Please use your
key to return to the previous page.
| 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 increased, effective
January 1, 2011, and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1361 O.G.
180, on December 28, 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, 2011, and was announced in the Official Gazette at
1361 O.G. 180, on December 28, 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
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 72 |
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 January 1, 2011,
and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1361 O.G. 180, on December 28,
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 increased, effective November 1, 2010, and
were announced in the Official Gazette at 1360 O.G. 5, on November 2, 2010.
The schedule of PCT fees (in U.S. dollars), as of January 1, 2011, 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 $2,443.00
Korean Intellectual Property Office as ISA
- for international applications filed in English $1,157.00
IP Australia as ISA $1,837.00
International fees
International filing fee $1,367.00
International filing fee-filed in paper
with PCT EASY zip file or
electronically without PCT EASY zip file $1,264.00
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 73 |
International filing fee-filed
electronically with PCT EASY zip files $1,161.00
Supplemental fee for each page over 30 $15.00
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 $206.00
Handling fee-90% reduction, if applicants meet criteria
specified at:
http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/fees/fee_reduction.pdf $20.60
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).
December 13, 2010 ROBERT W. BAHR
Acting Associate Commissioner
for Patent Examination Policy
United States Patent and Trademark Office
| 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 February 26, 2008
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 7,334,269 through 7,337,473
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on February 24, 2004
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 6,694,519 through 6,698,023
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on February 22, 2000
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 6,026,509 through 6,029,268
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.
| 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 January 19, 2011
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
5,860,169 08/938,253 01/19/99
5,860,180 08/702,654 01/19/99
5,860,193 09/078,561 01/19/99
5,860,205 08/751,841 01/19/99
5,860,216 08/861,359 01/19/99
5,860,219 08/820,809 01/19/99
5,860,222 08/836,193 01/19/99
5,860,231 08/762,986 01/19/99
5,860,237 08/720,526 01/19/99
5,860,245 08/914,501 01/19/99
5,860,249 08/662,136 01/19/99
5,860,251 08/601,328 01/19/99
5,860,253 08/835,875 01/19/99
5,860,258 08/871,073 01/19/99
5,860,260 08/822,003 01/19/99
5,860,268 08/811,319 01/19/99
5,860,270 08/921,681 01/19/99
5,860,271 08/972,230 01/19/99
5,860,272 08/938,587 01/19/99
5,860,274 08/809,187 01/19/99
5,860,275 08/779,611 01/19/99
5,860,276 08/815,455 01/19/99
5,860,282 08/898,697 01/19/99
5,860,284 08/871,703 01/19/99
5,860,287 08/854,538 01/19/99
5,860,289 08/955,224 01/19/99
5,860,293 08/874,466 01/19/99
5,860,300 08/929,723 01/19/99
5,860,305 08/839,584 01/19/99
5,860,306 08/825,777 01/19/99
5,860,314 08/725,128 01/19/99
5,860,316 08/709,588 01/19/99
5,860,322 08/803,154 01/19/99
5,860,337 09/025,560 01/19/99
5,860,343 08/727,601 01/19/99
5,860,344 08/907,059 01/19/99
5,860,346 08/680,507 01/19/99
5,860,349 08/878,480 01/19/99
5,860,350 08/789,416 01/19/99
5,860,358 08/800,217 01/19/99
5,860,359 08/737,468 01/19/99
5,860,361 08/884,808 01/19/99
5,860,362 08/814,186 01/19/99
5,860,365 08/818,364 01/19/99
5,860,367 09/108,167 01/19/99
5,860,381 08/788,218 01/19/99
5,860,384 08/982,709 01/19/99
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 76 |
5,860,398 08/959,573 01/19/99
5,860,402 08/684,702 01/19/99
5,860,407 08/910,468 01/19/99
5,860,408 08/781,150 01/19/99
5,860,411 08/810,231 01/19/99
5,860,417 08/608,696 01/19/99
5,860,418 08/785,039 01/19/99
5,860,427 08/916,765 01/19/99
5,860,443 08/808,724 01/19/99
5,860,448 08/867,975 01/19/99
5,860,453 08/945,417 01/19/99
5,860,461 08/758,474 01/19/99
5,860,463 08/849,952 01/19/99
5,860,467 08/753,938 01/19/99
5,860,468 08/819,171 01/19/99
5,860,470 08/793,179 01/19/99
5,860,472 08/922,287 01/19/99
5,860,476 08/619,501 01/19/99
5,860,480 08/835,889 01/19/99
5,860,484 08/838,683 01/19/99
5,860,491 08/847,822 01/19/99
5,860,493 08/805,059 01/19/99
5,860,494 08/902,099 01/19/99
5,860,498 08/738,226 01/19/99
5,860,506 08/693,276 01/19/99
5,860,508 08/840,085 01/19/99
5,860,509 08/915,426 01/19/99
5,860,510 08/637,620 01/19/99
5,860,512 08/873,343 01/19/99
5,860,515 08/864,382 01/19/99
5,860,516 08/817,635 01/19/99
5,860,524 08/933,451 01/19/99
5,860,526 08/911,453 01/19/99
5,860,527 08/740,115 01/19/99
5,860,537 08/760,106 01/19/99
5,860,538 08/784,462 01/19/99
5,860,542 08/836,417 01/19/99
5,860,545 08/828,852 01/19/99
5,860,548 08/955,721 01/19/99
5,860,549 08/534,692 01/19/99
5,860,555 08/477,140 01/19/99
5,860,558 08/784,023 01/19/99
5,860,560 08/948,866 01/19/99
5,860,561 08/954,010 01/19/99
5,860,568 08/741,660 01/19/99
5,860,572 08/695,864 01/19/99
5,860,575 08/723,816 01/19/99
5,860,580 08/642,058 01/19/99
5,860,584 08/879,651 01/19/99
5,860,585 08/658,907 01/19/99
5,860,586 08/769,018 01/19/99
5,860,588 08/766,493 01/19/99
5,860,591 08/821,842 01/19/99
5,860,592 08/888,727 01/19/99
5,860,593 08/848,051 01/19/99
5,860,609 08/932,719 01/19/99
5,860,610 08/607,764 01/19/99
5,860,611 08/601,679 01/19/99
5,860,613 08/235,538 01/19/99
5,860,616 08/813,253 01/19/99
5,860,617 08/971,734 01/19/99
5,860,622 08/738,296 01/19/99
5,860,624 08/776,590 01/19/99
5,860,634 08/898,612 01/19/99
5,860,635 08/576,683 01/19/99
5,860,639 08/787,760 01/19/99
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 77 |
5,860,647 08/977,686 01/19/99
5,860,652 08/725,847 01/19/99
5,860,660 08/797,416 01/19/99
5,860,662 08/847,010 01/19/99
5,860,672 08/753,357 01/19/99
5,860,681 08/926,957 01/19/99
5,860,684 08/741,099 01/19/99
5,860,691 08/822,304 01/19/99
5,860,692 08/534,970 01/19/99
5,860,701 08/917,550 01/19/99
5,860,713 08/869,230 01/19/99
5,860,717 08/595,045 01/19/99
5,860,722 08/824,002 01/19/99
5,860,724 08/954,515 01/19/99
5,860,726 08/851,132 01/19/99
5,860,745 08/838,201 01/19/99
5,860,747 08/954,857 01/19/99
5,860,754 08/753,955 01/19/99
5,860,771 08/832,073 01/19/99
5,860,776 08/791,219 01/19/99
5,860,777 08/519,552 01/19/99
5,860,779 08/979,298 01/19/99
5,860,780 08/763,637 01/19/99
5,860,781 08/676,388 01/19/99
5,860,784 08/746,017 01/19/99
5,860,798 08/609,668 01/19/99
5,860,799 08/806,717 01/19/99
5,860,802 08/784,122 01/19/99
5,860,808 08/593,922 01/19/99
5,860,811 08/585,645 01/19/99
5,860,815 08/804,207 01/19/99
5,860,818 08/221,970 01/19/99
5,860,821 08/822,000 01/19/99
5,860,823 08/723,352 01/19/99
5,860,826 08/917,182 01/19/99
5,860,831 08/514,708 01/19/99
5,860,843 08/812,046 01/19/99
5,860,844 08/962,735 01/19/99
5,860,846 08/861,427 01/19/99
5,860,855 08/845,622 01/19/99
5,860,856 08/886,376 01/19/99
5,860,865 08/635,076 01/19/99
5,860,878 08/985,238 01/19/99
5,860,887 08/774,880 01/19/99
5,860,888 08/877,905 01/19/99
5,860,897 08/972,804 01/19/99
5,860,898 08/991,509 01/19/99
5,860,902 08/599,582 01/19/99
5,860,903 08/959,349 01/19/99
5,860,911 08/992,517 01/19/99
5,860,914 08/701,221 01/19/99
5,860,915 08/654,915 01/19/99
5,860,917 08/784,206 01/19/99
5,860,926 08/910,485 01/19/99
5,860,932 08/740,126 01/19/99
5,860,940 08/899,142 01/19/99
5,860,941 08/749,310 01/19/99
5,860,944 08/826,036 01/19/99
5,860,949 08/968,061 01/19/99
5,860,961 08/816,392 01/19/99
5,860,964 08/853,639 01/19/99
5,860,966 08/834,430 01/19/99
5,860,978 08/689,443 01/19/99
5,860,995 08/729,633 01/19/99
5,861,001 08/803,629 01/19/99
5,861,002 08/639,199 01/19/99
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 78 |
5,861,005 08/799,667 01/19/99
5,861,011 08/800,413 01/19/99
5,861,022 08/641,320 01/19/99
5,861,032 08/594,872 01/19/99
5,861,042 08/831,051 01/19/99
5,861,043 08/912,953 01/19/99
5,861,049 08/898,566 01/19/99
5,861,057 08/549,075 01/19/99
5,861,064 08/819,670 01/19/99
5,861,065 08/792,917 01/19/99
5,861,067 08/512,470 01/19/99
5,861,068 08/766,788 01/19/99
5,861,071 08/560,202 01/19/99
5,861,073 08/975,019 01/19/99
5,861,075 08/816,481 01/19/99
5,861,077 08/575,929 01/19/99
5,861,092 08/932,490 01/19/99
5,861,093 08/779,738 01/19/99
5,861,102 08/614,478 01/19/99
5,861,109 08/556,970 01/19/99
5,861,110 07/911,504 01/19/99
5,861,112 08/977,668 01/19/99
5,861,117 08/587,893 01/19/99
5,861,118 08/733,571 01/19/99
5,861,130 08/765,816 01/19/99
5,861,131 08/868,492 01/19/99
5,861,132 08/923,656 01/19/99
5,861,139 08/464,529 01/19/99
5,861,145 08/871,577 01/19/99
5,861,150 08/472,520 01/19/99
5,861,151 07/811,129 01/19/99
5,861,154 08/641,038 01/19/99
5,861,156 08/002,324 01/19/99
5,861,163 08/773,330 01/19/99
5,861,164 08/146,454 01/19/99
5,861,172 08/727,100 01/19/99
5,861,179 08/849,070 01/19/99
5,861,182 08/850,443 01/19/99
5,861,190 08/621,410 01/19/99
5,861,196 08/937,461 01/19/99
5,861,201 08/977,248 01/19/99
5,861,214 08/473,978 01/19/99
5,861,218 08/557,083 01/19/99
5,861,220 08/692,618 01/19/99
5,861,226 08/771,590 01/19/99
5,861,240 08/607,412 01/19/99
5,861,244 08/173,489 01/19/99
5,861,245 08/471,994 01/19/99
5,861,246 08/590,571 01/19/99
5,861,254 08/792,075 01/19/99
5,861,262 08/428,188 01/19/99
5,861,272 08/458,970 01/19/99
5,861,273 08/482,182 01/19/99
5,861,278 08/742,753 01/19/99
5,861,281 08/961,539 01/19/99
5,861,284 08/835,231 01/19/99
5,861,286 08/860,876 01/19/99
5,861,297 08/936,865 01/19/99
5,861,301 07/930,548 01/19/99
5,861,303 08/712,571 01/19/99
5,861,305 08/817,324 01/19/99
5,861,306 08/847,889 01/19/99
5,861,311 08/681,731 01/19/99
5,861,315 08/732,023 01/19/99
5,861,316 08/697,137 01/19/99
5,861,320 08/613,253 01/19/99
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 79 |
5,861,326 08/600,162 01/19/99
5,861,331 09/085,490 01/19/99
5,861,340 08/602,126 01/19/99
5,861,354 08/642,376 01/19/99
5,861,359 08/683,283 01/19/99
5,861,375 08/789,931 01/19/99
5,861,385 08/464,682 01/19/99
5,861,388 09/001,601 01/19/99
5,861,389 08/809,582 01/19/99
5,861,392 08/689,199 01/19/99
5,861,396 08/739,742 01/19/99
5,861,401 08/716,194 01/19/99
5,861,407 08/803,906 01/19/99
5,861,420 08/784,223 01/19/99
5,861,421 08/860,404 01/19/99
5,861,422 08/722,675 01/19/99
5,861,429 08/723,835 01/19/99
5,861,430 08/476,631 01/19/99
5,861,441 08/800,642 01/19/99
5,861,457 08/698,607 01/19/99
5,861,461 08/757,691 01/19/99
5,861,462 07/953,667 01/19/99
5,861,471 08/632,659 01/19/99
5,861,476 08/464,538 01/19/99
5,861,483 08/627,173 01/19/99
5,861,485 08/470,868 01/19/99
5,861,490 08/471,430 01/19/99
5,861,492 08/780,914 01/19/99
5,861,497 08/667,790 01/19/99
5,861,499 08/706,804 01/19/99
5,861,510 08/930,665 01/19/99
5,861,513 08/911,173 01/19/99
5,861,522 08/853,698 01/19/99
5,861,550 08/950,030 01/19/99
5,861,555 08/964,732 01/19/99
5,861,566 08/777,479 01/19/99
5,861,574 08/215,779 01/19/99
5,861,575 08/616,531 01/19/99
5,861,577 08/946,097 01/19/99
5,861,584 08/942,429 01/19/99
5,861,589 08/871,200 01/19/99
5,861,593 08/899,630 01/19/99
5,861,596 08/834,685 01/19/99
5,861,597 08/543,389 01/19/99
5,861,599 08/871,083 01/19/99
5,861,602 08/506,240 01/19/99
5,861,603 08/884,622 01/19/99
5,861,604 08/822,009 01/19/99
5,861,611 08/678,190 01/19/99
5,861,612 08/843,780 01/19/99
5,861,619 08/767,229 01/19/99
5,861,620 08/783,362 01/19/99
5,861,623 08/644,854 01/19/99
5,861,627 08/881,752 01/19/99
5,861,641 08/290,550 01/19/99
5,861,663 08/782,860 01/19/99
5,861,664 08/819,007 01/19/99
5,861,669 08/488,673 01/19/99
5,861,672 08/313,248 01/19/99
5,861,681 08/838,067 01/19/99
5,861,686 08/993,565 01/19/99
5,861,694 08/671,007 01/19/99
5,861,700 08/819,960 01/19/99
5,861,702 08/813,880 01/19/99
5,861,703 08/866,433 01/19/99
5,861,707 08/482,584 01/19/99
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 80 |
5,861,709 08/775,902 01/19/99
5,861,715 08/770,505 01/19/99
5,861,726 08/731,175 01/19/99
5,861,727 08/633,600 01/19/99
5,861,728 08/847,147 01/19/99
5,861,729 08/100,995 01/19/99
5,861,732 08/947,713 01/19/99
5,861,734 08/950,335 01/19/99
5,861,735 09/027,151 01/19/99
5,861,741 08/769,374 01/19/99
5,861,742 08/565,506 01/19/99
5,861,747 08/863,230 01/19/99
5,861,749 08/768,478 01/19/99
5,861,754 08/892,733 01/19/99
5,861,758 08/902,642 01/19/99
5,861,775 08/784,696 01/19/99
5,861,776 08/885,375 01/19/99
5,861,785 08/777,964 01/19/99
5,861,787 08/876,272 01/19/99
5,861,793 08/748,161 01/19/99
5,861,797 08/897,242 01/19/99
5,861,806 08/814,345 01/19/99
5,861,812 08/768,477 01/19/99
5,861,820 08/970,757 01/19/99
5,861,824 08/776,994 01/19/99
5,861,837 08/820,618 01/19/99
5,861,838 08/987,744 01/19/99
5,861,841 08/917,694 01/19/99
5,861,846 08/602,067 01/19/99
5,861,858 08/885,370 01/19/99
5,861,863 08/638,127 01/19/99
5,861,865 08/514,849 01/19/99
5,861,873 08/335,324 01/19/99
5,861,880 08/541,697 01/19/99
5,861,887 08/567,445 01/19/99
5,861,893 08/864,553 01/19/99
5,861,898 08/557,693 01/19/99
5,861,904 08/418,399 01/19/99
5,861,905 08/700,850 01/19/99
5,861,911 08/379,017 01/19/99
5,861,924 08/816,236 01/19/99
5,861,925 08/747,012 01/19/99
5,861,928 08/765,447 01/19/99
5,861,930 08/862,735 01/19/99
5,861,931 08/727,970 01/19/99
5,861,932 09/050,058 01/19/99
5,861,934 08/643,656 01/19/99
5,861,938 08/929,880 01/19/99
5,861,939 08/951,535 01/19/99
5,861,940 08/902,751 01/19/99
5,861,944 08/956,765 01/19/99
5,861,952 07/984,509 01/19/99
5,861,960 08/309,108 01/19/99
5,861,964 08/453,669 01/19/99
5,861,967 09/070,560 01/19/99
5,861,968 08/708,433 01/19/99
5,861,970 08/586,634 01/19/99
5,861,973 08/736,733 01/19/99
5,861,976 08/990,331 01/19/99
5,861,981 08/915,129 01/19/99
5,861,983 08/941,220 01/19/99
5,861,989 08/838,934 01/19/99
5,861,998 08/920,282 01/19/99
5,862,009 08/922,508 01/19/99
5,862,012 08/649,406 01/19/99
5,862,014 08/587,425 01/19/99
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 81 |
5,862,023 08/847,761 01/19/99
5,862,024 08/699,407 01/19/99
5,862,036 08/883,855 01/19/99
5,862,058 08/648,745 01/19/99
5,862,081 09/003,024 01/19/99
5,862,088 09/060,400 01/19/99
5,862,090 08/959,466 01/19/99
5,862,095 08/962,351 01/19/99
