,391		    7,577,608		  7,734,011
7,570,689	      7,574,393		    7,577,618		  7,734,272
7,570,690	      7,574,413		    7,577,626		  7,734,578
7,570,695	      7,574,415		    7,577,631		  7,734,595
7,570,696	      7,574,419		    7,577,634		  7,736,560
7,570,698	      7,574,431		    7,577,637		  7,736,820
7,570,748	      7,574,438		    7,577,649		  7,737,789
7,570,760	      7,574,445		    7,577,650		  7,739,450
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 418 

7,570,762	      7,574,452		    7,577,663		  7,739,486
7,570,786	      7,574,458		    7,577,665		  7,740,017
7,570,791	      7,574,459		    7,577,667		  7,740,153
7,570,802	      7,574,466		    7,577,671		  7,740,428
7,570,832	      7,574,471		    7,577,675		  7,740,566
7,570,851	      7,574,479		    7,577,682		  7,740,717
7,570,863	      7,574,486		    7,577,695		  7,740,718
7,570,878	      7,574,500		    7,577,700		  7,740,892
7,570,913	      7,574,508		    7,577,707		  7,741,081
7,570,914	      7,574,509		    7,577,712		  7,741,107
7,570,921	      7,574,510		    7,577,718		  7,741,168
7,570,953	      7,574,523		    7,577,722		  7,741,278
7,570,962	      7,574,530		    7,577,726		  7,741,502
7,570,980	      7,574,553		    7,577,729		  7,741,531
7,570,994	      7,574,568		    7,577,735		  7,741,602
7,570,999	      7,574,569		    7,577,740		  7,741,713
7,571,010	      7,574,583		    7,577,747		  7,742,955
7,571,022	      7,574,584		    7,577,749		  7,742,984
7,571,055	      7,574,589		    7,577,790		  7,743,223
7,571,058	      7,574,592		    7,577,792		  7,743,588
7,571,078	      7,574,594		    7,577,798		  7,744,132
7,571,090	      7,574,595		    7,577,813		  7,745,259
7,571,092	      7,574,597		    7,577,824		  7,747,081
7,571,094	      7,574,607		    7,577,828		  7,747,137
7,571,102	      7,574,611		    7,577,829		  7,748,144
7,571,104	      7,574,621		    7,577,830		  7,748,172
7,571,108	      7,574,634		    7,577,831		  7,748,248
7,571,111	      7,574,637		    7,577,834		  7,748,255
7,571,118	      7,574,659		    7,577,835		  7,748,619
7,571,121	      7,574,668		    7,577,847		  7,748,824
7,571,128	      7,574,670		    7,577,857		  7,749,992
7,571,129	      7,574,672		    7,577,861		  7,750,250
7,571,130	      7,574,674		    7,577,865		  7,750,294
7,571,132	      7,574,676		    7,577,866		  7,750,610
7,571,140	      7,574,683		    7,577,869		  7,750,622
7,571,160	      7,574,690		    7,577,876		  7,751,096
7,571,162	      7,574,700		    7,577,896		  7,751,272
7,571,164	      7,574,710		    7,577,897		  7,752,622
7,571,195	      7,574,712		    7,577,912		  7,752,704
7,571,204	      7,574,735		    7,577,929		  7,752,876
7,571,205	      7,574,736		    7,577,935		  7,753,327
7,571,215	      7,574,742		    7,577,957		  7,753,766
7,571,217	      7,574,760		    7,577,961		  7,753,791
7,571,219	      7,574,779		    7,577,962		  7,753,831
7,571,227	      7,574,783		    7,577,978		  7,754,156
7,571,228	      7,574,789		    7,577,981		  7,754,502
7,571,236	      7,574,803		    7,577,982		  7,754,505
7,571,251	      7,574,831		    7,577,984		  7,754,510
7,571,257	      7,574,835		    7,577,987		  7,754,745
7,571,275	      7,574,847		    7,577,990		  7,754,986
7,571,287	      7,574,854		    7,577,991		  7,755,301
7,571,296	      7,574,869		    7,578,019		  7,755,702
7,571,314	      7,574,873		    7,578,025		  7,756,656
7,571,354	      7,574,895		    7,578,026		  7,756,928
7,571,356	      7,574,913		    7,578,033		  7,756,953
7,571,360	      7,574,916		    7,578,034		  7,757,576
7,571,366	      7,574,933		    7,578,035		  7,758,582
7,571,369	      7,574,939		    7,578,040		  7,758,651
7,571,372	      7,574,947		    7,578,044		  7,760,352
7,571,391	      7,574,963		    7,578,052		  7,762,095
7,571,392	      7,575,014		    7,578,054		  7,762,621
7,571,402	      7,575,021		    7,578,061		  7,763,371
7,571,403	      7,575,034		    7,578,062		  7,764,515
7,571,417	      7,575,039		    7,578,097		  7,764,868
7,571,423	      7,575,055		    7,578,102		  7,765,608
7,571,426	      7,575,061		    7,578,106		  7,765,835
 September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1358 OG 419 