5,862,107 08/883,961 01/19/99
5,862,122 08/956,781 01/19/99
5,862,133 08/692,782 01/19/99
5,862,139 08/753,496 01/19/99
5,862,144 08/956,913 01/19/99
5,862,152 08/558,122 01/19/99
5,862,153 08/720,067 01/19/99
5,862,175 08/753,726 01/19/99
5,862,176 08/933,087 01/19/99
5,862,190 08/581,696 01/19/99
5,862,191 08/662,711 01/19/99
5,862,199 08/902,125 01/19/99
5,862,209 08/391,803 01/19/99
5,862,210 08/802,912 01/19/99
5,862,227 08/793,542 01/19/99
5,862,228 08/803,676 01/19/99
5,862,230 08/787,387 01/19/99
5,862,235 08/722,880 01/19/99
5,862,236 08/611,456 01/19/99
5,862,240 08/960,099 01/19/99
5,862,249 08/567,019 01/19/99
5,862,257 08/636,881 01/19/99
5,862,263 08/629,651 01/19/99
5,862,265 09/057,924 01/19/99
5,862,267 08/571,257 01/19/99
5,862,268 08/822,810 01/19/99
5,862,270 08/569,280 01/19/99
5,862,272 08/841,584 01/19/99
5,862,275 08/882,066 01/19/99
5,862,277 08/789,972 01/19/99
5,862,282 08/809,744 01/19/99
5,862,283 08/705,870 01/19/99
5,862,290 08/847,214 01/19/99
5,862,292 08/831,828 01/19/99
5,862,293 08/791,497 01/19/99
5,862,294 08/075,338 01/19/99
5,862,297 08/702,303 01/19/99
5,862,300 08/967,078 01/19/99
5,862,303 08/650,101 01/19/99
5,862,306 08/966,668 01/19/99
5,862,307 08/769,991 01/19/99
5,862,335 08/040,455 01/19/99
5,862,359 08/758,580 01/19/99
5,862,365 08/710,445 01/19/99
5,862,373 08/709,336 01/19/99
5,862,382 08/646,065 01/19/99
5,862,388 08/341,398 01/19/99
5,862,389 08/778,516 01/19/99
5,862,393 08/727,715 01/19/99
5,862,400 08/618,056 01/19/99
5,862,402 08/619,321 01/19/99
5,862,405 08/751,329 01/19/99
5,862,418 08/934,460 01/19/99
5,862,420 08/936,652 01/19/99
5,862,430 08/948,424 01/19/99
5,862,437 08/727,224 01/19/99
5,862,449 08/974,421 01/19/99
5,862,456 08/826,298 01/19/99
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 82 |
5,862,466 08/781,564 01/19/99
5,862,473 08/649,849 01/19/99
5,862,484 08/686,051 01/19/99
5,862,495 08/714,329 01/19/99
5,862,505 08/087,183 01/19/99
5,862,512 08/757,399 01/19/99
5,862,514 08/758,741 01/19/99
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON January 14, 2011
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
6,505,349 09/928,085 01/14/03
6,505,357 09/902,639 01/14/03
6,505,360 09/827,830 01/14/03
6,505,366 09/744,217 01/14/03
6,505,370 09/800,037 01/14/03
6,505,371 10/052,635 01/14/03
6,505,379 09/797,917 01/14/03
6,505,385 09/895,380 01/14/03
6,505,387 09/669,152 01/14/03
6,505,392 08/827,785 01/14/03
6,505,397 09/596,681 01/14/03
6,505,399 09/978,735 01/14/03
6,505,402 09/793,966 01/14/03
6,505,404 10/081,406 01/14/03
6,505,407 09/918,554 01/14/03
6,505,409 09/449,882 01/14/03
6,505,424 09/842,891 01/14/03
6,505,430 09/350,290 01/14/03
6,505,432 09/819,584 01/14/03
6,505,435 09/803,805 01/14/03
6,505,436 09/867,945 01/14/03
6,505,438 10/067,079 01/14/03
6,505,439 09/795,406 01/14/03
6,505,444 09/710,103 01/14/03
6,505,451 09/598,587 01/14/03
6,505,458 09/416,623 01/14/03
6,505,464 09/708,685 01/14/03
6,505,471 09/995,669 01/14/03
6,505,473 10/132,928 01/14/03
6,505,474 09/962,610 01/14/03
6,505,478 09/614,488 01/14/03
6,505,482 10/044,902 01/14/03
6,505,485 09/995,592 01/14/03
6,505,488 09/296,982 01/14/03
6,505,490 09/797,548 01/14/03
6,505,491 09/782,513 01/14/03
6,505,494 09/397,937 01/14/03
6,505,496 09/736,362 01/14/03
6,505,499 09/821,890 01/14/03
6,505,501 08/809,960 01/14/03
6,505,504 09/700,189 01/14/03
6,505,506 09/563,346 01/14/03
6,505,509 09/800,548 01/14/03
6,505,515 09/857,893 01/14/03
6,505,522 09/185,197 01/14/03
6,505,527 09/759,818 01/14/03
6,505,533 09/910,468 01/14/03
6,505,535 09/586,154 01/14/03
6,505,539 09/776,601 01/14/03
6,505,541 09/948,985 01/14/03
6,505,546 08/027,117 01/14/03
6,505,551 09/671,830 01/14/03
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 83 |
6,505,556 09/948,546 01/14/03
6,505,557 09/358,874 01/14/03
6,505,558 09/444,152 01/14/03
6,505,563 09/827,435 01/14/03
6,505,565 09/537,580 01/14/03
6,505,571 09/982,388 01/14/03
6,505,583 09/796,482 01/14/03
6,505,589 10/061,684 01/14/03
6,505,591 09/916,127 01/14/03
6,505,594 09/642,907 01/14/03
6,505,599 09/656,159 01/14/03
6,505,602 09/937,297 01/14/03
6,505,603 09/674,297 01/14/03
6,505,607 09/856,612 01/14/03
6,505,608 09/812,082 01/14/03
6,505,609 09/723,089 01/14/03
6,505,610 10/075,998 01/14/03
6,505,613 09/939,142 01/14/03
6,505,620 09/431,879 01/14/03
6,505,622 09/927,272 01/14/03
6,505,624 10/059,830 01/14/03
6,505,632 09/934,566 01/14/03
6,505,633 09/981,451 01/14/03
6,505,639 09/642,888 01/14/03
6,505,643 09/948,117 01/14/03
6,505,647 09/779,671 01/14/03
6,505,648 09/762,122 01/14/03
6,505,651 10/106,321 01/14/03
6,505,653 09/914,100 01/14/03
6,505,654 09/577,540 01/14/03
6,505,661 09/636,747 01/14/03
6,505,670 09/902,398 01/14/03
6,505,671 09/751,470 01/14/03
6,505,672 09/862,985 01/14/03
6,505,680 09/916,932 01/14/03
6,505,687 09/524,457 01/14/03
6,505,695 09/859,643 01/14/03
6,505,701 10/033,287 01/14/03
6,505,703 09/808,259 01/14/03
6,505,707 09/390,421 01/14/03
6,505,714 09/425,878 01/14/03
6,505,718 09/899,623 01/14/03
6,505,720 09/906,793 01/14/03
6,505,722 09/831,517 01/14/03
6,505,726 09/895,901 01/14/03
6,505,731 09/849,195 01/14/03
6,505,733 09/760,275 01/14/03
6,505,737 09/723,738 01/14/03
6,505,739 09/839,703 01/14/03
6,505,742 09/990,938 01/14/03
6,505,743 09/652,879 01/14/03
6,505,744 09/646,266 01/14/03
6,505,745 09/629,334 01/14/03
6,505,746 09/854,441 01/14/03
6,505,748 09/558,417 01/14/03
6,505,749 10/013,273 01/14/03
6,505,753 09/281,267 01/14/03
6,505,755 09/622,192 01/14/03
6,505,756 09/655,364 01/14/03
6,505,760 09/941,074 01/14/03
6,505,762 09/900,547 01/14/03
6,505,764 09/729,501 01/14/03
6,505,769 09/838,496 01/14/03
6,505,782 10/005,106 01/14/03
6,505,787 09/850,180 01/14/03
6,505,794 09/769,118 01/14/03
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 84 |
6,505,796 09/892,108 01/14/03
6,505,798 09/712,157 01/14/03
6,505,800 09/785,158 01/14/03
6,505,803 09/765,653 01/14/03
6,505,806 09/567,833 01/14/03
6,505,815 09/699,436 01/14/03
6,505,816 09/954,076 01/14/03
6,505,817 09/656,851 01/14/03
6,505,822 09/941,261 01/14/03
6,505,826 09/785,345 01/14/03
6,505,830 09/794,400 01/14/03
6,505,844 09/785,952 01/14/03
6,505,847 09/978,254 01/14/03
6,505,862 09/565,336 01/14/03
6,505,873 09/730,901 01/14/03
6,505,875 09/917,169 01/14/03
6,505,876 09/449,554 01/14/03
6,505,877 10/047,778 01/14/03
6,505,878 09/627,391 01/14/03
6,505,879 09/887,230 01/14/03
6,505,880 09/931,830 01/14/03
6,505,883 10/002,027 01/14/03
6,505,892 09/609,568 01/14/03
6,505,896 09/654,160 01/14/03
6,505,899 09/861,805 01/14/03
6,505,903 09/911,454 01/14/03
6,505,907 10/162,884 01/14/03
6,505,911 09/572,890 01/14/03
6,505,915 08/717,162 01/14/03
6,505,923 09/598,959 01/14/03
6,505,927 09/464,227 01/14/03
6,505,932 10/042,646 01/14/03
6,505,933 09/822,065 01/14/03
6,505,946 09/428,280 01/14/03
6,505,947 09/692,327 01/14/03
6,505,951 10/015,183 01/14/03
6,505,957 09/801,907 01/14/03
6,505,961 09/765,367 01/14/03
6,505,962 09/770,284 01/14/03
6,505,963 09/895,180 01/14/03
6,505,965 09/635,384 01/14/03
6,505,971 09/897,523 01/14/03
6,505,974 09/847,691 01/14/03
6,505,977 09/751,473 01/14/03
6,505,982 09/758,882 01/14/03
6,505,983 09/991,668 01/14/03
6,505,987 09/778,906 01/14/03
6,505,992 09/581,405 01/14/03
6,505,993 09/619,168 01/14/03
6,505,994 09/650,031 01/14/03
6,505,995 09/798,834 01/14/03
6,506,001 09/782,746 01/14/03
6,506,002 09/831,205 01/14/03
6,506,005 09/793,457 01/14/03
6,506,006 09/801,863 01/14/03
6,506,007 09/979,517 01/14/03
6,506,026 09/877,361 01/14/03
6,506,043 09/710,964 01/14/03
6,506,046 09/971,888 01/14/03
6,506,050 09/664,786 01/14/03
6,506,051 09/777,101 01/14/03
6,506,056 09/179,025 01/14/03
6,506,065 09/677,331 01/14/03
6,506,066 09/904,844 01/14/03
6,506,068 09/761,098 01/14/03
6,506,069 09/851,189 01/14/03
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 85 |
6,506,074 09/950,343 01/14/03
6,506,078 09/706,707 01/14/03
6,506,082 10/028,202 01/14/03
6,506,091 10/021,816 01/14/03
6,506,092 09/624,710 01/14/03
6,506,096 09/958,358 01/14/03
6,506,103 09/621,075 01/14/03
6,506,105 09/570,370 01/14/03
6,506,106 09/846,296 01/14/03
6,506,120 09/906,265 01/14/03
6,506,123 08/918,595 01/14/03
6,506,143 09/685,861 01/14/03
6,506,155 09/737,713 01/14/03
6,506,165 09/668,468 01/14/03
6,506,166 09/763,998 01/14/03
6,506,185 09/253,464 01/14/03
6,506,187 09/489,611 01/14/03
6,506,191 09/763,558 01/14/03
6,506,199 09/823,693 01/14/03
6,506,200 09/525,197 01/14/03
6,506,206 09/482,737 01/14/03
6,506,212 09/887,129 01/14/03
6,506,215 09/410,447 01/14/03
6,506,218 10/052,051 01/14/03
6,506,219 09/725,963 01/14/03
6,506,221 09/587,130 01/14/03
6,506,222 09/873,347 01/14/03
6,506,223 09/802,253 01/14/03
6,506,225 09/700,432 01/14/03
6,506,241 09/613,455 01/14/03
6,506,242 09/692,425 01/14/03
6,506,243 09/305,548 01/14/03
6,506,249 09/548,965 01/14/03
6,506,266 09/493,990 01/14/03
6,506,274 09/359,837 01/14/03
6,506,276 09/592,082 01/14/03
6,506,281 09/719,891 01/14/03
6,506,288 08/702,841 01/14/03
6,506,292 09/968,016 01/14/03
6,506,301 09/686,994 01/14/03
6,506,303 09/701,846 01/14/03
6,506,311 09/799,815 01/14/03
6,506,316 09/856,674 01/14/03
6,506,319 09/653,574 01/14/03
6,506,321 09/529,955 01/14/03
6,506,327 09/995,700 01/14/03
6,506,331 09/785,214 01/14/03
6,506,332 09/752,503 01/14/03
6,506,334 09/668,829 01/14/03
6,506,341 09/129,003 01/14/03
6,506,346 09/248,602 01/14/03
6,506,348 09/189,239 01/14/03
6,506,355 09/444,877 01/14/03
6,506,357 09/731,208 01/14/03
6,506,358 09/636,694 01/14/03
6,506,360 09/620,250 01/14/03
6,506,363 09/671,982 01/14/03
6,506,364 09/672,541 01/14/03
6,506,366 09/806,433 01/14/03
6,506,367 09/933,592 01/14/03
6,506,370 08/826,072 01/14/03
6,506,375 09/921,163 01/14/03
6,506,378 09/461,793 01/14/03
6,506,382 10/039,729 01/14/03
6,506,383 09/332,595 01/14/03
6,506,385 09/292,730 01/14/03
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 86 |
6,506,386 09/744,800 01/14/03
6,506,391 09/347,101 01/14/03
6,506,395 09/809,815 01/14/03
6,506,397 09/253,853 01/14/03
6,506,398 09/583,296 01/14/03
6,506,404 09/363,212 01/14/03
6,506,406 09/706,777 01/14/03
6,506,409 09/485,927 01/14/03
6,506,420 10/109,954 01/14/03
6,506,421 09/848,265 01/14/03
6,506,422 09/242,746 01/14/03
6,506,431 09/781,159 01/14/03
6,506,444 09/639,482 01/14/03
6,506,448 09/584,674 01/14/03
6,506,451 08/647,318 01/14/03
6,506,452 09/729,912 01/14/03
6,506,454 09/799,553 01/14/03
6,506,458 09/700,651 01/14/03
6,506,464 09/379,921 01/14/03
6,506,466 09/660,278 01/14/03
6,506,489 09/594,017 01/14/03
6,506,496 08/412,573 01/14/03
6,506,503 09/744,585 01/14/03
6,506,508 09/666,573 01/14/03
6,506,510 09/737,990 01/14/03
6,506,512 09/625,754 01/14/03
6,506,525 09/816,364 01/14/03
6,506,526 09/899,881 01/14/03
6,506,527 09/845,563 01/14/03
6,506,535 09/698,221 01/14/03
6,506,540 09/855,785 01/14/03
6,506,541 09/850,649 01/14/03
6,506,546 09/476,234 01/14/03
6,506,548 10/014,990 01/14/03
6,506,555 09/719,140 01/14/03
6,506,558 08/563,759 01/14/03
6,506,566 09/739,936 01/14/03
6,506,568 09/778,546 01/14/03
6,506,569 09/580,212 01/14/03
6,506,576 09/928,214 01/14/03
6,506,578 08/232,545 01/14/03
6,506,583 09/722,514 01/14/03
6,506,585 09/832,441 01/14/03
6,506,586 09/832,616 01/14/03
6,506,587 09/841,835 01/14/03
6,506,595 09/280,030 01/14/03
6,506,597 09/842,087 01/14/03
6,506,599 09/418,765 01/14/03
6,506,600 09/813,937 01/14/03
6,506,601 09/753,777 01/14/03
6,506,611 09/776,742 01/14/03
6,506,613 09/668,341 01/14/03
6,506,614 10/059,712 01/14/03
6,506,623 09/949,772 01/14/03
6,506,653 09/524,677 01/14/03
6,506,656 09/811,859 01/14/03
6,506,660 10/008,092 01/14/03
6,506,662 09/501,532 01/14/03
6,506,672 09/608,138 01/14/03
6,506,680 09/649,020 01/14/03
6,506,692 09/871,546 01/14/03
6,506,713 09/635,377 01/14/03
6,506,717 09/889,629 01/14/03
6,506,718 09/786,076 01/14/03
6,506,719 10/195,868 01/14/03
6,506,722 09/659,386 01/14/03
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 87 |
6,506,726 09/857,924 01/14/03
6,506,730 09/639,483 01/14/03
6,506,731 09/584,001 01/14/03
6,506,733 09/526,300 01/14/03
6,506,738 09/952,736 01/14/03
6,506,741 09/959,898 01/14/03
6,506,743 10/013,778 01/14/03
6,506,744 09/611,700 01/14/03
6,506,749 09/943,407 01/14/03
6,506,757 09/623,913 01/14/03
6,506,759 09/699,515 01/14/03
6,506,762 09/676,941 01/14/03
6,506,763 09/916,331 01/14/03
6,506,764 09/623,669 01/14/03
6,506,765 09/821,236 01/14/03
6,506,768 09/930,005 01/14/03
6,506,773 09/855,389 01/14/03
6,506,775 09/564,398 01/14/03
6,506,777 09/589,972 01/14/03
6,506,779 09/723,609 01/14/03
6,506,781 10/070,474 01/14/03
6,506,782 09/032,019 01/14/03
6,506,783 08/857,811 01/14/03
6,506,785 09/283,993 01/14/03
6,506,788 09/134,416 01/14/03
6,506,789 09/881,799 01/14/03
6,506,798 09/889,084 01/14/03
6,506,809 10/124,096 01/14/03
6,506,810 09/995,082 01/14/03
6,506,811 09/966,823 01/14/03
6,506,814 09/073,863 01/14/03
6,506,817 09/586,371 01/14/03
6,506,819 09/710,816 01/14/03
6,506,825 09/673,098 01/14/03
6,506,834 09/757,839 01/14/03
6,506,835 09/592,497 01/14/03
6,506,843 09/674,314 01/14/03
6,506,854 09/862,799 01/14/03
6,506,859 09/642,487 01/14/03
6,506,886 09/786,636 01/14/03
6,506,889 09/081,149 01/14/03
6,506,892 09/182,625 01/14/03
6,506,901 09/903,738 01/14/03
6,506,902 09/821,846 01/14/03
6,506,910 09/922,055 01/14/03
6,506,913 10/040,138 01/14/03
6,506,916 09/780,899 01/14/03
6,506,921 09/896,082 01/14/03
6,506,934 10/014,223 01/14/03
6,506,935 09/905,454 01/14/03
6,506,940 09/709,812 01/14/03
6,506,941 10/048,107 01/14/03
6,506,942 09/976,988 01/14/03
6,506,943 09/700,021 01/14/03
6,506,952 09/982,708 01/14/03
6,506,954 09/687,749 01/14/03
6,506,956 09/674,278 01/14/03
6,506,972 10/054,407 01/14/03
6,506,974 09/860,502 01/14/03
6,506,975 09/962,139 01/14/03
6,506,979 09/570,215 01/14/03
6,506,982 09/501,596 01/14/03
6,506,984 09/954,465 01/14/03
6,506,986 09/683,435 01/14/03
6,506,989 09/812,470 01/14/03
6,506,993 09/914,159 01/14/03
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 88 |
6,506,998 09/898,828 01/14/03
6,507,000 09/853,008 01/14/03
6,507,002 09/603,191 01/14/03
6,507,012 09/845,702 01/14/03
6,507,017 09/719,313 01/14/03
6,507,026 09/756,773 01/14/03
6,507,027 09/399,916 01/14/03
6,507,031 09/692,419 01/14/03
6,507,033 09/280,231 01/14/03
6,507,035 09/482,278 01/14/03
6,507,048 09/643,905 01/14/03
6,507,049 09/654,830 01/14/03
6,507,050 09/639,146 01/14/03
6,507,076 09/893,463 01/14/03
6,507,077 09/801,288 01/14/03