7,571,445	      7,575,083		    7,578,131		  7,768,099
7,571,468	      7,575,084		    7,578,133		  7,772,515
7,571,469	      7,575,085		    7,578,134		  D.570,978
7,571,523	      7,575,089		    7,578,141		  D.594,727
7,571,537	      7,575,099		    7,578,143		  D.614,584
7,571,554	      7,575,118		    7,578,150		  D.614,657
7,571,568	      7,575,124		    7,578,164		  D.616,872
7,571,589	      7,575,126		    7,578,165		  D.619,184
7,571,596	      7,575,131		    7,578,167		  PP.20,227
7,571,611	      7,575,159		    7,578,185		  RE.39,501
7,571,621	      7,575,185		    7,578,189
7,571,622	      7,575,189		    7,578,199
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print This Notice 1358 OG 420 

Summary of Final Decisions Issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

SUMMARY OF FINAL DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
August 23 – August 27, 2010
 

Date Issued
 
Type of Case(1) Proceeding or Appn. No. Party or Parties Issue TTAB Decision Opposer's or Petitioner's Mark and Goods or Services Applicant's or Respondent's Mark and Goods or Services Mark and Goods Cited by Examining Attorney Issued as Precedent of TTAB
8-26 EX 77357895 Brouwerij Bosteels 1, 2 and 45, fails to function as a mark; 2(f), acquired distinctiveness Refusal Affirmed; not inherently distinctive and no acquired distinctiveness   "Design of a beer glass and stand with wording and scrollwork"
[beer]
  Yes
8-26 CANC 92049453 Augustine’s Spiritual Goods, Inc. v. Augustine’s Eternal Gifts, LLC 2(d) [based on petitioner’s claim of having purchased respondent’s mark] Petition to Cancel Dismissed   "AUGUSTINE’S" [novelty items having a religious theme, namely, incense, perfume oils and scented oils used to produce aromas when heated]   No
8-27 EX 78705685 Corporate Fuel Partners, Inc. 6(a) Disclaimer Requirement (2(e)(1) descriptiveness) Refusal Reversed   "CORPORATE FUEL" [business management and advisory services; consultation services in the fields of business succession planning, sales of businesses, and acquisitions and mergers of businesses]   No
8-27 EX 78544020 Wenger S.A. 6(a) Disclaimer Requirement (2(e)(1) descriptiveness) Refusal Affirmed in absence of disclaimer   "WENGER SWISS MILITARY" [watches of Swiss origin]   No

(1) EX=Ex Parte Appeal; OPP=Opposition; CANC=Cancellation; CU=Concurrent Use; (SJ)=Summary Judgment; (MD)=Motion to Dismiss; (MR)=Motion to Reopen; (R)=Request for Reconsideration (2) *=Opinion Writer; (D)=Dissenting Panel Member
 


 
Top of Notices Top of Notices September 28, 2010 US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Print Appendix 1358 OG 

Mailing and Hand Carry Addresses for Mail to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
		     MAILING AND HAND CARRY ADDRESSES FOR
	     MAIL TO THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
 
	      MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
 
   For most correspondence (e.g., new patent applications) no mail stop
is required because the processing of the correspondence is routine.
If NO mail stop is included on the list below, no mail stop is required
for the correspondence. See the listing under "Mail to be Directed to the
Director of the Patent And Trademark Office" for additional mail stops
for patent-related correspondence. Only the specified type of document
should be placed in an envelope addressed to one of these special mail
stops. If any documents other than the specified type identified for each
special mail stop are addressed to that mail stop, they will be
significantly delayed in reaching the appropriate area for which they are
intended. The mail stop should generally appear as the first line in
the address.
 
   Most correspondence may be submitted electronically. See the USPTO's
Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) internet page
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/index.jsp for additional
information.
 
   Please address mail to be delivered by the United States Postal Service
(USPS) as follows:
 
	Mail Stop _____
	Commissioner for Patents
	P.O. Box 1450
	Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
 
   If no Mail Stop is indicated below, the line beginning Mail Stop should
be omitted from the address.
 
   Except correspondence for Maintenance Fee payments, Deposit Account
Replenishments (see 37 CFR 1.25(c)(4)), and Licensing and Review (see 37 CFR
5.1(c) and 5.2(c)), please address patent-related correspondence to be
delivered by other delivery services (Federal Express (Fed Ex), UPS, DHL,
Laser, Action, Purolator, etc.) as follows:
 
	United States Patent and Trademark Office
	Customer Service Window, Mail Stop _____
	Randolph Building
	401 Dulany Street
	Alexandria, VA 22314
 
 
Mail Stop
Designations		Explanation
 
Mail Stop 12		Contributions to the Examiner Education Program.
 
Mail Stop 313(c)	Petitions under 37 CFR 1.313(c) to withdraw a
			patent application from issue after payment of
			the issue fee and any papers associated with the
			petition, including papers necessary for a
			continuing application or a request for
			continued examination (RCE).
 
Mail Stop AF		Amendments and other responses after final
			rejection (e.g., a notice of appeal (and any
			request for pre-appeal brief conference)),
			other than an appeal brief.
 
Mail Stop Amendment	Information disclosure statements, drawings, and
			replies to Office actions in patent applications
			with or without an amendment to the application or
			a terminal disclaimer. (Use Mail Stop AF for
			replies after final rejection.)
 
Mail Stop Appeal 	For appeal briefs or other briefs under
 Brief-Patents		part 41 of title 37 of the Code of Federal
			Regulations (e.g., former 37 CFR 1.192).
 
Mail Stop 		Public comments regarding patent-related
 Comments-Patent 	regulations and procedures.
 
 
Mail Stop Conversion	Requests under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(2) to convert a
			nonprovisional application to a provisional
			application and requests under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(3)
			to convert a provisional application to a
			nonprovisional application.
 
Mail Stop EBC		Mail for the Electronic Business Center including:
			Certificate Action Forms, Request for Customer
			Number, and Requests for Customer Number Data
			Change (USPTO Forms PTO-2042, PTO/SB/124A and 125A,
			respectively) and Customer Number Upload
			Spreadsheets and Cover Letters.
 
Mail Stop Expedited 	Only to be used for the initial filing of
 Design 		design applications accompanied by a
			request for expedited examination under
			37 CFR 1.155.
 
Mail Stop Express 	Requests for abandonment of a patent
 Abandonment		application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.138,
			including any petitions under 37 CFR
			1.138(c) to expressly abandon an
			application to avoid publication of the
			application.
 
Mail Stop		Applications under 35 U.S.C. 156 for patent term
 Hatch-Waxman PTE	extension based on regulatory review of a product
			subject to pre-market review by a regulating
   			agency. This mail stop is also to be used for
			additional correspondence regarding the
			application for patent term extension under
			35 U.S.C. 156. It is preferred that such initial
			requests be hand-carried to:
 
			Office of Patent Legal Administration
			Room MDW 7D55
			600 Dulany Street (Madison Building)
			Alexandria, VA 22314
 
Mail Stop ILS		Correspondence relating to international patent
			classification, exchanges and standards.
 
Mail Stop Issue Fee	All communications following the receipt of a
			PTOL-85, "Notice of Allowance and Fee(s)
			Due," and prior to the issuance of a patent
			should be addressed to Mail Stop Issue Fee,
			unless advised to the contrary.
 