6,507,084 09/880,298 01/14/03
6,507,089 09/589,681 01/14/03
6,507,093 09/836,174 01/14/03
6,507,096 09/984,206 01/14/03
6,507,109 10/073,487 01/14/03
6,507,110 09/521,374 01/14/03
6,507,130 09/582,672 01/14/03
6,507,134 09/618,422 01/14/03
6,507,142 09/625,598 01/14/03
6,507,143 09/769,281 01/14/03
6,507,144 09/549,466 01/14/03
6,507,146 09/797,383 01/14/03
6,507,151 09/663,597 01/14/03
6,507,153 09/947,778 01/14/03
6,507,157 09/963,753 01/14/03
6,507,161 09/822,593 01/14/03
6,507,165 09/779,496 01/14/03
6,507,168 10/048,928 01/14/03
6,507,169 09/701,692 01/14/03
6,507,174 09/948,804 01/14/03
6,507,176 09/946,691 01/14/03
6,507,182 09/750,131 01/14/03
6,507,187 09/384,363 01/14/03
6,507,191 09/656,976 01/14/03
6,507,193 10/035,070 01/14/03
6,507,198 09/576,072 01/14/03
6,507,200 09/754,584 01/14/03
6,507,202 09/763,064 01/14/03
6,507,203 09/451,896 01/14/03
6,507,204 09/522,477 01/14/03
6,507,208 09/814,278 01/14/03
6,507,218 09/540,822 01/14/03
6,507,219 09/962,716 01/14/03
6,507,222 09/911,334 01/14/03
6,507,225 09/835,600 01/14/03
6,507,230 09/595,151 01/14/03
6,507,235 08/666,618 01/14/03
6,507,237 10/039,874 01/14/03
6,507,238 09/888,106 01/14/03
6,507,240 09/780,052 01/14/03
6,507,241 09/678,312 01/14/03
6,507,244 09/866,906 01/14/03
6,507,245 10/063,126 01/14/03
6,507,284 09/549,126 01/14/03
6,507,285 10/137,357 01/14/03
6,507,288 09/863,168 01/14/03
6,507,290 09/531,853 01/14/03
6,507,295 10/032,596 01/14/03
6,507,299 09/426,519 01/14/03
6,507,300 09/894,523 01/14/03
6,507,310 09/948,797 01/14/03
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 89 |
6,507,312 10/050,090 01/14/03
6,507,313 09/742,620 01/14/03
6,507,321 09/866,200 01/14/03
6,507,324 09/893,429 01/14/03
6,507,325 09/751,276 01/14/03
6,507,326 09/887,770 01/14/03
6,507,327 09/490,012 01/14/03
6,507,331 09/577,548 01/14/03
6,507,340 09/572,962 01/14/03
6,507,344 09/048,847 01/14/03
6,507,350 09/474,873 01/14/03
6,507,361 09/602,932 01/14/03
6,507,373 09/271,278 01/14/03
6,507,374 09/340,409 01/14/03
6,507,385 09/562,602 01/14/03
6,507,388 09/741,009 01/14/03
6,507,414 09/250,247 01/14/03
6,507,417 09/105,222 01/14/03
6,507,423 09/483,201 01/14/03
6,507,424 09/176,333 01/14/03
6,507,425 09/334,412 01/14/03
6,507,430 09/888,880 01/14/03
6,507,439 09/561,314 01/14/03
6,507,440 09/612,611 01/14/03
6,507,453 09/773,342 01/14/03
6,507,455 09/525,958 01/14/03
6,507,470 09/652,027 01/14/03
6,507,471 09/733,518 01/14/03
6,507,479 09/774,087 01/14/03
6,507,511 09/969,360 01/14/03
6,507,512 09/946,859 01/14/03
6,507,515 10/046,758 01/14/03
6,507,519 09/646,217 01/14/03
6,507,535 09/986,831 01/14/03
6,507,537 09/582,362 01/14/03
6,507,538 09/822,410 01/14/03
6,507,539 09/795,516 01/14/03
6,507,540 09/653,526 01/14/03
6,507,541 09/233,423 01/14/03
6,507,542 09/464,001 01/14/03
6,507,543 09/771,826 01/14/03
6,507,545 09/780,620 01/14/03
6,507,549 09/734,623 01/14/03
6,507,554 09/301,464 01/14/03
6,507,557 09/527,850 01/14/03
6,507,570 09/312,179 01/14/03
6,507,575 08/920,389 01/14/03
6,507,583 09/550,424 01/14/03
6,507,594 09/158,820 01/14/03
6,507,601 09/778,955 01/14/03
6,507,621 09/914,360 01/14/03
6,507,625 09/418,453 01/14/03
6,507,627 09/233,542 01/14/03
6,507,636 09/501,634 01/14/03
6,507,646 09/499,286 01/14/03
6,507,647 09/275,759 01/14/03
6,507,657 09/080,057 01/14/03
6,507,658 09/492,115 01/14/03
6,507,659 09/721,136 01/14/03
6,507,666 09/314,861 01/14/03
6,507,674 09/455,923 01/14/03
6,507,683 09/953,964 01/14/03
6,507,694 09/308,938 01/14/03
6,507,695 09/044,731 01/14/03
6,507,697 09/313,412 01/14/03
6,507,708 09/919,923 01/14/03
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 90 |
6,507,710 09/700,281 01/14/03
6,507,714 09/868,867 01/14/03
6,507,728 09/354,341 01/14/03
6,507,730 09/483,373 01/14/03
6,507,733 09/461,794 01/14/03
6,507,748 09/749,604 01/14/03
6,507,756 09/542,258 01/14/03
6,507,761 09/590,507 01/14/03
6,507,772 09/582,818 01/14/03
6,507,786 09/859,971 01/14/03
6,507,796 10/139,309 01/14/03
6,507,798 09/688,369 01/14/03
6,507,799 09/792,996 01/14/03
6,507,800 09/524,182 01/14/03
6,507,805 09/393,086 01/14/03
6,507,808 09/338,084 01/14/03
6,507,826 09/240,454 01/14/03
6,507,837 09/590,345 01/14/03
6,507,843 09/492,753 01/14/03
6,507,844 09/439,128 01/14/03
6,507,863 09/238,202 01/14/03
6,507,867 09/218,947 01/14/03
6,507,871 09/217,189 01/14/03
6,507,880 09/435,927 01/14/03
6,507,889 09/458,380 01/14/03
6,507,895 09/539,665 01/14/03
6,507,903 09/597,525 01/14/03
6,507,915 09/474,530 01/14/03
6,507,922 09/534,424 01/14/03
6,507,927 09/500,170 01/14/03
6,507,929 09/270,468 01/14/03
6,507,930 09/608,905 01/14/03
6,507,938 09/439,877 01/14/03
6,507,945 09/305,830 01/14/03
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON January 16, 2011
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
7,162,757 10/964,035 01/16/07
7,162,776 10/695,772 01/16/07
7,162,777 11/117,376 01/16/07
7,162,782 11/176,637 01/16/07
7,162,799 11/066,071 01/16/07
7,162,803 10/851,956 01/16/07
7,162,809 11/198,014 01/16/07
7,162,810 10/915,847 01/16/07
7,162,815 10/815,886 01/16/07
7,162,817 10/478,585 01/16/07
7,162,826 11/195,230 01/16/07
7,162,828 11/033,357 01/16/07
7,162,831 11/001,721 01/16/07
7,162,833 10/962,980 01/16/07
7,162,834 11/045,473 01/16/07
7,162,835 09/438,100 01/16/07
7,162,837 10/645,203 01/16/07
7,162,839 10/475,167 01/16/07
7,162,841 10/778,692 01/16/07
7,162,845 10/416,571 01/16/07
7,162,851 11/125,519 01/16/07
7,162,854 09/742,274 01/16/07
7,162,855 10/438,154 01/16/07
7,162,871 11/269,642 01/16/07
7,162,872 11/159,391 01/16/07
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 91 |
7,162,877 10/747,252 01/16/07
7,162,879 10/467,188 01/16/07
7,162,903 10/487,289 01/16/07
7,162,906 10/470,317 01/16/07
7,162,910 10/878,590 01/16/07
7,162,911 10/868,905 01/16/07
7,162,914 10/484,974 01/16/07
7,162,917 11/145,422 01/16/07
7,162,919 11/122,207 01/16/07
7,162,934 10/474,597 01/16/07
7,162,937 11/458,434 01/16/07
7,162,938 11/131,855 01/16/07
7,162,940 10/679,316 01/16/07
7,162,944 10/907,878 01/16/07
7,162,952 11/287,989 01/16/07
7,162,968 11/203,720 01/16/07
7,162,975 10/248,569 01/16/07
7,162,980 10/991,804 01/16/07
7,162,981 11/082,067 01/16/07
7,162,987 11/137,474 01/16/07
7,162,991 11/071,695 01/16/07
7,163,006 10/516,043 01/16/07
7,163,011 09/971,866 01/16/07
7,163,018 10/736,007 01/16/07
7,163,020 10/680,127 01/16/07
7,163,026 10/684,420 01/16/07
7,163,027 10/894,518 01/16/07
7,163,028 11/134,934 01/16/07
7,163,031 10/867,918 01/16/07
7,163,036 11/019,842 01/16/07
7,163,046 10/914,153 01/16/07
7,163,048 10/828,670 01/16/07
7,163,050 11/170,534 01/16/07
7,163,063 10/723,322 01/16/07
7,163,082 10/827,867 01/16/07
7,163,084 11/147,012 01/16/07
7,163,088 10/610,354 01/16/07
7,163,089 10/865,886 01/16/07
7,163,091 10/439,645 01/16/07
7,163,100 11/294,310 01/16/07
7,163,103 10/626,904 01/16/07
7,163,110 10/605,997 01/16/07
7,163,111 10/716,774 01/16/07
7,163,116 10/622,137 01/16/07
7,163,117 10/427,388 01/16/07
7,163,119 10/788,829 01/16/07
7,163,131 10/376,714 01/16/07
7,163,139 10/914,393 01/16/07
7,163,140 11/336,573 01/16/07
7,163,141 10/826,856 01/16/07
7,163,162 10/284,407 01/16/07
7,163,171 10/492,515 01/16/07
7,163,174 09/952,349 01/16/07
7,163,181 10/321,511 01/16/07
7,163,182 10/737,948 01/16/07
7,163,185 10/351,853 01/16/07
7,163,193 11/114,545 01/16/07
7,163,196 10/958,982 01/16/07
7,163,199 10/995,347 01/16/07
7,163,204 11/253,953 01/16/07
7,163,205 10/672,268 01/16/07
7,163,227 10/738,104 01/16/07
7,163,229 10/974,351 01/16/07
7,163,234 10/603,576 01/16/07
7,163,239 11/071,999 01/16/07
7,163,240 10/864,863 01/16/07
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 92 |
7,163,244 10/897,511 01/16/07
7,163,246 11/046,613 01/16/07
7,163,248 10/904,386 01/16/07
7,163,249 10/711,449 01/16/07
7,163,250 10/932,861 01/16/07
7,163,251 10/992,635 01/16/07
7,163,253 10/748,401 01/16/07
7,163,254 11/059,573 01/16/07
7,163,259 11/099,649 01/16/07
7,163,260 11/154,456 01/16/07
7,163,262 10/672,802 01/16/07
7,163,265 10/671,497 01/16/07
7,163,267 10/872,545 01/16/07
7,163,278 10/864,390 01/16/07
7,163,279 10/874,283 01/16/07
7,163,304 11/139,524 01/16/07
7,163,308 10/993,871 01/16/07
7,163,320 10/998,250 01/16/07
7,163,323 11/270,522 01/16/07
7,163,324 10/397,693 01/16/07
7,163,325 10/847,762 01/16/07
7,163,330 10/843,213 01/16/07
7,163,332 10/818,754 01/16/07
7,163,333 11/068,975 01/16/07
7,163,341 10/502,588 01/16/07
7,163,342 10/391,404 01/16/07
7,163,346 10/945,908 01/16/07
7,163,350 10/716,620 01/16/07
7,163,351 11/312,566 01/16/07
7,163,353 10/883,259 01/16/07
7,163,359 10/489,841 01/16/07
7,163,365 10/856,794 01/16/07
7,163,370 10/763,375 01/16/07
7,163,404 10/523,043 01/16/07
7,163,407 11/445,149 01/16/07
7,163,409 11/488,701 01/16/07
7,163,412 11/169,398 01/16/07
7,163,416 11/325,595 01/16/07
7,163,419 11/128,234 01/16/07
7,163,424 10/608,762 01/16/07
7,163,429 11/028,329 01/16/07
7,163,436 11/299,763 01/16/07
7,163,442 10/390,118 01/16/07
7,163,446 11/157,017 01/16/07
7,163,463 10/718,388 01/16/07
7,163,465 11/037,856 01/16/07
7,163,467 10/686,275 01/16/07
7,163,469 11/217,650 01/16/07
7,163,474 10/905,781 01/16/07
7,163,490 10/854,201 01/16/07
7,163,494 10/458,208 01/16/07
7,163,496 10/422,104 01/16/07
7,163,499 10/474,757 01/16/07
7,163,503 10/647,252 01/16/07
7,163,521 10/896,515 01/16/07
7,163,534 11/067,131 01/16/07
7,163,552 09/978,243 01/16/07
7,163,556 10/104,499 01/16/07
7,163,557 10/501,641 01/16/07
7,163,566 09/985,644 01/16/07
7,163,572 11/228,555 01/16/07
7,163,576 10/518,757 01/16/07
7,163,581 11/064,799 01/16/07
7,163,582 10/661,169 01/16/07
7,163,584 10/927,647 01/16/07
7,163,592 10/613,555 01/16/07
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 93 |
7,163,598 10/301,008 01/16/07
7,163,614 10/272,255 01/16/07
7,163,620 10/677,126 01/16/07
7,163,622 10/332,720 01/16/07
7,163,625 09/712,085 01/16/07
7,163,627 11/046,672 01/16/07
7,163,651 10/780,728 01/16/07
7,163,656 10/146,945 01/16/07
7,163,665 10/167,549 01/16/07
7,163,672 10/451,162 01/16/07
7,163,679 09/565,949 01/16/07
7,163,683 10/892,956 01/16/07
7,163,689 11/173,922 01/16/07
7,163,692 10/462,181 01/16/07
7,163,698 10/423,536 01/16/07
7,163,704 10/511,902 01/16/07
7,163,708 10/174,687 01/16/07
7,163,720 10/148,034 01/16/07
7,163,729 10/832,310 01/16/07
7,163,730 10/916,458 01/16/07
7,163,740 10/716,133 01/16/07
7,163,742 10/275,705 01/16/07
7,163,747 10/511,250 01/16/07
7,163,748 10/434,682 01/16/07
7,163,756 10/733,928 01/16/07
7,163,779 11/001,942 01/16/07
7,163,782 10/806,841 01/16/07
7,163,784 11/202,402 01/16/07
7,163,785 10/534,608 01/16/07
7,163,786 11/234,691 01/16/07
7,163,792 10/435,090 01/16/07
7,163,795 11/049,348 01/16/07
7,163,798 11/367,873 01/16/07
7,163,803 10/479,843 01/16/07
7,163,806 10/773,795 01/16/07
7,163,809 10/460,773 01/16/07
7,163,813 11/226,673 01/16/07
7,163,819 11/397,745 01/16/07
7,163,825 10/466,469 01/16/07
7,163,826 10/719,663 01/16/07
7,163,830 11/007,720 01/16/07
7,163,849 10/500,931 01/16/07
7,163,866 10/732,277 01/16/07
7,163,882 10/884,580 01/16/07
7,163,888 10/995,800 01/16/07
7,163,932 10/481,485 01/16/07
7,163,933 10/369,752 01/16/07
7,163,940 10/433,881 01/16/07
7,163,941 10/809,067 01/16/07
7,163,942 11/078,739 01/16/07
7,163,943 10/397,968 01/16/07
7,163,946 10/684,212 01/16/07
7,163,951 10/523,911 01/16/07
7,163,952 10/497,492 01/16/07
7,163,953 11/131,576 01/16/07
7,163,959 10/723,140 01/16/07
7,163,976 10/736,733 01/16/07
7,163,977 11/129,160 01/16/07
7,163,981 10/911,271 01/16/07
7,163,982 10/914,203 01/16/07
7,163,997 10/687,610 01/16/07
7,164,001 10/213,044 01/16/07
7,164,003 10/488,421 01/16/07
7,164,011 10/642,807 01/16/07
7,164,014 10/256,510 01/16/07
7,164,016 10/198,046 01/16/07
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 94 |
7,164,020 10/524,330 01/16/07
7,164,022 11/252,860 01/16/07
7,164,024 10/475,447 01/16/07
7,164,025 09/928,139 01/16/07
7,164,027 10/857,683 01/16/07
7,164,028 11/102,828 01/16/07
7,164,029 10/969,354 01/16/07
7,164,030 11/172,530 01/16/07
7,164,032 11/169,033 01/16/07
7,164,033 11/169,136 01/16/07
7,164,038 11/353,815 01/16/07
7,164,042 10/479,167 01/16/07
7,164,047 10/493,224 01/16/07
7,164,053 10/221,752 01/16/07
7,164,055 10/180,927 01/16/07
7,164,080 10/946,452 01/16/07
7,164,083 11/237,818 01/16/07
7,164,090 11/068,633 01/16/07
7,164,092 11/146,192 01/16/07
7,164,102 11/186,132 01/16/07
7,164,103 10/510,143 01/16/07
7,164,133 11/042,755 01/16/07
7,164,143 10/364,712 01/16/07
7,164,149 10/632,822 01/16/07
7,164,175 10/835,122 01/16/07
7,164,177 10/707,677 01/16/07
7,164,197 10/465,155 01/16/07
7,164,211 11/374,589 01/16/07
7,164,226 10/824,346 01/16/07
7,164,235 10/832,065 01/16/07
7,164,237 10/535,286 01/16/07
7,164,243 10/675,312 01/16/07
7,164,245 11/307,104 01/16/07
7,164,252 11/193,732 01/16/07
7,164,262 10/797,744 01/16/07
7,164,264 11/055,045 01/16/07
7,164,276 11/259,364 01/16/07
7,164,281 10/783,846 01/16/07
7,164,283 11/160,661 01/16/07
7,164,326 10/956,114 01/16/07
7,164,331 11/027,660 01/16/07
7,164,337 11/013,037 01/16/07
7,164,343 10/989,436 01/16/07
7,164,356 11/356,809 01/16/07
7,164,368 10/724,550 01/16/07
7,164,371 10/903,978 01/16/07
7,164,374 11/126,145 01/16/07
7,164,384 10/633,302 01/16/07
7,164,390 10/204,650 01/16/07
7,164,392 10/619,079 01/16/07
7,164,420 10/897,048 01/16/07
7,164,433 10/097,214 01/16/07
7,164,437 11/074,917 01/16/07
7,164,452 10/682,319 01/16/07
7,164,470 10/685,326 01/16/07
7,164,473 10/708,683 01/16/07
7,164,478 11/041,602 01/16/07
7,164,480 10/771,785 01/16/07
7,164,511 09/731,455 01/16/07
7,164,523 11/020,661 01/16/07
7,164,527 10/409,978 01/16/07
7,164,528 10/868,811 01/16/07
7,164,530 10/946,316 01/16/07
7,164,550 11/190,482 01/16/07
7,164,552 10/673,768 01/16/07
7,164,557 10/784,506 01/16/07
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 95 |
7,164,559 10/684,459 01/16/07
7,164,580 10/397,985 01/16/07
7,164,583 10/946,670 01/16/07
7,164,584 10/968,750 01/16/07
7,164,610 10/323,771 01/16/07
7,164,622 10/937,361 01/16/07
7,164,623 10/925,580 01/16/07
7,164,624 10/492,451 01/16/07
7,164,628 10/254,715 01/16/07
7,164,636 10/495,954 01/16/07
7,164,642 10/699,345 01/16/07
7,164,643 10/774,125 01/16/07
7,164,664 09/998,423 01/16/07
7,164,675 10/107,385 01/16/07
7,164,696 10/089,107 01/16/07
7,164,701 10/388,370 01/16/07
7,164,702 10/655,634 01/16/07
7,164,715 10/343,081 01/16/07
7,164,721 10/326,758 01/16/07
7,164,722 10/216,528 01/16/07
7,164,733 10/273,929 01/16/07
7,164,739 10/186,474 01/16/07