			Assignments are the exception. Assignments
			(with cover sheets) should be faxed to
			571-273-0140, electronically submitted
			(http://epas.uspto.gov), or submitted in a
			separate envelope and sent to Mail Stop
			Assignment Recordation Services,
			Director - U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
			as shown below.
 
Mail Stop L&R		All documents pertaining to applications subject
			to secrecy order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 181, or
			national-security classified and required to be
			processed accordingly. Such papers, petitions for
			foreign filing license pursuant to 37 CFR 5.12(b)
			for which expedited handling is requested, and
			petitions for retroactive license under 37 CFR
			5.25 may also be hand carried to Licensing and
			Review:
 
			Technology Center 3600, Office of the Director
			Room 4B41
			501 Dulany Street (Knox Building)
			Alexandria, VA 22314
 
Mail Stop Missing 	Requests for a corrected filing receipt and
 Parts			replies to OPAP notices such as the Notice
			of Omitted Items, Notice to File Corrected
			Application Papers, Notice of Incomplete
			Application, Notice to Comply with Nucleotide
			Sequence Requirements, and Notice to File Missing
			Parts of Application, and associated papers and
			fees.
 
Mail Stop MPEP		Submissions concerning the Manual of Patent
			Examining Procedure.
 
Mail Stop Patent Ext.	Applications for patent term extension or
			adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 and any
			communications relating thereto. This mail stop
			is limited to petitions for patent term extension
			under 35 U.S.C. 154 for applications filed
			between June 8, 1995 and May 29, 2000, and patent
			term adjustment (PTA) under 35 U.S.C. 154 for
			applications filed on or after May 29, 2000.
			For applications for patent term extension under
			35 U.S.C. 156, use Mail Stop Hatch-Waxman PTE.
			For applications for patent term extension or
			adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 that are mailed
			together with the payment of the issue fee, use
			Mail Stop Issue Fee.
 
Mail Stop Patent 	Submission of comments regarding search templates.
 Search Template
 Comments
 
Mail Stop PCT		Mail related to international applications filed
			under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in the
			international phase and in the national phase
			under 35 U.S.C. 371 prior to mailing of a
			Notification of Acceptance of Application Under
			35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 (Form
			PCT/DO/EO/903).
 
Mail Stop Petition	Petitions to be decided by the Office of Petitions,
			including petitions to revive and petitions to
			accept late payment of issue fees or maintenance
			fees.
 
Mail Stop PGPUB		Correspondence regarding publication of patent
			applications not otherwise provided, including:
			requests for early publication made after filing,
			rescission of a non-publication request, corrected
			patent application publication, and refund of
			publication fee.
 
Mail Stop Post 		In patented files: requests for changes of
 Issue			correspondence address, powers of attorney,
			revocations of powers of attorney, withdrawal as
			attorney or agent and submissions under 37
			CFR 1.501. Designation of, or changes to, a fee
			address should be addressed to Mail Stop M
			Correspondence. Requests for Certificate of
			Correction need no special mail stop, but
			should be mailed to the attention of Certificate
			of Correction Branch.
 
Mail Stop RCE		Requests for continued examination under
			37 CFR 1.114.
 
Mail Stop 		Correspondence pertaining to the reconstruction
 Reconstruction		of lost patent files.
 
Mail Stop Ex Parte 	Original requests for Ex Parte Reexamination
 Reexam 		and all subsequent corresponcence other
			than correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor
			(see 37 CFR 1.1(a)(3) and 1.302(c)).
 
Mail Stop Inter  	Original requests for Inter Partes Reexamination
 Partes Reexam		and all subsequent correspondence other than
			correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor
			(see 37 CFR 1.1(a)(3) and 1.302(c)).
 
Mail Stop Reissue	All new and continuing reissue application filings.
 
Mail Stop Sequence	Submission of the computer readable form (CRF) for
			applications with sequence listings, when the CRF
			is not being filed with the patent application.
 
Information for addressing trademark-related correspondence may also be found
on the USPTO's web site at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp.
 