7,164,741 09/905,716 01/16/07
7,164,742 10/284,575 01/16/07
7,164,751 10/503,959 01/16/07
7,164,755 09/547,866 01/16/07
7,164,759 10/445,155 01/16/07
7,164,765 10/059,339 01/16/07
7,164,774 10/243,871 01/16/07
7,164,777 11/404,137 01/16/07
7,164,783 10/407,561 01/16/07
7,164,784 10/210,844 01/16/07
7,164,787 10/609,899 01/16/07
7,164,791 10/208,447 01/16/07
7,164,805 10/108,332 01/16/07
7,164,809 10/353,617 01/16/07
7,164,813 10/529,493 01/16/07
7,164,820 10/539,690 01/16/07
7,164,826 11/328,529 01/16/07
7,164,828 10/905,873 01/16/07
7,164,837 10/727,201 01/16/07
7,164,880 10/625,900 01/16/07
7,164,891 10/819,111 01/16/07
7,164,892 10/826,128 01/16/07
7,164,895 10/344,229 01/16/07
7,164,901 10/746,200 01/16/07
7,164,917 10/441,185 01/16/07
7,164,934 10/354,526 01/16/07
7,164,947 10/619,354 01/16/07
7,164,958 10/514,325 01/16/07
7,164,961 10/064,156 01/16/07
7,164,965 11/138,266 01/16/07
7,164,983 11/401,335 01/16/07
7,164,986 10/758,213 01/16/07
7,165,006 10/976,259 01/16/07
7,165,010 10/383,574 01/16/07
7,165,013 10/752,371 01/16/07
7,165,021 09/968,010 01/16/07
7,165,022 10/164,010 01/16/07
7,165,053 10/172,708 01/16/07
7,165,054 10/244,266 01/16/07
7,165,063 10/717,870 01/16/07
7,165,068 10/188,370 01/16/07
7,165,147 10/604,453 01/16/07
7,165,195 10/641,613 01/16/07
7,165,201 10/670,547 01/16/07
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 96 |
7,165,203 10/667,778 01/16/07
7,165,206 10/659,115 01/16/07
7,165,209 10/754,570 01/16/07
7,165,220 09/563,271 01/16/07
7,165,235 11/101,479 01/16/07
7,165,236 09/801,602 01/16/07
7,165,240 10/177,778 01/16/07
7,165,245 09/844,345 01/16/07
7,165,250 10/044,915 01/16/07
7,165,259 10/097,093 01/16/07
7,165,261 10/605,914 01/16/07
| Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a Late Maintenance Fee from 02/07/2011 |
Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a
Late Maintenance Fee from 02/07/2011
Patent Application Filing Issue Granted
Number Number Date Date Date
5,670,460 08/587,040 01/16/96 09/23/97 02/08/11
5,695,492 08/748,056 11/13/96 12/09/97 02/11/11
5,711,357 08/800,785 02/14/97 01/27/98 02/10/11
5,730,830 08/578,322 12/26/95 03/24/98 02/07/11
5,778,381 08/511,289 08/04/95 07/07/98 02/07/11
5,790,995 08/872,267 06/10/97 08/11/98 02/09/11
5,801,203 08/482,365 06/07/95 09/01/98 02/07/11
5,835,126 08/616,562 03/15/96 11/10/98 02/10/11
5,840,408 08/663,945 06/14/96 11/24/98 02/08/11
5,844,808 08/718,386 11/21/96 12/01/98 02/08/11
5,866,351 08/525,940 09/08/95 02/02/99 02/11/11
6,143,966 09/320,122 05/25/99 11/07/00 02/11/11
6,205,885 09/391,709 09/08/99 03/27/01 02/08/11
6,356,675 08/566,340 12/01/95 03/12/02 02/09/11
6,360,505 09/389,725 09/03/99 03/26/02 02/10/11
6,361,570 09/530,175 04/24/00 03/26/02 02/07/11
6,375,755 09/493,055 01/26/00 04/23/02 02/10/11
6,463,467 09/439,859 11/12/99 10/08/02 02/09/11
6,483,843 09/687,259 10/12/00 11/19/02 02/11/11
6,484,148 09/507,448 02/19/00 11/19/02 02/09/11
6,512,391 10/179,771 06/24/02 01/28/03 02/08/11
6,513,339 09/549,329 04/14/00 02/04/03 02/11/11
6,588,128 09/848,702 05/02/01 07/08/03 02/09/11
6,820,667 10/303,135 11/25/02 11/23/04 02/10/11
6,856,598 09/485,658 02/14/00 02/15/05 02/10/11
6,974,587 10/141,300 05/08/02 12/13/05 02/07/11
7,008,879 10/832,782 04/27/04 03/07/06 02/10/11
7,044,448 10/437,468 05/14/03 05/16/06 02/11/11
7,065,930 10/964,143 10/13/04 06/27/06 02/09/11
7,098,600 10/926,525 08/26/04 08/29/06 02/10/11
7,134,455 10/744,575 12/22/03 11/14/06 02/07/11
7,140,699 10/502,687 07/27/04 11/28/06 02/09/11
7,141,739 10/836,552 04/30/04 11/28/06 02/11/11
7,151,326 10/668,618 09/23/03 12/19/06 02/09/11
7,152,932 10/867,251 06/14/04 12/26/06 02/09/11
| Reissue Applications Filed |
Reissue Applications Filed
Notice under 37 CFR 1.11(b). The reissue applications listed below are
open to public inspection by the general public through the Image File
Wrapper (IFW) system (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair) on the
USPTO internet web site (www.uspto.gov), and copies may be obtained by
paying the fee therefor (37 CFR 1.19).
D. 582,268, Re. S.N. 29/380,705, Dec. 09, 2010, Cl. D09/432, CONTAINER,
Doriano Zanaletti, Owner of Record: Perfetti Van Melle S.P.A., Attorney or
Agent: Benoit Castel, Ex. Gp.: 2913
6,681,461, Re. S.N. 12/930,964, Jan. 21, 2011, Cl. 073/861, PIPE ADAPTER
FOR ADJUSTING THE FLOW PAST A SENSOR, Amir Rosenbaum, et al., Owner of
Record: Inventors, Attorney or Agent: Kirk A. Buhler, Ex. Gp.: 2855
6,684,333, Re. S.N. 13/013,751, Jan. 25, 2011, Cl. 713/168, PARALLEL
DATA NETWORK BILLING AND COLLECTION SYSTEM, Jay S. Walker, et al., Owner of
Record: Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., Fort Collins, CO,
Attorney or Agent: Rajiv P. Patel, Ex. Gp.: 2431
6,695,510, Re. S.N.: 12/875,428, Sep. 03, 2010, CL: 401/068.000,
MULTICOMPOSITION STICK PRODUCT AND A PROCESS AND SYSTEM FOR MANUFACTURING
SAME, Jee Loon Look, et. al., Owner of Record: WYETH LLC, Attorney or
Agent: Stephanie J. Monaco, Ex. GP.: 3751
6,699,234, Re. S.N. 12/462,406, Aug. 31, 2010, Cl. 604/890, LIGHT, THIN,
AND FLEXIBLE MEDICATION INFUSION APPARATUSES ATTACHABLE TO USER, Show-Way
Yeh, Owner of Record: Inventor, Attorney or Agent: Jane Zhang, Ex. Gp.
3767
6,794,214, Re. S.N. 13/009,268, Jan. 19, 2011, Cl. 438/057, PINNED
PHOTODIODE PHOTODETECTOR WITH COMMON PIXEL TRANSISTORS AND BINNING
CAPABILITY, Vladimir Berezin, et al., Owner of Record: Round Rock Research,
LLC, Mount Kisco, NY, Attorney or Agent: Richard J. Botos, Ex. Gp.: 2812
7,131,365, Re. S.N. 13/016,674, Jan. 28, 2011, Cl. 083/846, MULTI-CHIP
FACET CUTTING SAW BLADE AND RELATED METHOD, Kenneth Hall, et. al., Owner of
Record: Irwin Industrial Tool Company, Freeport, IL, Attorney or Agent:
Peter D. Sleman, Ex. Gp.: 3724
7,191,969, Re. S.N. 13/019,667, Feb. 02, 2011, Cl./Sub 242/245, FISHING
REEL, Takeo Miyazaki, et al., Owner of Record: Globeride, Inc., Tokyo,
Japan, Attorney or Agent: E. Rico Hernandez, Ex. Gp: 3654
7,449,525, Re. S.N. 12/943,598, Nov. 10, 2010, Cl. 524/100, MULTI-MODAL
VINYL ESTER RESINS, Giuseppe Raffaello Palmese, et. al., Owner of Record:
Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, Attorney or Agent: Kevin J. Dunleavy,
Ex. Gp.: 1762
7,450,207, Re. S.N. 12/944,283, Nov. 11, 2010, Cl. 349/156, LIQUID
CRYSTAL DISPLAY DEVICE COMPRISING A PICTURE ELEMENT REGION INCLUDING
DIFFERENT ELECTRIC FIELD STRENGTH REGIONS, Fumikazu Shimoshikiryo, Owner of
Record: Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha, Osaka, JP, Attorney or Agent: Joseph A.
Rhoa, Ex. Gp.: 2871
7,459,193, Re. S.N. 13/006,884, Jan. 14, 2011, Cl./Sub 428/040, METHOD
OF MAKING A LABEL SHEET, Martin Utz, Owner of Record: Avery Dennison
Corporation, Pasadena, CA, Attorney or Agent: Mark E. Bandy, Ex. Gp: 1788
7,477,427, Re. S.N. 13/004,221, Jan. 11, 2011, Cl. 358/474, DATA READING
APPARATUS, Masashi Fujikawa, et al., Owner of Record: Seiko Epson
Corporation, Tokyo, JP, Attorney or Agent: Michael T. Gabrik, Ex. Gp.: 2625
7,482,657, Re. S.N.: 13/008,770, Jan. 18, 2011, CL: 315/350.000,
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 99 |
BALANCED CELLS WITH FABRICATION MISMATCHES THAT PRODUCE A UNIQUE NUMBER
GENERATOR, Elroy Lucero, Owner of Record: NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTER
CORPORATION, Attorney or Agent: Michael B. Stewart, Ex. GP.: 2892
7,483,431, Re. S.N. 13/014,557, Jan. 26, 2011, Cl. 370/395, METHOD FOR
TRANSMITTING DATA IN A TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK AND SWITCH FOR
IMPLEMENTING SAID METHOD, Sigram Schindler, et al., Owner of Record: Sigram
Schinder Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH, Berlin, DE, Attorney or Agent:
Vincent DeLuca, Ex. Gp.: 2465
7,491,346, Re. S.N.: 13/020,572, Feb. 03, 2011, CL: 430/058.700,
POLYCARBONATE RESIN AND ELECTROPHOTOGRAPHIC PHOTOSENSITIVE MEMBER USING
SAME, Takaaki HIKOSAKA, Owner of Record: IDEMITSU KOSAN CO, Attorney or
Agent: Csaba Henter, Ex. GP.: 1721
7,558,969, Re. S.N. 13/011,649, Jan. 21, 2011, Cl. 713/193, ANTI-PIRATE
CIRCUIT FOR PROTECTION AGAINST COMMERCIAL INTEGRATED CIRCUIT PIRATES, Elroy
Lucero, et. al., Owner of Record: National Semiconductor Corporation,
Attorney or Agent: Michael B. Stewart, Ex. Gp.: 2431
7,602,666, Re. S.N. 13/011,610, Jan. 21, 2011, Cl. 365/226, METHOD OF
FORMING A UNIQUE NUMBER, Elroy Lucero, Owner of Record: National
Semiconductor Corporation, Attorney or Agent: Michael B. Stewart, Ex. Gp.:
2827
7,649,703, Re. S.N. 13/012,290, Jan. 24, 2011, Cl. 359/824, LENS DRIVING
APPARATUS, Manabu Shiraki, et. al., Owner of Record: Shicoh Co., LTD,
Kanagawa, JP, Attorney or Agent: Kenneth W. Fields, Ex. Gp.: 2873
7,750,190, Re. S.N. 12/984,215, Jan. 04, 2011, Cl. 568/426, METHOD FOR
PRODUCING NEW POLYNUCLEAR POLY(FORMYLPHENOL), Akira Yoshitomo, et al., Owner
of Record: Honshu Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., Tokyo, JP, Attorney or
Agent: Daniel Altman, Ex. Gp.: 1621
| Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed |
Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed
RE. 35,952, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,380, Requested Date: Dec. 8, 2010, Cl.
348/001, Title: TELEVISION RECEIVER HAVING MEMORY CONTROL FOR TUNE-BY-LABEL
FEATURE, Inventor: Jack Beery, Owners of Record: Technology Development &
Licensing, LLC., Henderson, NV, Attorney or Agent: Niro Scavone Haller &
Niro, Chicago, IL, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Sumner Rosenberg, Ballard
Spahr, LLP., Atlanta, GA
4,974,088, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,328, Requested Date: Nov. 19, 2010, Cl.
348/211, Title: REMOTE CONTROL APPARATUS FOR A ROTATING TELEVISION CAMERA
BASE, Inventor: Takeshi Sasaki Owners of Record: Lectrolarm Custom Systems,
Inc., Memphis, TN, Attorney or Agent: Dickstein Shapiro, LLP., Washington,
DC, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: James E. Hanft, Kane Kessler, PC., New York,
NY
5,742,737, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,379, Requested Date: Dec. 8, 2010, Cl.
704/272, Title: METHOD FOR RECORDING VOICE MESSAGES ON FLASH MEMORY IN A
HAND HELD RECORDER, Inventor: Nobert P. Daberko et al., Owners of Record:
E. Digital Corporation, San Diego, CA, Attorney or Agent: Duane Morris,
LLP., San Diego, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: B. Todd Patterson, Patterson
& Sheridan, LLP., Houston, TX
5,965,831, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,373, Requested Date: Dec. 7, 2010, Cl.
084/313, Title: TUNING MEANS FOR STRINGED MUSICAL INSTRUMENT, Inventor:
Geoffrey L. McCabe, Owners of Record: Geoffrey L. McCabe, New York, NY,
Attorney or Agent: San Diego IP Law Group, LLP., San Diego, CA, Ex. Gp.:
3992, Requester: Floyd Rose Marketing, Inc., John R. Nelson, Lerner David
Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP., Westfield, NJ
5,985,348, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,356, Requested Date: Dec. 20, 2010, Cl.
426/580, Title: MILK PRODUCTS HAVING HIGH CONCENTRATION OF OMEGA-3 HIGHLY
UNSATURATED FATTY ACIDS, Inventor: William R. Barclay, Owners of Record:
Martek Biosciences Corporation, Columbia, MD, Attorney or Agent: Sheridan
Ross, PC., Denver, CO, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: Susan E. Shaw McBee, Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC., Washington, DC
5,986,191, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,377, Requested Date: Dec. 7, 2010, Cl.
084/313, Title: TUNING MEANS FOR FULCRUM TREMOLO, Inventor: Geoffrey L.
McCabe, Owners of Record: Geoffrey L. McCabe, New York, NY, Attorney or
Agent: San Diego IP Law Group, LLP., San Diego, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992,
Requester: Floyd Rose Marketing, Inc., John R. Nelson, Lerner David
Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP., Westfield, NJ
6,121,898, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,381, Requested Date: Dec. 9, 2010, Cl.
340/933, Title: TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, Inventor: John B. Moetteli,
Owners of Record: John B. Moetteli, Switzerland, Attorney or Agent: Moetteli
& Associates SARL, Switzerland, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Richard F.
Trecartin, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP., San Francisco, CA
6,175,066, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,375, Requested Date: Dec. 7, 2010, Cl.
084/313, Title: TUNING MEANS FOR STRINGED MUSICAL INSTRUMENT, Inventor:
Geoffrey L. McCabe, Owners of Record: Geoffrey L. McCabe, New York, NY,
Attorney or Agent: San Diego IP Law Group, LLP., San Diego, CA, Ex. Gp.:
3992, Requester: Floyd Rose Marketing, Inc., John R. Nelson, Lerner David
Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP., Westfield, NJ
6,238,412, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,378, Requested Date: Dec. 8, 2010, Cl.
606/200, Title: BIOLOGICAL PASSAGEWAY OCCLUSION REMOVAL, Inventor: William
Dubrul et al., Owners of Record: Genesis Technologies, LLC., Redwood City,
CA, Attorney or Agent: Haynes Beffel & Wolfeld, LLP., Half Moon Bay, CA,
Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: St. Jude Medical Cardiology Division, Inc.,
Jennifer M. Pascua, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP., Los Angeles, CA
6,300,863, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,323, Requested Date: Dec. 23, 2010, Cl.
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 101 |
340/005, Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS TO MONITOR AND LOCATE AN ELECTRONIC
DEVICE USING A SECURED INTELLIGENT AGENT VIA A GLOBAL NETWORK, Inventor:
Christian Cotichini et al., Owners of Record: Absolute Software Corporation,
Canada, Attorney or Agent: Liu & Liu, Los Angeles, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992,
Requester: Rick Martin, Patent Law Offices of Rick Martin, PC, Longmont, CO
6,566,807, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,327, Requested Date: Dec. 13, 2010, Cl.
313/506, Title: ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT ELEMENT AND PRODUCTION METHOD
THEREOF, Inventor: Yoshimasa Fujita et al., Owners of Record: Sharp
Kabushiki Kaisha, Japan, Attorney or Agent: Nixon & Vanderhye, PC.,
Arlington, VA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Alexander G. Vodovozov, Hoffmann &
Baron, LLP., Syosset, NY
6,885,870, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,318, Requested Date: Dec. 14, 2010, Cl.