 
	    MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS
 
   Please address trademark-related correspondence to be delivered by the
United States Postal Service (USPS), except documents sent to the Assignment
Services Division for recordation, requests for copies of trademark
documents, and documents directed to the Madrid Processing Unit, as follows:
 
	Commissioner for Trademarks
	P.O. Box 1451
	Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
 
   Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Office's Madrid Processing Unit,
must be mailed to:
 
	Madrid Processing Unit
	600 Dulany Street
	MDE-7B87
        Alexandria, VA 22314-5796
 
   Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Office's Deputy Commissioner for
Trademark Policy regarding Letters of Protest must be mailed to:
 
	Letter of Protest
	ATTN: Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Policy
	600 Dulany Street
	Alexandria, VA 22314-5796
 
   Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Director regarding the Fastener
Quality Act (FQA) must be mailed to:
 
	Director, USPTO
	ATTN: FQA
	600 Dulany Street, MDE-10A71
	Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
 
   Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Commissioner regarding the
recordal of a Native American Tribal Insignia (NATI) must be mailed to:
 
	Native American Tribal Insignia
	ATTN: Commissioner for Trademarks
	600 Dulany Street
	MDE-10A71
	Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
 
Do NOT send any of the following via USPS certified mail or with a
"signature required" option: submissions to the Madrid Processing Unit,
Letters of Protest, applications for recordal of insignia under the
Fastener Quality Act, notifications of Native American Tribal Insignia.
 
   Trademark-related mail to be delivered by hand or other private courier
or delivery service (e.g., UPS, Federal Express) to the Trademark Operation,
the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or the Office's Madrid Processing Unit,
must be delivered to:
 
	Trademark Assistance Center
	Madison East, Concourse Level Room C 55
	600 Dulany Street
	Alexandria, VA 22314
 
Information for addressing trademark-related correspondence may also be found
on the USPTO's web site at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/mail.jsp.
 
 
	   MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
			  PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
 
   Please address mail to be directed to a mail stop identified below to
be delivered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) as follows (unless
otherwise instructed):
 
	Mail Stop _____
	Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
	P.O. Box 1450
	Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
 
Mail Stop
Designations		Explanation
 
Mail Stop 3 		Mail for the Office of Personnel from NFC.
 
Mail Stop 6		Mail for the Office of Procurement.
 
Mail Stop 8		All papers for the Office of the Solicitor.
 
Mail Stop 11 		Mail for the Electronic Ordering Service (EOS).
 
Mail Stop 13 		Mail for the Employee and Labor Relations Division.
 
Mail Stop 16 		Mail related to refund requests, other than
			requests for refund of a patent application
			publication fee. Such requests should be directed
			to Mail Stop PGPub.
 
Mail Stop 17 		Invoices directed to the Office of Finance.
 
Mail Stop 24 		Mail for the Inventor's Assistance Program,
			including complaints about Invention Promoters.
 
Mail Stop 171		Vacancy Announcement Applications.
 
Mail Stop Assignment 	All assignment documents, security interests,
 Recordation Services	and other documents to be recorded in the
			Assignment records. Note that documents with
			cover sheets that are faxed to 571-273-0140 or
			submitted electronically (http://epas.uspto.gov)
			are processed much more quickly than those
			submitted by mail.
 
Mail Stop Document 	All requests for certified or uncertified
 Services		copies of patent or trademark documents.
 
Mail Stop EEO   	Mail for the Office of Civil Rights.
 
Mail Stop External 	Mail for the Office of External Affairs.
 Affairs
 
Mail Stop Interference 	Communications relating to interferences and
			applications and patents involved in interference.
 
Mail Stop M		Mail to designate or change a fee
 Correspondence		address, or other correspondence related to
			maintenance fees, except payments of
			maintenance fees in patents. See below for
			the address for maintenance fee payments.
 
Mail Stop OED		Mail for the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.
 