455/426, Title: TRANSFERRING OF A MESSAGE, Inventor: Outi Aho, Owners of
Record: Comcast Cable Communications, LLC., Philadelphia, PA, Attorney or
Agent: Banner & Witcoff, LTD., Washington, DC, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester:
PATENT OWNER
6,891,094, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,376, Requested Date: Dec. 7, 2010, Cl.
084/312, Title: TUNING MEANS FOR STRINGED MUSICAL INSTRUMENT, Inventor:
Geoffrey L. McCabe, Owners of Record: Geoffrey L. McCabe, New York, NY,
Attorney or Agent: San Diego IP Law Group, LLP., San Diego, CA, Ex. Gp.:
3992, Requester: Floyd Rose Marketing, Inc., John R. Nelson, Lerner David
Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP., Westfield, NJ
6,899,832, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,852, Requested Date: Dec. 15, 2010, Cl.
264/036, Title: INSTALLATION OF FLEXIBLE LINING WITH FLEXIBLE COLLAR FOR
LINING LATERAL PIPELINES, Inventor: Eric Wood, Owners of Record: INA
Acquisition, Corp., Wilmington, DE, Attorney or Agent: Senniger Power,
LLP., ST. Louis, MO, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: Werner H. Stemer, Lerner
Greenberg Stemer, LLP., Hollywood, FL
7,219,790, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,836, Requested Date: Dec. 13, 2010, Cl.
198/471, Title: STAR-SHAPED CONVEYOR FOR FEEDING OR DISCHARGING EMPTY
PLASTICS CONTAINERS OR BOTTLES TO OR FROM A MACHINE AND ORIENTING AND
ALIGNING MACHINE HAVING SAID STAR-SHAPED CONVEYOR, Inventor: Lino
Lanfranchi, Owners of Record: Lanfranchi S.R.L., Italy, Attorney or Agent:
Young & Thompson, Alexandria, VA, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Jacques L.
Etkowizc, RatnerPrestia, Valley Forge, PA
7,470,841, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,374, Requested Date: Dec. 7, 2010, Cl.
084/312, Title: TUNING APPARATUS FOR STRINGED INSTRUMENT Inventor: Geoffrey
L. McCabe, Owners of Record: Geoffrey L McCabe, Topanga, CA, Attorney or
Agent: San Diego IP Law Group, LLP., San Diego, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992,
Requester: Floyd Rose Marketing, Inc., John R. Nelson, Lerner David
Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP., Westfield, NJ
7,511,043, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,337, Requested Date: Dec. 20, 2010, Cl.
514/252, Title: FXR MODULATORS, Inventor: Jonathan Houze et al., Owners of
Record: Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, Attorney or Agent: Amgen, Inc.,
Thousand Oaks, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: Charles J. Andres, Jr., Ph.D.,
Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt, LLP., Alexandria, VA
7,555,431, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,342, Requested Date: Jan. 3, 2011, Cl.
704/270, Title: METHOD FOR PROCESSING SPEECH USING DYNAMIC GRAMMARS,
Inventor: Ian M. Bennett, Owners of Record: Phoenix Solutions, Inc., Palo
Alto, CA, Attorney or Agent: SoCal IP Law Group, LLP., Westlake Village,
CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: PATENT OWNER
7,566,464, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,325, Requested Date: Nov. 22, 2010, Cl.
424/725, Title: COSMETIC COMPOSITION TO ACCELERATE REPAIR OF FUNCTIONAL
WRINKLES, Inventor: William A. Belfer, Owners of Record: Belfer Cosmetics,
LLC., Dallas, TX, Attorney or Agent: Robert M. Skolnik, Oceanport, NJ, Ex.
Gp.: 3991, Requester: Matthew E. Langer, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
Palo Alto, CA
7,762,838, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,258, Requested Date: Jan. 12, 2011, Cl.
439/536, Title: SAFETY MODULE ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, Inventor:
Michael P. Gorman, Owners of Record: ProtectConnect, Newport Beach, CA,
Attorney or Agent: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP., Irvine, CA, Ex. Gp.:
3992, Requester: Shaun R. Snader, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
Washington, DC
| Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed |
Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed
6,401,415, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,515, Requested Date: Dec. 23, 2010, Cl.:
052/309, Title: NEW DIRECT LAMINATED FLOOR, Inventor: Eugenio Cruz Garcia,
Owners of Record: FAUS Group, Inc., Dalton, GA, Attorney or Agent: McKenna
Long & Aldridge, LLP., Washington, DC, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Third
Party Requester: KRONOPOL Sp. zo.o; (Att'y Is: Andrew M. Calderon, Roberts
Mlotkowski Safran & Cole, PC., McLean, VA), Real Party in Interest: Same As
Third Party Requester
6,663,738, Reexam. C.N.: 95/000,611, Requested Date: Dec. 17, 2010, Cl.:
156/245, Title: METHOD FOR PREPARATION OF A POLYOLEFIN FOIL AND ITS
UTILIZATION, Inventor: Rainer Ohlinger et al., Owners of Record:
Benecke-Kaliko, AG, Germany, Attorney or Agent: Fay Sharpe, LLP., Cleveland,
OH, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester: Third Party Requester: Haartz Corporation;
(Att'y Is: Steven J. Grossman, Grossman Tucker Perreault & Pfleger, PLLC.,
Manchester, NH) Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
6,688,061, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,516, Requested Date: Dec. 23, 2010, Cl.:
052/309, Title: DIRECT LAMINATED FLOOR, Inventor: Eugenio Cruz Garcia,
Owners of Record: FAUS Group, Inc., Dalton, GA, Attorney or Agent: McKenna
Long & Aldridge, LLP., Washington, DC, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Third
Party Requester: KRONOPOL Sp. zo.o; (Att'y Is: Andrew M. Calderon, Roberts
Mlotkowski Safran & Cole, PC., McLean, VA), Real Party in Interest: Same As
Third Party Requester
6,918,355, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,507, Requested Date: Dec. 27, 2010, Cl.:
119/707, Title: DURABLE PET TOY, Inventor: Margherita Jessie Arvanites,
Owners of Record: Margherita Jessie Arvanites, Fountain Hills, AZ, Attorney
or Agent: Mathew R.P. Perrone, Jr., Algonguin, IL, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester:
Third Party Requester: VIP Products LLC.; (Att'y Is: Marvin A. Glazer,
Cahill Glazer, PLC., Phoenix, AZ), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third
Party Requester
7,037,321, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,518, Requested Date: Jan. 10, 2011, Cl.:
604/200, Title: MEDICAL DEVICE WITH SLOTTED MEMORY METAL TUBE, Inventor:
Rohit C.L. Sachdeva et al., Owners of Record: EVM Systems, LLC., Frisco,
TX, Attorney or Agent: Wood Herron & Evans, LLP., Cincinnati, OH, Ex. Gp.:
3993, Requester: Third Party Requester: Boston Scientific Corp.; (Att'y
Is: Shane A. Nelson, Esq., HOWREY, LLP., Washington, DC), Real Party in
Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
7,714,747, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,517, Requested Date: Dec. 30, 2010, Cl.:
341/051, Title: DATA COMPRESSION SYSTEMS AND METHODS, Inventor: James J.
Fallon, Owners of Record: Realtime Data, LLC., New York, NY, Attorney or
Agent: Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC., Washington, DC, Ex. Gp.: 3992,
Requester: Third Party Requester: (Att'y Is: Michael A. Hawes, Baker Botts,
LLP., Houston, TX), Real Party in Interest: CME Group, Inc.; New York
Mercantile Exchange, Inc.; Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc.
7,739,188, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,520, Requested Date: Jan. 7, 2011, Cl.:
705/037, Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING AGGREGATION OF TRADING ON
MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVE TRADING SYSTEMS, Inventor: Margaret G. Littlewood,
Owners of Record: ITG, Inc., New York, NY, Attorney or Agent: Rothwell Figg
Ernst & Manbeck, PC., Washington, DC, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party
Requester: (Att'y Is: Barry J. Schindler, Greenberg Traurig, LLP., New
York, NY), Real Party in Interest: Liquidnet, Inc.; Liquidnet Holdings,
Inc.
7,788,169, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,519, Requested Date: Jan. 7, 2011, Cl.:
705/037, Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING AGGREGATION OF TRADING ON
MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVE TRADING SYSTEMS, Inventor: Margaret G. Littlewood,
Owners of Record: ITG, Inc., New York, NY, Attorney or Agent: Rothwell Figg
Ernst & Manbeck, PC., Washington, DC, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party
Requester: (Att'y Is: Barry J. Schindler, Greenberg Traurig, LLP., New
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 103 |
York, NY), Real Party in Interest: Liquidnet, Inc.; Liquidnet Holdings, Inc.
7,819,220, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,496, Requested Date: Dec. 22, 2010, Cl.:
180/312, Title: SIDE-BY-SIDE ATV, Inventor: Richard Larry Sunsdahl et al.,
Owners of Record: Polaris Industries, Inc., Medina, MN, Attorney or Agent:
Baker & Daniels LLP-Polaris, Indianapolis, IN, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester:
Third Party Requester: CFMOTO Powersports, Inc.; (Att'y Is: Jeffrey D.
Shewchuk, Shewchuk IP Services, LLC., Eagan, MN), Real Party in Interest:
Same As Third Party Requester
7,843,508, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,521, Requested Date: Jan. 7, 2011, Cl.:
348/441, Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DIRECT RECORDING OF VIDEO INFORMATION
ONTO A DISK MEDIUM, Inventor: Qiang Huang, Owners of Record: MedioStream,
Inc., San Jose, CA, Attorney or Agent: AMPACC Law Group, PLLC., Mountlake
Terrace, WA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: Apple, Inc.;
(Att'y Is: Tracy W. Druce, Novak Druce & Quigg, LLP., Houston, TX), Real
Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
| 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
February 11, 2011
DUE TO FAILURE TO RENEW
Reg. Number Serial Number Reg. Date
2,364,112 75/632,173 07/04/2000
2,364,371 75/717,629 07/04/2000
2,923,503 79/000,752 02/01/2005
1,605,446 73/795,452 07/10/1990
2,364,794 75/026,775 07/04/2000
2,364,797 75/041,659 07/04/2000
2,363,474 75/048,596 07/04/2000
2,363,475 75/048,597 07/04/2000
2,364,804 75/087,375 07/04/2000
2,364,814 75/124,530 07/04/2000
2,364,818 75/146,595 07/04/2000
2,364,827 75/192,775 07/04/2000
2,363,484 75/198,347 07/04/2000
2,364,838 75/221,723 07/04/2000
2,364,858 75/262,396 07/04/2000
2,364,863 75/269,767 07/04/2000
2,363,502 75/276,434 07/04/2000
2,365,362 75/291,862 07/04/2000
2,363,503 75/295,127 07/04/2000
2,364,880 75/295,518 07/04/2000
2,364,881 75/298,319 07/04/2000
2,364,897 75/318,633 07/04/2000
2,364,898 75/318,634 07/04/2000
2,364,900 75/319,847 07/04/2000
2,365,366 75/324,563 07/04/2000
2,363,515 75/326,143 07/04/2000
2,364,906 75/328,131 07/04/2000
2,364,912 75/331,060 07/04/2000
2,363,526 75/357,773 07/04/2000
2,364,938 75/358,408 07/04/2000
2,363,530 75/365,524 07/04/2000
2,364,972 75/383,599 07/04/2000
2,364,985 75/390,148 07/04/2000
2,363,549 75/395,716 07/04/2000
2,364,989 75/397,533 07/04/2000
2,363,556 75/399,162 07/04/2000
2,363,566 75/405,483 07/04/2000
2,364,998 75/406,286 07/04/2000
2,365,002 75/409,813 07/04/2000
2,365,377 75/410,583 07/04/2000
2,365,004 75/411,050 07/04/2000
2,365,010 75/414,333 07/04/2000
2,365,378 75/416,571 07/04/2000
2,363,584 75/418,011 07/04/2000
2,365,013 75/419,687 07/04/2000
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 105 |
2,363,589 75/420,032 07/04/2000
2,365,017 75/422,608 07/04/2000
2,365,018 75/423,787 07/04/2000
2,363,595 75/423,810 07/04/2000
2,365,380 75/423,937 07/04/2000
2,363,596 75/424,110 07/04/2000
2,363,597 75/424,628 07/04/2000
2,363,600 75/426,127 07/04/2000
2,365,030 75/427,620 07/04/2000
2,363,603 75/429,450 07/04/2000
2,363,625 75/442,478 07/04/2000
2,363,632 75/450,038 07/04/2000
2,365,063 75/450,531 07/04/2000
2,363,634 75/452,406 07/04/2000
2,363,636 75/454,680 07/04/2000
2,365,079 75/461,227 07/04/2000
2,363,647 75/462,664 07/04/2000
2,365,094 75/469,499 07/04/2000
2,363,664 75/474,517 07/04/2000
2,365,102 75/475,571 07/04/2000
2,365,389 75/477,639 07/04/2000
2,363,681 75/483,016 07/04/2000
2,365,117 75/485,197 07/04/2000
2,363,685 75/487,590 07/04/2000
2,365,122 75/487,880 07/04/2000
2,363,687 75/489,586 07/04/2000
2,365,127 75/492,344 07/04/2000
2,365,128 75/492,366 07/04/2000
2,365,129 75/492,431 07/04/2000
2,365,131 75/494,429 07/04/2000
2,365,132 75/494,537 07/04/2000
2,363,695 75/495,234 07/04/2000
2,363,699 75/497,016 07/04/2000
2,365,137 75/499,234 07/04/2000
2,365,147 75/503,857 07/04/2000
2,363,712 75/503,862 07/04/2000
2,365,148 75/505,119 07/04/2000
2,365,150 75/507,833 07/04/2000
2,363,726 75/509,777 07/04/2000
2,365,157 75/509,791 07/04/2000
2,365,158 75/509,797 07/04/2000
2,365,161 75/510,311 07/04/2000
2,365,162 75/510,671 07/04/2000
2,365,172 75/514,849 07/04/2000
2,363,741 75/516,348 07/04/2000
2,365,179 75/518,122 07/04/2000
2,365,180 75/518,143 07/04/2000
2,363,744 75/518,610 07/04/2000
2,365,185 75/519,716 07/04/2000
2,363,762 75/526,792 07/04/2000
2,365,204 75/527,028 07/04/2000
2,363,766 75/527,554 07/04/2000
2,365,207 75/529,283 07/04/2000
2,365,208 75/529,284 07/04/2000
2,365,209 75/529,285 07/04/2000
2,365,211 75/529,964 07/04/2000
2,365,213 75/531,777 07/04/2000
2,363,778 75/532,248 07/04/2000
2,365,218 75/534,509 07/04/2000
2,363,784 75/534,766 07/04/2000
2,363,786 75/535,163 07/04/2000
2,365,224 75/539,091 07/04/2000
2,365,225 75/539,718 07/04/2000
2,363,802 75/545,711 07/04/2000
2,363,805 75/546,013 07/04/2000
2,365,234 75/546,991 07/04/2000
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 106 |
2,365,236 75/547,667 07/04/2000
2,363,816 75/549,530 07/04/2000
2,363,818 75/550,130 07/04/2000
2,365,244 75/552,941 07/04/2000
2,365,408 75/554,683 07/04/2000
2,365,410 75/556,449 07/04/2000
2,363,842 75/557,815 07/04/2000
2,363,844 75/557,880 07/04/2000
2,365,253 75/558,527 07/04/2000
2,365,255 75/559,573 07/04/2000
2,363,849 75/559,614 07/04/2000
2,363,850 75/559,848 07/04/2000
2,363,857 75/561,699 07/04/2000
2,363,863 75/563,193 07/04/2000
2,365,413 75/564,491 07/04/2000
2,363,868 75/565,431 07/04/2000
2,363,886 75/571,126 07/04/2000
2,365,272 75/572,514 07/04/2000
2,363,891 75/573,471 07/04/2000
2,363,894 75/574,140 07/04/2000
2,365,278 75/574,685 07/04/2000
2,363,895 75/574,942 07/04/2000
2,363,898 75/575,821 07/04/2000
2,363,904 75/577,799 07/04/2000
2,365,418 75/585,435 07/04/2000
2,363,926 75/586,196 07/04/2000
2,363,932 75/587,073 07/04/2000
2,365,291 75/587,331 07/04/2000
2,363,946 75/590,883 07/04/2000
2,363,954 75/592,446 07/04/2000
2,363,955 75/592,585 07/04/2000
2,365,297 75/592,589 07/04/2000
2,363,956 75/592,700 07/04/2000
2,363,964 75/593,802 07/04/2000
2,363,965 75/594,064 07/04/2000
2,363,967 75/594,242 07/04/2000
2,365,424 75/596,571 07/04/2000
2,363,984 75/597,760 07/04/2000
2,363,985 75/598,050 07/04/2000
2,363,989 75/598,365 07/04/2000
2,363,990 75/598,367 07/04/2000
2,363,999 75/600,709 07/04/2000
2,364,002 75/601,429 07/04/2000
2,364,004 75/601,666 07/04/2000
2,365,304 75/602,413 07/04/2000
2,364,011 75/604,301 07/04/2000
2,364,014 75/605,233 07/04/2000
2,364,021 75/605,961 07/04/2000
2,364,025 75/607,141 07/04/2000
2,364,041 75/609,482 07/04/2000
2,365,430 75/610,320 07/04/2000
2,365,431 75/611,018 07/04/2000
2,364,052 75/613,186 07/04/2000
2,364,055 75/613,921 07/04/2000
2,364,056 75/614,278 07/04/2000
2,365,307 75/619,596 07/04/2000
2,364,067 75/619,715 07/04/2000
2,364,073 75/621,208 07/04/2000
2,364,083 75/623,865 07/04/2000
2,364,085 75/625,193 07/04/2000
2,364,095 75/626,969 07/04/2000
2,364,099 75/629,539 07/04/2000
2,364,108 75/631,274 07/04/2000
2,365,441 75/631,870 07/04/2000
2,364,130 75/638,945 07/04/2000
2,364,137 75/641,984 07/04/2000
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 107 |
2,364,153 75/645,987 07/04/2000
2,364,154 75/646,199 07/04/2000
2,364,157 75/646,574 07/04/2000
2,365,449 75/649,368 07/04/2000
2,364,169 75/649,637 07/04/2000
2,364,170 75/649,638 07/04/2000
2,364,171 75/649,639 07/04/2000
2,364,174 75/651,677 07/04/2000
2,364,179 75/654,606 07/04/2000
2,364,184 75/657,254 07/04/2000
2,364,185 75/658,127 07/04/2000
2,364,194 75/660,807 07/04/2000
2,364,198 75/661,480 07/04/2000
2,364,199 75/661,481 07/04/2000
2,364,200 75/662,321 07/04/2000
2,365,456 75/665,323 07/04/2000
2,364,212 75/666,506 07/04/2000
2,365,457 75/667,536 07/04/2000
2,364,230 75/672,547 07/04/2000
2,364,232 75/673,980 07/04/2000
2,365,462 75/677,564 07/04/2000
2,364,244 75/677,659 07/04/2000
2,364,246 75/677,666 07/04/2000
2,364,247 75/677,834 07/04/2000
2,364,251 75/679,097 07/04/2000
2,364,252 75/679,618 07/04/2000
2,364,253 75/679,619 07/04/2000
2,364,254 75/679,628 07/04/2000
2,364,262 75/681,717 07/04/2000
2,364,267 75/682,943 07/04/2000
2,364,268 75/682,944 07/04/2000
2,364,273 75/684,172 07/04/2000
2,364,279 75/685,611 07/04/2000
2,364,280 75/685,808 07/04/2000
2,364,283 75/686,821 07/04/2000
2,365,466 75/688,088 07/04/2000
2,364,294 75/691,459 07/04/2000
2,365,473 75/692,491 07/04/2000
2,364,297 75/692,607 07/04/2000
2,364,298 75/693,515 07/04/2000
2,364,299 75/693,800 07/04/2000
2,364,301 75/695,978 07/04/2000
2,364,315 75/701,230 07/04/2000
2,364,318 75/701,441 07/04/2000
2,364,351 75/711,316 07/04/2000
2,364,364 75/715,749 07/04/2000
2,364,365 75/715,997 07/04/2000
2,364,376 75/718,824 07/04/2000
2,364,389 75/729,025 07/04/2000
2,365,488 75/730,613 07/04/2000
2,364,392 75/730,817 07/04/2000
2,364,396 75/732,664 07/04/2000
2,364,406 75/737,505 07/04/2000
2,364,407 75/737,506 07/04/2000
2,364,415 75/739,476 07/04/2000
2,364,416 75/739,477 07/04/2000
2,364,420 75/740,503 07/04/2000
2,364,422 75/741,496 07/04/2000
2,364,423 75/741,498 07/04/2000
2,364,425 75/742,586 07/04/2000
2,364,439 75/748,197 07/04/2000
2,364,443 75/748,874 07/04/2000
2,364,456 75/753,973 07/04/2000
2,364,465 75/758,183 07/04/2000
2,365,493 75/758,193 07/04/2000
2,364,470 75/759,835 07/04/2000
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 108 |
2,364,472 75/759,973 07/04/2000
2,364,493 75/766,310 07/04/2000
2,364,504 75/769,559 07/04/2000
2,364,510 75/772,087 07/04/2000
2,364,518 75/773,074 07/04/2000
2,364,523 75/774,437 07/04/2000
2,364,531 75/776,713 07/04/2000
2,364,532 75/776,738 07/04/2000
2,365,498 75/777,696 07/04/2000
2,364,543 75/778,621 07/04/2000
2,364,548 75/779,616 07/04/2000
2,364,550 75/779,762 07/04/2000
2,364,559 75/782,000 07/04/2000
2,364,564 75/784,148 07/04/2000
2,364,570 75/784,706 07/04/2000
2,364,572 75/784,709 07/04/2000
2,364,574 75/785,899 07/04/2000
2,364,575 75/786,110 07/04/2000
2,364,586 75/788,006 07/04/2000
2,364,613 75/791,639 07/04/2000
2,364,618 75/792,859 07/04/2000
2,364,623 75/793,131 07/04/2000
2,364,625 75/793,605 07/04/2000
2,364,627 75/793,744 07/04/2000
2,364,629 75/793,817 07/04/2000
2,364,632 75/794,307 07/04/2000
2,364,634 75/794,630 07/04/2000
2,364,637 75/795,727 07/04/2000
2,364,643 75/795,912 07/04/2000
2,364,660 75/798,530 07/04/2000
2,364,663 75/798,976 07/04/2000
2,364,664 75/798,980 07/04/2000
2,364,665 75/799,039 07/04/2000
2,364,672 75/799,683 07/04/2000
2,364,680 75/801,300 07/04/2000
2,364,697 75/803,807 07/04/2000
2,364,717 75/809,107 07/04/2000
2,364,721 75/809,630 07/04/2000
2,364,734 75/813,687 07/04/2000
2,364,753 75/817,492 07/04/2000
2,364,767 75/823,942 07/04/2000
2,364,771 75/826,197 07/04/2000
2,364,772 75/827,222 07/04/2000
2,365,503 75/866,928 07/04/2000
2,365,323 75/978,441 07/04/2000
2,365,332 75/979,068 07/04/2000
2,365,336 75/979,190 07/04/2000
1,586,765 73/760,183 03/13/1990
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.