 
			   Maintenance Fee Payments
 
   Unless submitted electronically over the Internet at www.uspto.gov,
payments of maintenance fees in patents should be mailed through the
United States Postal Service to:
 
	United States Patent and Trademark Office
	P.O. Box 979070
	St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
 
   Alternatively, payment of maintenance fees in patents (Attn:
Maintenance Fee) using hand-delivery and delivery by private courier
may be made to:
 
	Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
	Attn: Maintenance Fee
	2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300
	Alexandria, Virginia 22314
 
 
			Deposit Account Replenishments
 
   To send payment to replenish deposit accounts, send the payments through
the United States Postal Service to:
 
        United States Patent and Trademark Office
	P.O. Box 979065
	St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
 
   Alternatively, deposit account replenishments (Attn: Deposit Accounts)
using hand-delivery and delivery by private courier (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.)
may be delivered to:
 
	Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
	Attn: Deposit Accounts
	2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300
	Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Top of Notices Top of Notices
Reference Collections of U.S. Patents Available for Public Use in Patent Depository Libraries
	     Reference Collections of U.S. Patents and Trademarks
     Available for Public Use in Patent and Trademark Depository Libraries
 
The following libraries, designated as Patent and Trademark Depository
Libraries (PTDLs), provide public access to patent and trademark
information received from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO). This information includes all issued patents, all registered
trademarks, the Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
search tools such as the Cassis CD-ROM suite of products and supplemental
information in a variety of formats including online, optical disc,
microfilm and paper. Each PTDL also offers access to USPTO resources on
the Internet and to PubWEST (Web based examiner search tool), a system
used by patent examiners that is not available on the Internet.
 
Staff assistance and training is provided in the use of this information.
All information is available free of charge. However, there may be charges
associated with the use of photocopying and related services. Hours of
service to the public vary, and anyone contemplating use of these
collections at a particular library is urged to contact that library in
advance about its services and hours to avoid inconvenience.
 
State      		Name of Library                  Telephone Contact
 
Alabama 		Auburn University Libraries         (334) 844-1737
      			Birmingham Public Library      	    (205) 226-3620
Alaska			Fairbanks: Keith B. Mather Library,
			Geophysical Institute,
			University of Alaska, Fairbanks	    (907) 474-2636
Arkansas   		Little Rock: Arkansas State
			Library  			    (501) 682-2053
California   		Los Angeles Public Library          (213) 228-7220
      			Riverside: University of
			California, Riverside Libraries	    (951) 827-3316
                        Sacramento: California State
    			Library				    (916) 654-0069
      			San Diego Public Library      	    (619) 236-5813
			San Francisco Public Library	    (415) 557-4500
      			Sunnyvale Public Library 	    (408) 730-7300
Colorado  		Denver Public Library         	    (720) 865-1711
Connecticut		Fairfield: Ryan-Matura Library
			Sacred Heart University		    (203) 371-7726
Delaware   		Newark: University of Delaware
			Library  			    (302) 831-2965
Dist. of Columbia	Washington: Howard University
			Libraries 			    (202) 806-7252
Florida      		Fort Lauderdale: Broward County
         		Main Library            	    (954) 357-7444
      			Miami-Dade Public Library      	    (305) 375-2665
      			Orlando: University of Central
			Florida Libraries  		    (407) 823-2562
Georgia      		Atlanta: Library and Information
			Center, Georgia Institute of
         		Technology   		            (404) 385-7185
Hawaii      		Honolulu: Hawaii State Public
			Library System			    (808) 586-3477
Illinois   		Chicago Public Library         	    (312) 747-4450
Indiana      		Indianapolis-Marion County Public
			Library            		    (317) 269-1741
     			West Lafayette Siegesmund
			Engineering Library,
         		Purdue University   		    (765) 494-2872
Kansas      		Wichita: Ablah Library, Wichita
			State University          	  1 (800) 572-8368
Kentucky   		Louisville Free Public Library      (502) 574-1611
Louisiana   		Baton Rouge: Troy H. Middleton
         		Library, Louisiana State University (225) 388-8875
Maine 			Orono: Raymond H. Fogler Library,
			University of Maine		    (207) 581-1678
Maryland		Baltimore: University of Baltimore
			Law Library 			    (410) 837-4554
			College Park: Engineering and
			Physical Sciences Library,
         		University of Maryland		    (301) 405-9157
Massachusetts   	Amherst: Physical Sciences Library,
         		University of Massachusetts   	    (413) 545-2765
      			Boston Public Library         	    (617) 536-5400
							         Ext. 4256
Michigan   		Ann Arbor: Art, Architecture &
  			Engineering Library,
         		University of Michigan      	    (734) 647-5735
      			Big Rapids: Ferris Library for
                        Information, Technology &
                        Education, Ferris State
         		University                          (231) 592-3602
      			Detroit: Public Library             (313) 481-1391
Minnesota 		Hennepin County Library
			Minneapolis Central Library  	    (952) 847-8000
Mississippi   		Jackson: Mississippi Library
			Commission 			    (601) 961-4111
Missouri   		Kansas City: Linda Hall Library     (816) 363-4600
								  Ext. 724
      			St. Louis Public Library      	    (314) 352-2900
Montana      		Butte: Montana College of Mineral
         		Science and Technology Library      (406) 496-4281
Nebraska   		Lincoln: Engineering Library,
			University of Nebraska-Lincoln      (402) 472-3411
Nevada      		Las Vegas--Clark County Library
			District 		       	    (702) 507-3421
			Reno: University of Nevada, Reno
         		Library            		    (775) 784-6500
								  Ext. 257
New Jersey   		Newark Public Library         	    (973) 733-7779
      			Piscataway: Library of Science and
         		Medicine, Rutgers University   	    (732) 445-2895
New Mexico   		Albuquerque: University of
   			New Mexico General Library          (505) 277-4412
New York   		Albany: New York State Library      (518) 474-5355
      			Buffalo and Erie County Public
			Library  			    (716) 858-7101
			Rochester Public Library       	    (716) 428-8110
      			New York  Library
			(The Research Libraries)	    (212) 592-7000
			Stony Brook: Engineering Library,
   			State University of New York	    (631) 632-7148
North Carolina   	Charlotte: J. Murrey Atkins
			Library, 			    (704) 687-2241
                        University of North Carolina at
         		Charlotte    	                    (919) 515-2935
North Dakota   		Grand Forks: Chester Fritz Library,
         		University of North Dakota   	    (701) 777-4888
Ohio      		Akron - Summit County Public        (330) 643-9075
			Library
			Cincinnati and Hamilton County,
			Public Library of		    (513) 369-6932
      			Cleveland Public Library      	    (216) 623-2870
			Dayton: Paul Laurence Dunbar
			Library, Wright State
			University		       	    (937) 775-3521
      			Toledo/Lucas County Public Library  (419) 259-5209
Oklahoma   		Stillwater: Oklahoma State
			University
         		Edmon Low Library  		    (405) 744-6546
Oregon      		Portland: Paul L. Boley Law Library,
			Lewis & Clark College 		    (503) 768-6786
Pennsylvania   		Philadelphia, The Free Library of   (215) 686-5394
      			Pittsburgh, Carnegie Library of     (412) 622-3138
      			University Park: Pattee Library,
         		Pennsylvania State University       (814) 865-7617
Puerto Rico             Mayaquez General Library,
                        University of Puerto Rico           (787) 993-0000
							         Ext. 3244
			Bayamon, Learning Resources Center,
                        University of Puerto Rico      	    (787) 786-5225
Rhode Island   		Providence Public Library      	    (401) 455-8027
South Carolina		Clemson University Libraries        (864) 656-3024
South Dakota		Rapid City: Devereaux Library,
			South Dakota School of Mines and
			Technology			    (605) 394-1275
Tennessee   		Nashville: Stevenson Science
         		Library, Vanderbilt University      (615) 322-2717
Texas      		Austin: McKinney Engineering
         		Library, University of Texas at
      			Austin 				    (512) 495-4511
			College Station: West Campus
         		Library, Texas A & M University	    (979) 845-2111
      			Dallas Public Library         	    (214) 670-1468
      			Houston: The Fondren Library, Rice
			University			    (713) 348-5483
			Lubbock: Texas Tech University	    (806) 742-2282
			San Antonio Public Library          (210) 207-2500
Utah      		Salt Lake City: Marriott Library,
         		University of Utah      	    (801) 581-8394
Vermont			Burlington: Bailey/Howe Library,
			University of Vermont               (802) 656-2542
Washington   		Seattle: Engineering Library,
         		University of Washington   	    (206) 543-0740
West Virginia   	Morgantown: Evansdale Library,
         		West Virginia University      	    (304) 293-4695
Wisconsin   		Madison: Kurt F. Wendt Library,
         		University of Wisconsin Madison     (608) 262-6845
      			Milwaukee Public Library      	    (414) 286-3051
Wyoming			Cheyenne: Wyoming State	Library	    (307) 777-7281
Top of Notices Top of Notices
Patent Technology Centers
PATENT TECHNOLOGY CENTERS
AVERAGE FILING DATE OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVING A FIRST OFFICE ACTION IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS
Technology
Center
GAU Avg Filing Date1
1600 BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND ORGANIC CHEMISTRY
  1610 7/1/2007
  1620 1/18/2008
  1630 12/19/2007
  1640 4/5/2008
  1650 1/3/2008
  1660 10/26/2008
  TOTAL 12/22/2007
     