Octane Cafe, LLC, Chagrin Falls, Ohio, Registration No. 2883613 for the
mark "OCTANE CAFE", Cancellation No. 92053458.
VIONETTE BAEZ
Paralegal Specialist
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
DEBORAH S. COHN
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.
Knirps International GMBH, Solingen 15, Germany, Registration No. 957872
for the mark "KNIRPS", Cancellation No. 92053075.
Under the Gingko, Inc., Kansas City, MO, Registration No. 3050190 for the
mark "BODY NECTAR", Cancellation No. 92053478.
MONIQUE TYSON
Paralegal Specialist
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
DEBORAH S. COHN
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.
Immune-Tree International, Inc., Orem, UT, Registration No. 2415620 for the
mark "IMMUNE-TREE", Cancellation No. 92053408.
VERONICA WHITE
Paralegal Specialist
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
DEBORAH S. COHN
Commissioner for Trademarks
| 37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication |
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by 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 one of the joint 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 (Jonathan Davies) 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/GB2008/002848
and was filed on 26 August 2008 in the name of Jonathan Davies et al for
the invention entitled "Underwater Communications". The national stage
application number is 12/675,668 and has a date of 09 December 2010 under
35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(4).
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by 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 inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of each of the non-signing inventors.
The inventors whose signatures are missing (Arnold ALFORD and Razvan
GORNOVICEANU) 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/AU2007/001864 and was filed 04 December 2007 in
the names of Arnold ALFORD, John DEMARTINS, and Razvan GORNOVICEANU for the
invention entitled A FOLDABLE ENCLOSURE. The national stage application
number is 12/312,989 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(4) date
of 12 April 2010.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by 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 the inventor. 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 (Xi Gao Jian) 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/CA2007/001736
and was filed on 26 September 2007, in the names of Allan S. Hay, Xi Gao
Jian and Yi-Feng Wang for the invention entitled HIGH TEMPERATURE POLY(ARYL
ETHER)S CONTAINING A PHTHALAZINONE MOIETY. The national stage application
number is 12/680,510 and has a 35 U.S.C. §371(c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(4) date
of 26 March 2010.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by 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 (Luke AYMAR) 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/CA2007/001991
and was filed 07 November 2007 in the names of Jon THORVARDARSON, Luke
AYMAR, Prasad BODHANI, Edwin ELRICK, Rick GRANT, Thomas MATHIESON,
Christopher SAULNIER, and Andrew STOREY for the invention entitled
SUBMERSIBLE CAGE AND SYSTEM FOR FISH FARMING. The national stage number is
12/514,574 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of 20 December 2010.
| 37 CFR § 1.47 Notice by Publication |
37 CFR § 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of the following applications with
a petition under 37 CFR § 1.47 requesting the acceptance of the application
without the signature of all inventors or, if the inventor is deceased, the
legal representative of the deceased inventor. The petition in each
application has been granted. A notice has been sent to the last known
address of the non-signing inventor or legal representative. The inventors
or legal representatives whose signatures are missing may join in the
application by promptly filing an oath or declaration complying with 37
CFR § 1.63.
Non-Signing
Inventor(s)
Application or Legal
No. Filing Date Representative(s) Title of Invention
29/343,771 Sep. 18, 2009 Steve Gadsby Clothes Hanger
29/357,030 Mar. 5, 2010 Gwendolyn Newsome Ball Thrower
10/661,648 Sep. 12, 2003 Mark R. Dale High Speed Data
Service Via
Satellite Modem
Termination System
And Satellite Modems
10/982,218 Nov. 5, 2004 Peter Mose Larsen Proteins In Diabetes
Proteome Analysis
11/041,441 Jan. 24, 2005 Chris Feller Methods And Systems
For Synchronizing
Visualizations With
Audio Streams
11/560,835 Nov. 16, 2006 Alexey Oraevsky System And Method
Dmitry Vatolin For Compressing And
Victor Tyakht Reconstructing
Alexey Martynoff Audio Files
11/624,360 Jan. 18, 2007 Jerome Myers Personal Data
Submission
11/843,427 Aug. 22, 2007 Greg Zimmerman Hidden Decking
Fastener And Related
Method Of Fastening
Deck Boards
11/964,453 Dec. 26, 2007 Prasad Andhavarapu Locking And
Bhavani Releasing Mechanism
For Vehicle Seat
12/114,465 May 2, 2008 David Chan Fault Circuit
Interrupter With
Bi-Directional
Sensing
12/192,274 Aug. 15, 2008 Nikolai Alexandrovich Optically Addressed
Feoktistov Spatial Light
Modulator (Oaslm)
With Dielectric
Mirror Comprising
Layers Of Amorphous
Hydrogenated Carbon
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 112 |
12/268,237 Nov. 10, 2008 Dr. David N. Vanvliet Indole,
Benzimidazole, And
Benzolactam Boronic
Acid Compounds,
Analogs Thereof And
Methods Of Use
Thereof
12/316,920 Dec. 17, 2008 Gia D. Schneider Method And System
For Buying And
Selling Certified
Emission Reduction
Credits
12/327,905 Dec. 4, 2008 Piyush K. Sheth Biodisintegrable
Medical Devices
12/333,249 Dec. 11, 2008 Howard A. Ball Combination Of
Dehydroepiandros-
terone Or Dehydro-
epiandrosterone-
Sulfate With A
Glucocorticosteroid
For Treatment Of
Asthma, Chronic
Obstructive
Pulmonary Disease
Or Allergic Rhinitis
12/349,495 Jan. 6, 2009 Professor Vittorio Mechanical
Colletti Semicircular Canal
Stimulator
12/379,159 Feb. 13, 2009 Takatsugu Iwami Image Forming
Apparatus
12/382,006 Mar. 5, 2009 Paul Tranter Method For Preparing
A Conductive Feature
On A Substrate
12/382,634 Mar. 19, 2009 Steven Gable Real Time Inserion
And Reporting Of
Media Content
12/384,775 Apr. 8, 2009 Gary L. Bich Auger Finger With
Imants Ekis Resilient
Ryan Figgins Elastomeric
James F. Rayfield Retainer Retractor
12/390,991 Feb. 23, 2009 Bernard Laurent Method For Improving
The Cobalt Uptake
In Forage
12/397,427 Mar. 4, 2009 Nando Vennettilli Method For
Estimating The
Oxygen Concentration
In Internal
Combustion Engines
12/402,891 Mar. 12, 2009 Gregory M. Bailey Intruder Deterrent
Lighting
12/405,037 Mar. 16, 2009 Rich Kernan Disease Registry
And Outcome Analysis
For The Management
Of Treatment
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 113 |
Protocols
12/405,899 Mar. 17, 2009 Adrienne Sella Fabric Strip Cutter
12/412,476 Mar. 27, 2009 Francois Carrez Device And Method
For Automatically
Generating
Ontologies From Term
Definitions
Contained Into A
Dictionary
12/414,266 Mar. 30, 2009 Randall S. Conn Hydraulic Fluid
Mark A. Rains Determination System
And Method
12/414,388 Mar. 30, 2009 Joseph B. Lee, Jr. Afterburner For A
Portable Heater
12/414,405 Mar. 30, 2009 Joseph B. Lee, Jr. Optical Sensor
Control System For
A Portable Heater
12/415,544 Mar. 31, 2009 Arthur Burrows Heater Housing And
Heater For Plastic
Injection Machine
Nozzle
12/418,936 Apr. 6, 2009 Joseph B. Lee, Jr. Gas Forced Air
Heater
12/422,627 Apr. 13, 2009 Rami Shakarchi Methods And Systems
Jonathan Rogers For Providing
Laurent Marsan Interest Rate
Indices And Notes
12/428,836 Apr. 23, 2009 Terrell Sudrath Anti-Adhesion
Barrier Wound
Dressing Comprising
Processed Amniotic
Tissue And Method
Of Use
12/435,884 May 5, 2009 Karl-Heinz Fink Electrostatic
Ton Hoogstraaten Speaker Systems
Uwe Kempe And Methods
12/480,410 Jun. 8, 2009 Peter Palese Attenuated Negative
Adolfo Garcia-Sastre Strand Viruses With
Altered Interferon
Antagonist Activity
For Use As Vaccines
And Pharmaceuticals
12/485,542 Jun. 16, 2009 Lance Alan Wolf Hemostatic Clipping
Devices And Methods
12/488,267 Jun. 19, 2009 Paul Duggan Information
Gathering And
Decoding Apparatus
And Method Of Use
12/488,755 Jun. 22, 2009 Roy Patrick Adams Systems And Methods
Tobias Joseph Baker For Implementing
Virtual Nuclear Fuel
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 114 |
12/500,424 Jul. 9, 2009 Stacy Clevenger Low Pressure Heater
Eric Pitchford Control System
Joseph Lee
12/504,801 Jul. 17, 2009 Jeffrey A. Moss Estimating Solar
Capacities
12/508,500 Jul. 23, 2009 Ilya Agurok Luminaire
Illumination System
And Method
12/509,789 Jul. 27, 2009 Candido Pinto Multifocal
Ophthalmic Lens
Having Reduced
Ghosting
12/543,880 Aug. 19, 2009 Pauline Nolan Apparel
12/549,868 Aug. 28, 2009 Douglas Todd Hayden Short Distance
Range Resolution In
Pulsed Radar
12/552,711 Sep. 2, 2009 Sheryl H. Roadinger Robust Flow
Parameter Model For
Component-Level
Dynamic Turbine
System Control
12/555,071 Sep. 8, 2009 Ian Rubin De La Cable Protector For
Borbolla Electrical Outlet
Box
12/555,228 Sep. 8, 2009 Eduard Hilberer Compressed-Air
Supply Device With
Improved
Regeneration
Capacity
12/557,183 Sep. 10, 2009 Anthony Duva Method And Apparatus
Using Location-Based
Communication
12/558,937 Sep. 14, 2009 Christophe Cornillon Method Guaranteeing
Payment For
Electronic Commerce
In Particular By
Mobile Telephone
And A System
Implementing It
12/560,874 Sep. 16, 2009 Dor Snapir End-To-End Quality
Of Service And Flow
Control For
Adaptive Channels
12/563,641 Sep. 21, 2009 Edward Holman Implantable Or
Overstreet Insertable Medical
Devices
12/566,174 Sep. 24, 2009 Donald D. Dunlop Process For Drying
Coal
12/568,461 Sep. 28, 2009 Changhoi Koo System And Method
For Low Overhead
Paging In A Wireless
Communications
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 115 |
System
12/570,788 Sep. 30, 2009 Robert D. Allen Padded Patient
Immobilizer For
Surgery Tables
12/576,308 Oct. 9, 2009 Chris Parsons Storage-Enabled
Facilities
12/584,688 Sep. 10, 2009 Donald B. Spencer Method And
Apparatus For
Passing Geolocation
Using Synthetic-
Aperture Processing
12/605,430 Oct. 26, 2009 Alexandre Maciel Piezoelectric
Clamping Device
12/606,603 Oct. 27, 2009 Russ Ross In-Context Exact
(ICE) Matching
12/608,987 Oct. 29, 2009 Larry C. Anderson, Jr. Method And System
For Integrating An
Entertainment-Based
Project With A
Method And System
From The Financial
Protocol Of A
Financial
Institution Via A
Communications
Network
12/611,712 Nov. 3, 2009 Elizabeth Murray Inner Process
12/613,256 Nov. 5, 2009 Guizeng Shi Base Station
Apparatus,
Communication
Terminal Apparatus,
And Communication
Method
12/613,282 Nov. 5, 2009 Robert E. Kilroy, Jr. Welding Process For
Producing Rotating
Turbomachinery
12/619,404 Nov. 16, 2009 Rafael C. Take Expansion Joint For
Pipe System
12/639,313 Dec. 16, 2009 Robert J. Starr Apparatus And
Method For
Restricting Access
To Data
12/641,738 Mar. 8, 2010 Scott Chesser Marks Advanced Processing
Data Storage Device
12/642,288 Dec. 18, 2009 Robert Starr Apparatus And Method
For Providing
Communications And
Connection-Oriented
Services To Devices
12/648,798 Dec. 29, 2009 Ryan Hanau Interactive Display
Highlight Systems,
Methods, And
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 116 |
Computer Program
Products
12/655,356 Dec. 28, 2009 Maarten Menzo Wentink Acknowledging Data
Transmissions In The
Presence Of Multiple
Shared-Communica-
tions Channels
12/706,530 Feb. 16, 2010 Erik M. Erbe Method For
Stabilizing
Vertebral Body
Architecture
12/708,232 Feb. 18, 2010 Sven M. A. Powilleit Remote Device
Management System
And Method
12/714,619 Mar. 1, 2010 Gregory A. Methods And Circuits
Jean-Baptiste For Controlling A
Battery Disconnect
Switch
12/731,036 Mar. 24, 2010 Sandra Hazeltine System And Method
Judith Continelli For Facilitating
The Handling Of A
Dispute Using
Disparate
Architecture
12/777,466 May 11, 2010 Edwin S. Olds Device And Method
For Reliable Data
Storage
| Discontinuation of Document Delivery Box Service |
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Discontinuation of Document Delivery Box Service
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Effective March 31, 2011 the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO) will discontinue delivery box service for copies of USPTO
documents.
DATES: Effective Date: The changes in this notice are effective on March
31, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Ricks-Beach, Patent and Trademark
Copy Fulfillment Branch, by telephone at 703-756-1169; or via e-mail
addressed to Marilyn.RicksBeach@uspto.gov; or by mail addressed to: U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450,
attention Marilyn Ricks-Beach.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Delivery boxes were made available to local
customers more than 30 years ago as a way to avoid potential delays
associated with mailing at a time when postal service was less timely and
reliable and overnight delivery options were not readily available. Today,
local delivery via the U.S. Postal Service is typically only one day and
there are numerous guaranteed overnight delivery options available.
Currently, USPTO pays the cost of postal service. Customers pay delivery
charges only if they request overnight service.
The delivery boxes were instituted at a time when the USPTO was the only
source for searching and obtaining copies of U.S. Patent and Trademark
documents. Customers who wished to receive local delivery of their ordered
copies paid a nominal yearly fee to rent a local delivery box in the Patent
Search Room. When the Trademark Office moved to a separate location on the
USPTO campus, delivery boxes were installed at that site as a convenience
for customers.
When first instituted, there were some 12 million copies per year being
delivered to over 600 delivery boxes located within the area of the Patent
Search Room. Over the intervening years, as a result of alternative
sources and increased copy and delivery technology, the volume of copies
delivered to the boxes has dramatically changed. Today, the USPTO
delivers fewer than 35,000 copies per year to delivery boxes-less than 20
percent of total copy orders. Fewer than 80 of the current 216 boxes are
rented.
The cost of providing delivery box service is approximately $215,000 per
year. Discontinuing the service will result in net yearly savings of over
$100,000.
Effective March 31, 2011 the PTO will discontinue delivery box service
for copies of USPTO documents. After March 31, all copies of documents
ordered from the USPTO Public Records Division will be shipped via United
States Postal Service unless arrangements are made for overnight delivery.
The delivery box center located next to the Carlyle garage will be closed
and service to the boxes located in the Randolph Square building in
Shirlington will be discontinued.
February 11, 2011 JOHN B. OWENS II
Chief Information Officer
United Stated Patent and Trademark Office
| Notice of Stayed Suspension |
Notice of Stayed Suspension
Michael A. Guth of Santa Cruz, California, a registered patent attorney
(Registration number 45,983). Mr. Guth has been suspended for twenty-four
(24) months with the entirety of the suspension stayed and placed on
probation for a period of twenty-four (24) months by the United States
Patent and Trademark Office ("Office") for violating 37 C.F.R. §§
10.23(b)(4) for conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation; 10.23(b)(6) for conduct reflecting adversely on a
practitioner's fitness to practice before the Office; 10.77(c) for
neglecting entrusted legal matters; and 10.112(b) for commingling funds.
Mr. Guth is permitted to practice before the Office during his probation
unless the stay of the suspension is lifted.
Mr. Guth submitted checks to the Office drawn on his operating account,
but he failed to maintain sufficient funds in the account when the checks
were presented for payment. Mr. Guth paid the fees for which the checks
were issued. Upon receipt of notice of the investigation of his handling of
client funds Mr. Guth immediately undertook remedial action to ensure that
the conduct herein would never reoccur. No client has reported substantial
harm to OED. Mr. Guth has no previous disciplinary record.
This action is the result of a settlement agreement between Mr. Guth and
the OED Director pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 2(b)(2)(D) and 32, and 37 C.F.R.
§§ 11.20, 11.26, and 11.59. Disciplinary decisions involving practitioners
are posted for public reading at the Office of Enrollment and Discipline's
Reading Room located at: http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/OEDReadingRoom.jsp.
February 10, 2011 MARIA C. CAMPO
Acting Deputy General Counsel for General Law
United States Patent and Trademark Office
on behalf of
DAVID M. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
| Patents and Serial Numbers Available for License or Sale |
Patents and Serial Numbers Available
for License or Sale
7,475,666 STROKE CONTROL ASSEMBLY
Attorney: William F. Ryann
Contact: John Heimbecker
1637 Wieder Rd
Cibolo, Tx 78108
(Voice) 210-658-9274
(Email) n5eem@ardelco.com
info@ardellco.com
7,677,190 SLOTTED HULLS FOR BOATS
Contact: Buddie G Miller
Timshel Lodge, Maracas Valley, St. Joseph, Trinidad & Tobago
(Voice) (868) 662-0282
(Fax) (868) 662-0282
(Email) stability@rhodeshulls.com
7,752,956 MULTI-FUNCTIONAL SUPPORT STRUCTURE
Contact: David R. Campbell
PO Box 1336 Richland WA 99352-1336
(Voice) (509) 396-1784
(Email) ddtc@clearwire.net
7,789,410 PORTABLE FOLDING MOTORCYCLE STAND
Contacts: Dana L. White
1154 West Fork Way
Watkins, Colorado 80137
(Voice) 303-364-7727
(Email) dirtcruzer@netzero.net
5,946,635 SPORTING EVENT CONFIGURABLE RADIO RECEIVER/SCANNER
Attorney: Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker
Contact: David Dominguez
27 Calle Cabrillo
Foothill Ranch, CA. 92610
(Voice) 949-842-3800
(Email) dcdominguez@ieee.org
6,505,736 GARMENT STORAGE APPARATUS AND SYSTEM
Contact: Brian J. Donovan
Nashua, NH
(Voice) 617-899-7736
(Email) dunny5@comcast.net
D. 447,847 WHEELED CART
Arthur C. Bryce
Timothy Shyshka
Contact: Harold Shyshka
6034 Leah Lane
Nanaimo, B.C. V9V-1W7
Canada
(Voice) 250-585-6535
(Fax) 250-585-6533
(Email) handiwise@shaw.ca
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 120 |
7,241,279 HAND-OPERATED SQUEEZABLE EYE WASHER
Attorney: Mark D. Wieczorek
Contact: Mark D. Wieczorek
PO Box 70072
San Diego, CA 92167
(Voice) (619) 818-4615
(Fax) (443) 238-2678
(Email) m.wieczorek 1@cox.net
D. 626,181 GOLF TOSS GAME
Attorney: Theresa M. Seal, Esq.
Inventor: Pedro S. Lima
Contact: David P. Gaudio, Esq., The Inventors Network, Inc.
332 Academy Street, Carnegie, PA 15106
(Voice) (412) 278-0607
(Fax) (412) 278-1693
(E-mail) david@inventorsnetwork.net
7,847,512 SOLAR POWERED DC LOAD SYSTEM
Contact: Min Carroll (Inventor)
P.O. Box 236
Warrenville, IL 60555, USA
(Voice) 630-518-1741
(Fax) 630-892-6543
(Email) mcapps999@gmail.com
6,337,917 RULE-BASED MOVING OBJECT SEGMENTATION
Contact: Levent Onural
Bilkent Universitesi Lojmanlari 10/1
TR-06800 Ankara
Turkey
(Voice) International 90 312 2664082 or
International 90 312 2664133
(Fax) International 90 312 2664126
(Email) onural@bilkent.edu.tr
(Website) www.ee.bilkent.edu.tr/~onural/patent1
7,827,806 PORTABLE COOLED MERCHANDIZING UNIT
Attorney: Annette M. Frawley
General Mills, Inc., Number One General Mills Blvd
Minneapolis, MN 55426
(Voice) 763-764-4158
(Fax) 763-764-2268
(Email) gmi.patents@genmills.com
6,012,746 UNIVERSAL, SAND DISPERSION APPARATUS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES
Attorney: John D. Gugliotta, P.E.,
Contact: Grace Girdwain
Consultant
8320 S. Nashville
Burbank, IL 60459
(Voice) 330-253-2225
(Fax) 888-298-0230
(Email) patent@inventorshelph.com
7,481,745 FLOATING AQUATIC STAIR STEPPER
Contact: Dennis Malazinsky
447 Ridge Road
Schenevus, NY 12155
(Voice) (607) 638-1912
(Email) NJDMM@netzero.com
| Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications |
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No.: PTO-P-2010-0088]
Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35
U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: These supplementary guidelines are intended to assist United
States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) personnel in the
examination of claims in patent applications for compliance with 35
U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, which requires that claims particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that applicant
regards as his or her invention. In addition, supplemental information
is provided to assist Office personnel in the examination of claims
that contain functional language for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112,
especially computer-implemented invention claims. The guidelines also
include information to assist Office personnel in the examination of
dependent claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. The
guidelines are a supplement to the current provisions in the Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) pertaining to 35 U.S.C. 112, and the
current provisions in the MPEP pertaining to 35 U.S.C. 112 remain in effect
except as where indicated in these guidelines.
DATES: These guidelines and supplemental examination information are
effective February 9, 2011. These guidelines and supplemental
examination information apply to all applications filed before, on or
after the effective date of February 9, 2011.
Comment Deadline Date: To be ensured of consideration, written
comments must be received on or before April 11, 2011. No public
hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES: Comments concerning these guidelines and supplemental
examination information may be sent by electronic mail message over the
Internet addressed to SEGuidelines112@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.
The comments will be available for public inspection at the Office
of the Commissioner for Patents, located in Madison East, Tenth Floor,
600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, and will be available via the
USPTO Internet Web site (address: http://www.uspto.gov). Because
comments will be available for public inspection, information that is
not desired to be made public, such as an address or phone number,
should not be included in the comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroline D. Dennison, Nicole D.
Haines, or Joni Y. Chang, Legal Advisors, Office of Patent Legal
Administration, Office of the Associate Commissioner for Patent
Examination Policy, by telephone at (571) 272-7729, (571) 272-7717 or
(571) 272-7720, or by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments-Patents,
Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450,
marked to the attention of Caroline D. Dennison.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These guidelines are intended to assist
Office personnel in the examination of claims for compliance with 35
U.S.C. 112, ¶2 (§112, ¶2), which requires that claims
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that
applicant regards as his or her invention. In addition, supplemental
information is provided to assist Office personnel in the examination
of claims that contain functional language for compliance with 35
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 122 |
U.S.C. 112, especially computer-implemented invention claims. The
guidelines also include information to assist Office personnel in the
examination of dependent claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶4
(§112, ¶4). The guidelines and supplemental information are based
on the Office's current understanding of the law and are believed to be
fully consistent with the binding precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) and
its predecessor courts.
These guidelines and supplemental information do not constitute
substantive rule making and hence do not have the force and effect of
law. They have been developed as a matter of internal Office management
and are 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 the guidelines and supplemental information is
neither appealable nor petitionable.
These guidelins and supplemental information merely update USPTO
examination practice for consistency with the USPTO's current
understanding of the case law regarding the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
112. Therefore, these guidelines and supplemental information relate
only to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of
agency organization, procedure, or practice. The USPTO is providing
this opportunity for public comment because the USPTO desires the
benefit of public comment on these guidelines and supplemental
information; however, notice and an opportunity for public comment are
not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or any other law. See Cooper Techs.
Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5
U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not require notice and
comment rule making for "`interpretative rules, general statements of
policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.'"
(quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A))). Persons submitting written comments
should note that the USPTO may not provide a "comment and response"
analysis of such comments as notice and an opportunity for public
comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or any other law.
Part 1: Examination Guidelines for Ensuring Compliance With 35 U.S.C.
112, Second Paragraph-Definite Claim Language
I. Background: Optimizing patent quality by providing clear notice
to the public of the boundaries of the inventive subject matter
protected by a patent grant fosters innovation and competitiveness.
Accordingly, providing high quality patents is one of the agency's
guiding principles. The Office recognizes that issuing patents with
clear and definite claim language is a key component to enhancing the
quality of patents and raising confidence in the patent process.
As part of the ongoing efforts to enhance patent quality and
continually improve patent examination, the Office is issuing
clarifying guidelines on examination of claims under §112, ¶2.
This statutory section requires that a patent application specification
shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and
distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as
his or her invention. In patent examining parlance, the claim language
must be "definite" to comply with §112, ¶2. Conversely, a claim
that does not comply with this requirement of §112, ¶2 is "indefinite."
It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims
that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the
boundaries of protected subject matter. Therefore, claims that do not
meet this standard must be rejected under §112, ¶2 as indefinite.
Such a rejection requires that the applicant respond by explaining why
the language is definite or by amending the claim, thus making the
record clear regarding the claim boundaries prior to issuance. As an
indefiniteness rejection requires the applicant to respond by
explaining why the language is definite or by amending the claim, such
rejections must clearly identify the language that causes the claim to
be indefinite and thoroughly explain the reasoning for the rejection.
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 123 |
These guidelines set forth the examining procedure for making such
determinations and focus on several key aspects of examining claims
under §112, ¶2. The guidelines are a first step toward providing
additional examination guidance in this area and may be supplemented in
later stages to address further topics relating to definite claim
language. This document is not a comprehensive revision of the MPEP.
However, it is anticipated that the MPEP will be updated based on a
final version of these guidelines, and those sections of the MPEP directly
affected by these guidelines are referenced therein. The current provisions
in the MPEP that are consistent with these guidelines remain in effect.
II. Step 1-Interpreting the Claims
A. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation: The first step to examining
a claim to determine if the language is definite is to fully understand
the subject matter of the invention disclosed in the application and to
ascertain the boundaries of that subject matter encompassed by the
claim. During examination, a claim must be given its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would
be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the
applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution,
giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the
possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more
broadly than is justified.1 The focus of the inquiry regarding the
meaning of a claim should be what would be reasonable from the
perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art.2 See MPEP §2111
for a full discussion of broadest reasonable interpretation.
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must
be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with
the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and
customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of
a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of
the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art.
However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is
the specification-the greatest clarity is obtained when the
specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The presumption
that a term is given its ordinary and customary meaning may be rebutted
by the applicant by clearly setting forth a different definition of the
term in the specification.3 When the specification sets a clear path
to the claim language, the scope of the claims is more easily
determined and the public notice function of the claims is best served.
See MPEP §2111.01 for a full discussion of the plain meaning of
claim language.
B. Claims Under Examination Are Evaluated With a Different Standard
Than Patented Claims to Determine Whether the Language Is Definite:
Patented claims enjoy a presumption of validity and are not given the
broadest reasonable interpretation during court proceedings involving
infringement and validity, and can be interpreted based on a fully
developed prosecution record. Accordingly, when possible, courts
construe patented claims in favor of finding a valid interpretation. A
court will not find a patented claim indefinite unless it is
"insolubly ambiguous."4 In other words, the validity of a claim
will be preserved if some meaning can be gleaned from the language.
In contrast, no presumption of validity attaches before the
issuance of a patent. The Office is not required or even permitted to
interpret claims when examining patent applications in the same manner
as the courts, which, post-issuance, operate under the presumption of
validity.5 The Office must construe claims in the broadest reasonable
manner during prosecution in an effort to establish a clear record of
what applicant intends to claim. In deciding whether a pending claim
particularly points out and distinctly claims the subject matter, a
lower threshold of ambiguity is applied during prosecution.6 The
lower threshold is applied because the patent record is in development
and not fixed. As such, applicant has the ability to provide
explanation and/or amend the claims to ensure that the meaning of the
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 124 |
language is clear and definite prior to issuance.7
During examination, after applying the broadest reasonable
interpretation to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed
invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be
rejected.8 For example, if the language of a claim, given its
broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable
interpretation, then a rejection under §112, ¶2 is appropriate.9 Examiners,
however, are cautioned against confusing claim breadth with claim
indefiniteness. A broad claim is not indefinite merely because it
encompasses a wide scope of subject matter provided the scope is clearly
defined. Instead, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the
protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is
unclear. For example, a genus claim that covers multiple species is broad,
but is not indefinite because of its breadth, which is otherwise clear. But
a genus claim that could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear
which species are covered would be indefinite (e.g., because there is more
than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the
claim). See PART 1, section III.A.4. (below), for more information regarding
the determination of whether a Markush claim satisfies the requirements
of §112, ¶2.
C. Determine Whether Each Claim Limitation Invokes 35 U.S.C. 112,
¶6 or Not: As part of the claim interpretation analysis,
examiners should determine whether each limitation invokes 35 U.S.C.
112, ¶6 (112, ¶6) or not. If the claim limitation invokes 112, ¶6,
the claim limitation must "be construed to cover the corresponding
structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
equivalents thereof."10 See PART 1, section III.C. (below), for
more information regarding the determination of whether a limitation
invokes 112, ¶6, and means-plus-function claim limitations.
III. Step 2-Determining Whether Claim Language Is Definite: During
prosecution, applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous
claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the
claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope
of the patentee's right to exclude.11 As the Federal Circuit stated
in Halliburton Energy Services:
We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to
resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly
desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in
appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during
prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in
litigation.12
A decision on whether a claim is indefinite under §112, ¶2
requires a determination of whether those skilled in the art would
understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the
specification.13 Claim terms are typically given their ordinary and
customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art, and the generally understood meaning of particular terms
may vary from art to art. Therefore, it is important to analyze claim
terms in view of the application's specification from the perspective
of those skilled in the relevant art since a particular term used in
one patent or application may not have the same meaning when used in a
different application.14
The following sections highlight certain areas in which questions
of definiteness commonly arise.
A. Indeterminate Terms
1. Functional Claiming: A claim term is functional when it recites
a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is."15 There is
nothing intrinsically wrong with the use of such claim language.16 In
fact, §112, ¶6, expressly authorizes a form of functional claiming
(means-plus-function claim limitations discussed in III.C. below).
Functional language may also be employed to limit the claims without
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 125 |
using the means-plus-function format.17 Unlike means-plus-function
claim language that applies only to purely functional limitations,18
functional claiming often involves the recitation of some structure
followed by its function. For example, in In re Schreiber, the claims
were directed to a conical spout (the structure) that "allow[ed]
several kernels of popped popcorn to pass through at the same time"
(the function).19 As noted by the court in Schreiber, "[a] patent
applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either
structurally or functionally."20
Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional
language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the
scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be
indefinite.21 For example, when claims merely recite a description of
a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the
invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear.22
Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps
that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or
methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.23
Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or
methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the
written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the
enabling disclosure,24 both of which are required by §112, ¶1.25 For
instance, a single means claim covering every conceivable means for
achieving the stated result was held to be invalid under §112, ¶1 because
the court recognized that the specification, which disclosed only those
means known to the inventor, was not commensurate in scope with the
claim.26 For more information regarding the written description requirement
and enablement requirement under §112, ¶1, see MPEP §§2161-2164.08(c)
and PART 2, sections I and II (below).
When a claim limitation employs functional language, the examiner's
determination of whether the limitation is sufficiently definite will
be highly dependent on context (e.g., the disclosure in the
specification and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the
art).27 For example, a claim that included the term "fragile gel"
was found to be indefinite because the definition of the term in the
specification was functional, i.e., the fluid is defined by what it
does rather than what it is ("ability of the fluid to transition
quickly from gel to liquid, and the ability of the fluid to suspend
drill cuttings at rest"), and it was ambiguous as to the requisite
degree of the fragileness of the gel, the ability of the gel to suspend
drill cuttings (i.e., gel strength), and/or some combination of the
two.28 In another example, the claims directed to a tungsten filament
for electric incandescent lamps were held invalid for including a
limitation that recited "comparatively large grains of such size and
contour as to prevent substantial sagging or offsetting during a normal
or commercially useful life for such a lamp or other device."29 The
court observed that the prior art filaments also "consisted of
comparatively large crystals" but they were "subject to offsetting"
or shifting, and the court further found that the phrase "of such size
and contour as to prevent substantial sagging and offsetting during a
normal or commercially useful life for a lamp or other device" did not
adequately define the structural characteristics of the grains (e.g.,
the size and contour) to distinguish the claimed invention from the
prior art.30 Similarly, a claim was held invalid because it recited
"sustantially (sic) pure carbon black in the form of commercially
uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy
or porous exterior."31 In the latter example, the Court observed
various problems with the limitation: "commercially uniform" meant
only the degree of uniformity buyers desired; "comparatively small"
did not add anything because no standard for comparison was given; and
"spongy" and "porous" are synonyms that the Court found unhelpful
in distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art.32
In comparison, a claim limitation reciting "transparent to
infrared rays" was held to be definite because the specification
showed that a substantial amount of infrared radiation was always
transmitted even though the degree of transparency varied depending on
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 126 |
certain factors.33 Likewise, the claims in another case were held
definite because applicant provided "a general guideline and examples
sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine
whether a process uses a silicon dioxide source `essentially free of
alkali metal' to make a reaction mixture `essentially free of alkali
metal' to produce a zeolitic compound `essentially free of alkali
metal.'"34
Examiners should consider the following factors when examining
claims that contain functional language to determine whether the
language is ambiguous: (1) Whether there is a clear cut indication of
the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the
language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only
states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of
ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what
structure or steps are encompassed by the claim. These factors are
examples of points to be considered when determining whether language
is ambiguous and are not intended to be all inclusive or limiting.
Other factors may be more relevant for particular arts. The primary
inquiry is whether the language leaves room for ambiguity or whether
the boundaries are clear and precise.
During prosecution, applicant may resolve the ambiguities of a
functional limitation in a number of ways. For example: (1) "The
ambiguity might be resolved by using a quantitative metric (e.g.,
numeric limitation as to a physical property) rather than a qualitative
functional feature;"35 (2) applicant could demonstrate that the
"specification provide[s] a formula for calculating a property along
with examples that meet the claim limitation and examples that do
not;"36 (3) applicant could demonstrate that the specification
provides a general guideline and examples sufficient to teach a person
skilled in the art when the claim limitation was satisfied;37 or (4)
applicant could amend the claims to recite the particular structure
that accomplishes the function.