1700/2900 CHEMICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND DESIGNS
  1790 9/5/2007
  TOTAL 9/5/2007
     
  2910 1/30/2009
  TOTAL 1/30/2009
     
2100 COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE AND SOFTWARE
  2110 8/27/2007
  2120 6/16/2007
  2150 8/30/2007
  2160 8/30/2007
  2170 2/22/2007
  2180 9/23/2007
  2190 3/29/2006
  TOTAL 5/14/2007
     
2400 NETWORKING, MULTIPLEXING, CABLE AND SECURITY
  2420 5/29/2007
  2430 1/20/2007
  2440 8/3/2007
  2450 9/5/2007
  2460 10/11/2007
  2470 11/10/2007
  TOTAL 6/10/2007
     
2600 COMMUNICATIONS
  2610 2/28/2007
  2620 2/4/2007
  TOTAL 2/16/2007
     
2800   SEMICONDUCTORS/MEMORY, CIRCUITS/MEASURING AND TESTING, OPTICS/PHOTOCOPYING
  2810 3/21/2008
  2820 2/26/2008
  2830 3/21/2008
  2840 11/28/2007
  2850 11/7/2007
  2860 12/10/2007
  2870 1/12/2008
  2880 1/18/2008
  2890 3/24/2008
  TOTAL 2/8/2008
     
3600     TRANSPORTATION, CONSTRUCTION, ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND LICENSE AND REVIEW
  3610 2/5/2008
  3620 12/18/2006
  3630 12/19/2007
  3640 1/9/2008
  3650 10/14/2007
  3660 9/23/2007
  3670 4/2/2008
  3680 12/27/2006
  3690 11/4/2007
  TOTAL 10/14/2007
     
3700   MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTS
  3710 8/12/2007
  3720 12/19/2007
  3730 6/4/2007
  3740 7/28/2007
  3750 7/16/2007
  3760 10/23/2007
  3770 5/20/2007
  3780 6/4/2007
  TOTAL 8/21/2007
     
  1 Average Filing date of applications receiving a First Office action in the last 3 months.
Top of Notices Top of Notices
Subscription/Copy Information

ELECTRONIC OFFICIAL GAZETTE
of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PATENTS
(eOG:P)

The Electronic Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Patents (eOG:P) provides the information in electronic format on CD-ROM. The eOG:P is published every Tuesday and includes bibliographic information, a representative claim, and a drawing (if applicable) of each patent issued that week. Patents are accessible by type of patent (utility, plant, etc.), classification (class or class/subclass), patentee name, and geographical location. Links enable users to "jump" to a specific patent from these various indexes. The eOG:P is sold as an annual subscription or as single copies.

Subscriptions are $430.00 per year, with single copies available for $20.00. For single copy purchases, please specify date and volume/issue number. Order forms are available in MS Word® or Adobe® Acrobat® format.

Get the MS Word® format here.
or
Get the Acrobat® version here.

Go here if you do not have Adobe® Acrobat® Reader installed.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Information Products Division
RSQ - 5A22
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
(571) 272-5600
or
email at
IPD@uspto.gov

Top of Notices Top of Notices


TO VIEW PDF FILES

This CD-ROM product includes PDF files which requires a PDF file reader program. Adobe® Systems Inc. provides such a reader at their web site. This link requires connection to the internet.

If you do not have connection to the internet this CD also contains version 5 of the Adobe® Acrobat® Reader. Click to install Adobe Acrobat Reader 5. For the latest version of the reader please visit the Adobe® web site.

Top of Notices Top of Notices