2. Terms of Degree: When a term of degree is used in the claim, the
examiner should determine whether the specification provides some
standard for measuring that degree.38 If the specification does not
provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must
be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could
nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is
recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of
degree).39 The claim is not indefinite if the specification provides
examples or teachings that can be used to measure a degree even without
a precise numerical measurement (e.g., a figure that provides a
standard for measuring the meaning of the term of degree).40 During
prosecution, an applicant may also overcome an indefiniteness rejection
by submitting a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing examples that
meet the claim limitation and examples that do not.41
3. Subjective Terms: When a subjective term is used in the claim,
the examiner should determine whether the specification supplies some
standard for measuring the scope of the term, similar to the analysis for a
term of degree. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow
the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the
exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the
claim indefinite.42 Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained,
subjective opinion of a particular individual purported
to be practicing the invention.43
For example, in Datamize, the invention was directed to a computer
interface screen with an "aesthetically pleasing look and feel."44
The meaning of the term "aesthetically pleasing" depended solely on
the subjective opinion of the person selecting features to be included
on the interface screen. Nothing in the intrinsic evidence (e.g., the
specification) provided any guidance as to what design choices would
result in an "aesthetically pleasing" look and feel.45 The claims
were held indefinite because the interface screen may be "aesthetically
pleasing" to one user but not to another.46
During prosecution, the applicant may overcome a rejection by
providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 127 |
one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure, or by
amending the claim to remove the subjective term.
4. Markush Groups: A "Markush" claim recites a list of alternatively
useable species.47 A Markush claim is commonly formatted as: "selected from
the group consisting of A, B, and C;" however, the phrase "Markush claim"
as used in these guidelines means any claim that recites a list of
alternatively useable species regardless of format. A Markush claim may
encompass a large number of alternative species, but is not necessarily
indefinite under §112, ¶2 for such breadth.48 In certain circumstances,
however, a Markush group may be so expansive that persons skilled in the
art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For
example, a Markush group that encompasses a massive number of distinct
alternative species may be indefinite under §112, ¶2 if one skilled in the
art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claim due to an inability
to envision all of the members of the Markush group. In such a
circumstance, an examiner may reject the claim for indefiniteness under
§112, ¶2.
In addition, a Markush claim may be rejected under the judicially
approved "improper Markush grouping" doctrine when the claim contains
an improper grouping of alternatively useable species.49 A Markush
claim contains an "improper Markush grouping" if: (1) The species of
the Markush group do not share a "single structural similarity,"50
or (2) the species do not share a common use. Members of a Markush
group share a "single structural similarity" when they belong to the
same recognized physical or chemical class or to the same art-recognized
class. Members of a Markush group share a common use when they are
disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally
equivalent.51 When an examiner determines that the species of a Markush
group do not share a single structural similarity or do not share a common
use, then a rejection on the basis that the claim contains an "improper
Markush grouping" is appropriate. The examiner should maintain the
rejection of the claim on the basis that the claim contains an "improper
Markush grouping" until the claim is amended to include only the species
that share a single structural similarity and a common use, or the
applicant presents a sufficient showing that the species in fact share a
single structural similarity and a common use.
Under principles of compact prosecution, the examiner should also
require the applicant to elect a species or group of indistinct species
for search and examination (i.e., an election of species).52 If the
examiner does not find the species or group of indistinct species in
the prior art, then the examiner should extend the search to those
additional species that fall within the scope of a permissible Markush
claim. In other words, the examiner should extend the search to the
species that share a single structural similarity and a common use. The
improper Markush claim should be examined for patentability over the
prior art with respect to the elected species or group of indistinct
species, as well as the species that share a single structural
similarity and a common use with the elected species or group of
indistinct species (i.e., the species that would fall within the scope
of a proper Markush claim). The examiner should also reject the claim
under §112, ¶2 as indefinite if appropriate.
Depending upon the circumstances of an application, it may be
appropriate to reject a Markush claim under §112, ¶2 as indefinite
(if one skilled in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the
Markush claim due to an inability to envision all of the members of the
Markush), or under the "improper Markush grouping" doctrine (if the
species of a Markush group do not share a single structural similarity
or a common use). Alternatively, it may be appropriate to reject a
Markush claim under both §112, ¶2 and the "improper Markush grouping"
doctrine.
5. Dependent Claims: When examining a dependent claim, the examiner
should also determine whether the claim complies with §112, ¶4,
which requires that dependent claims contain a reference to a previous
claim in the same application, specify a further limitation of the
subject matter claimed, and necessarily include all the limitations of
the previous claim.53 If the dependent claim does not comply with the
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 128 |
requirements of §112, ¶4, the examiner should reject the dependent
claim under §112, ¶4 as unpatentable rather than objecting to the
claim.54 Although the requirements of §112, ¶4 are related to matters of
form, non-compliance with §112, ¶4 renders the claim unpatentable just as
non-compliance with other paragraphs of §112 would.55 For example, a
dependent claim must be rejected under §112, ¶4 if it omits an element
from the claim upon which it depends56 or it fails to add a limitation to
the claim upon which it depends.57
B. Correspondence Between Specification and Claims: The
specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so
that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of
the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is
required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must
find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the
meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the
specification. To meet the definiteness requirement under §112,
¶2, the exact claim terms are not required to be used in the
specification as long as the specification provides the needed guidance
on the meaning of the terms (e.g., by using clearly equivalent terms)
so that the meaning of the terms is readily discernable to a person of
ordinary skill in the art.58 Nevertheless, glossaries of terms used
in the claims are a helpful device for ensuring adequate definition of
terms used in claims. Express definitions of claim terms can eliminate
the need for any "time-consuming and difficult inquiry into
indefiniteness."59 Therefore, applicants are encouraged to use
glossaries as a best practice in patent application preparation. If the
specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis
for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37
CFR 1.75(d)(1).60 Applicant will be required to make appropriate
amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis
for the claim terms provided no new matter is introduced, or amend the
claim.
A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a
conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the
specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain.61
For example, a claim with a limitation of "the clamp means including a
clamp body and first and second clamping members, the clamping members
being supported by the clamp body" was determined to be indefinite
because the terms "first and second clamping members" and "clamp
body" were found to be vague in light of the specification which
showed no "clamp member" structure being "supported by the clamp
body."62 In another example, a claim was directed to a process of
treating an aluminum surface with an alkali silicate solution and
included a further limitation that the surface has an "opaque"
appearance.63 The specification, meanwhile, associated the use of an
alkali silicate with a glazed or porcelain-like finish, which the
specification distinguished from an opaque finish.64 Noting that no
claim may be read apart from and independent of the supporting
disclosure on which it is based, the court found that the claim was
internally inconsistent based on the description, definitions and
examples set forth in the specification relating to the appearance of
the surface after treatment, and therefore indefinite.65
C. Interpreting Claim Limitations Under §112, ¶6
1. Determining Whether a Claim Limitation Invokes §112, ¶6: If a claim
limitation recites a term and associated functional language, the examiner
should determine whether the claim limitation invokes §112, ¶6. The claim
limitation is presumed to invoke §112, ¶6 when it explicitly uses the
phrase "means for" or "step for" and includes functional language. That
presumption is overcome when the limitation further includes the structure
necessary to perform the recited function.66
By contrast, a claim limitation that does not use the phrase "means for"
or "step for" will trigger the rebuttable presumption that §112, ¶6 does
not apply.67 This presumption is a strong one that is not readily
overcome.68 This strong presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 129 |
is shown to use a non-structural term that is "a nonce word or a verbal
construct that is not recognized as the name of structure" but is merely a
substitute for the term "means for," associated with functional language.69
However, §112, ¶6 will not apply if persons of ordinary skill in the art
reading the specification understand the term to be the name for the
structure that performs the function, even when the term covers a broad
class of structures or identifies the structures by their function (e.g.,
"filters," "brakes," "clamp," "screwdriver," and "locks").70 The term is
not required to denote a specific structure or a precise physical structure
to avoid the application of §112, ¶6.71
When the claim limitation does not use the phrase "means for" or "step
for," examiners should determine whether the claim limitation uses a
non-structural term (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means
for"). Examiners will apply §112, ¶6 to a claim limitation that uses a
non-structural term associated with functional language, unless the
non-structural term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in
the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the
art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., "filters"), or (2)
modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed
function. The following is a list of non-structural terms that may invoke
§112, ¶6: "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for,"
"component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine
for," or "system for."72 This list is not exhaustive, and other
non-structural terms may invoke §112, ¶6. The following are examples of
structural terms that have been found not to invoke §112, ¶6: "circuit
for,"73 "detent mechanism,"74 "digital detector for,"75 "reciprocating
member,"76 "connector assembly,"77 "perforation,"78 "sealingly connected
joints,"79 and "eyeglass hanger member."80
A limitation will not invoke §112, ¶6 if there is a structural modifier
that further describes the non-structural term. For example, although a
non-structural term like "mechanism" standing alone may invoke §112, ¶6
when coupled with a function, it will not invoke §112, ¶6 when it is
preceded by a structural modifier (e.g., "detent mechanism").81 By
contrast, when a non-structural term is preceded by a non-structural
modifier that does not have any generally understood structural meaning in
the art, the phrase may invoke §112, ¶6 when coupled with a function (e.g.,
"colorant selection mechanism," "lever moving element," or "movable link
member").82
To determine whether a word, term, or phrase coupled with a
function denotes structure, examiners should check whether: (1) The
specification provides a description sufficient to inform one of
ordinary skill in the art that the term denotes structure; (2) general
and subject matter specific dictionaries provide evidence that the term
has achieved recognition as a noun denoting structure; and (3) the
prior art provides evidence that the term has an art-recognized
structure to perform the claimed function.83
Examiners will apply §112, ¶6 to a claim limitation that meets the
following conditions: (1) The claim limitation uses the phrase "means for"
or "step for" or a non-structural term that does not have a structural
modifier; (2) the phrase "means for" or "step for" or the non-structural
term recited in the claim is modified by functional language; and (3) the
phrase "means for" or "step for" or the non-structural term recited in the
claim is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for
achieving the specified function.
This guideline modifies the 3-prong analysis in MPEP §2181, which will
be revised in due course.
When it is unclear whether a claim limitation invokes §112, ¶6 or not, a
rejection under §112, ¶2 may be appropriate.84 Similarly, when applicant
uses the phrase "means for" or "step for" in the preamble, a rejection
under §112, ¶2 may be appropriate when it is unclear whether the preamble
is reciting a means (or step) plus function limitation or whether the
preamble is merely stating the intended use of the claimed invention. If
applicant uses a structural or non-structural term with the word "for" in
the preamble, the examiner should not construe such phrase as reciting a
means-plus-function limitation.
2. Rejections Under §112, ¶2 When Examining Means-Plus-Function
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 130 |
Limitations Under §112, ¶6: Once the examiner determines that a claim
limitation is a means-plus-function limitation invoking §112, ¶6, the
examiner should determine the claimed function85 and then review the
written description of the specification to determine whether the
corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed
function are disclosed.86 The disclosure must be reviewed from the point of
view of one skilled in the relevant art to determine whether that person
would understand the written description to disclose the corresponding
structure, material, or acts.87 To satisfy the definiteness requirement
under §112, ¶2, the written description must clearly link or associate
the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function.88
A rejection under §112, ¶2 is appropriate if the written description
fails to link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts
to the claimed function, or if there is no disclosure (or insufficient
disclosure) of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed
function.89 A bare statement that known techniques or methods can be
used would not be a sufficient disclosure to support a means-plus-function
limitation.90
A rejection under §112, ¶2 may be appropriate in the following
situations when examining means-plus-function claim limitations under §112,
¶6: (1) When it is unclear whether a claim limitation invokes §112, ¶6; (2)
when §112, ¶6 is invoked and there is no disclosure or there is
insufficient disclosure of structure, material, or acts for performing the
claimed function; and/or (3) when §112, ¶6 is invoked and the supporting
disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure,
material, or acts to the claimed function.91 When the examiner cannot
identify the corresponding structure, material, or acts, a rejection under
§112, ¶2 should be made. In some cases, a requirement for information under
37 CFR 1.105 may be made to require the identification of the corresponding
structure, material, or acts.92 If a requirement for information under 37
CFR 1.105 is made and the applicant states that he or she lacks such
information or the reply does not identify the corresponding structure,
material, or acts, a rejection under §112, ¶2 should be made.93
If the written description sets forth the corresponding structure,
material, or acts in compliance with §112, ¶2, the claim limitation must
"be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
described in the specification and equivalents thereof."94 However,
functional limitations that are not recited in the claim, or structural
limitations from the written description that are unnecessary to perform
the claimed function, cannot be imported into the claim.95
3. Computer-Implemented Means-Plus-Function Limitations: For a
computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking
§112, ¶6, the corresponding structure is required to be more than
simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor.96 To claim a
means for performing a particular computer-implemented function and
then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure
designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional
claiming.97
The structure corresponding to a §112, ¶6 claim limitation for a
computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to
transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed
in the specification.98 The corresponding structure is not simply a
general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as
programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.99 Thus, the
specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a
general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer.100 An
algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for
solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task."101
Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms
including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or "in
any other manner that provides sufficient structure."102
A rejection under §112, ¶2 is appropriate if the specification
discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or
microprocessor.103 For example, mere reference to a general purpose
computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation
of the appropriate programming,104 or simply reciting "software" without
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 131 |
providing detail about the means to accomplish the software function,105
would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to
satisfy the requirements of §112, ¶2. In addition, merely referencing a
specialized computer (e.g., a "bank computer"), some undefined component of
a computer system (e.g., "access control manager"), "logic," "code," or
elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited
function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of
how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed
function.106
In several Federal Circuit cases, the patentees argued that the
requirement for the disclosure of an algorithm can be avoided if one of
ordinary skill in the art is capable of writing the software to convert
a general purpose computer to a special purpose computer to perform the
claimed function.107 Such argument was found to be unpersuasive
because the understanding of one skilled in the art does not relieve
the patentee of the duty to disclose sufficient structure to support
means-plus-function claim terms.108 The specification must explicitly
disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply
reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a
sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must
contain a sequence of steps.109
If the specification explicitly discloses an algorithm, the
sufficiency of the disclosure of the algorithm must be determined in
light of the level of ordinary skill in the art.110 The examiner
should determine whether one skilled in the art would know how to
program the computer to perform the necessary steps described in the
specification (i.e., the invention is enabled), and that the inventor
was in possession of the invention (i.e., the invention meets the
written description requirement). Thus, the specification must
sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose
microprocessor to a special purpose computer so that a person of
ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to
achieve the claimed function.111
Often the supporting disclosure for a computer-implemented
invention discusses the implementation of the functionality of the
invention through hardware, software, or a combination of both. In this
situation, a question can arise as to which mode of implementation
supports the means-plus-function limitation. The language of §112,
¶6 requires that the recited "means" for performing the specified
function shall be construed to cover the corresponding "structure or
material" described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Therefore, by choosing to use a means-plus-function limitation and
invoke §112, ¶6, applicant limits that claim limitation to the
disclosed structure, i.e., implementation by hardware or the
combination of hardware and software, and equivalents thereof.
Therefore, the examiner should not construe the limitation as covering
pure software implementation.
However, if there is no corresponding structure disclosed in the
specification (i.e., the limitation is only supported by software and
does not correspond to an algorithm and the computer or microprocessor
programmed with the algorithm), the limitation should be deemed
indefinite as discussed above, and the claim should be rejected under
§112, ¶2. It is important to remember that claims must be interpreted as
a whole; so, a claim that includes a means-plus-function limitation that
corresponds to software per se (and is thus indefinite for lacking
structural support in the specification) is not necessarily directed as a
whole to software per se unless the claim lacks other structural
limitations.
IV. Step 3-Resolving Indefinite Claim Language
A. Examiner Must Establish a Clear Record: Examiners are urged to
carefully carry out their responsibilities to see that the application
file contains a complete and accurate picture of the Office's
consideration of the patentability of an application.112 In order to
provide a complete application file history and to enhance the clarity
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 132 |
of the prosecution history record, an examiner should provide clear
explanations of all actions taken during prosecution of the
application.113 Thus, when a rejection under §112, ¶2, is appropriate
based on the examiner's determination that a claim term or phrase is
indefinite, the examiner should clearly communicate in an Office action
any findings and reasons which support the rejection and avoid a mere
conclusion that the claim term or phrase is indefinite.114
MPEP §2173.05 provides numerous examples of rationales that may support
a rejection under §112, ¶2, such as functional claim limitations, relative
terminology/terms of degree, lack of antecedent basis, etc. (See PART 1,
section III above for detailed guidance on certain situations in
determining whether claim language is definite.) Only by providing a
complete explanation in the Office action as to the basis for determining
why a particular term or phrase used in the claim is "vague and
indefinite" will the examiner enhance the clarity of the prosecution
history record.115
B. An Office Action Should Provide a Sufficient Explanation: The
Office action must set forth the specific term or phrase that is
indefinite and why the metes and bounds are unclear. Since a rejection
requires the applicant to respond by explaining why claim language is
definite or by amending the claim, the Office action should provide
enough information for the applicant to prepare a meaningful response.
"Because claims delineate the patentee's right to exclude, the patent
statute requires that the scope of the claims be sufficiently definite
to inform the public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e.,
what subject matter is covered by the exclusive rights of the
patent."116 Thus, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation during prosecution "to facilitate sharpening and clarifying
the claims at the application stage" when claims are readily changed.117
To comply with §112, ¶2, applicants are required to make the terms that
are used to define the invention clear and precise, so that the metes and
bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant can
be ascertained.118 It is important that a person of ordinary skill in the
art be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the claims so as to
understand how to avoid infringement of the patent that ultimately issues
from the application being examined.119 Examiners should bear in mind that
"[a]n essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are
precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can
uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the
administrative process."120
Accordingly, when rejecting a claim as indefinite under §112, ¶2, the
examiner should provide enough information in the Office action to permit
applicant to make a meaningful response, as the indefiniteness rejection
requires the applicant to explain or provide evidence as to why the claim
language is not indefinite or amend the claim. For example, the examiner
should point out the specific term or phrase that is indefinite, explain in
detail why such term or phrase renders the metes and bounds of the claim
scope unclear and, whenever practicable, indicate how the indefiniteness
issues may be resolved to overcome the rejection.121
The focus during the examination of claims for compliance with the
requirement for definiteness under §112, ¶2, is whether the claim meets the
threshold requirements of clarity and precision, not whether more suitable
language or modes of expression are available. See MPEP §2173.02. If the
language used by applicant satisfies the statutory requirement of §112, ¶2,
but the examiner merely wants the applicant to improve the clarity or
precision of the language used, the examiner should suggest improved claim
language to the applicant and not make a rejection under §112, ¶2.122
Furthermore, when the examiner determines that more information is
necessary to ascertain the meaning of a claim term, a requirement for
information under 37 CFR 1.105 is appropriate. See MPEP §704.10 regarding
requirements for information.
It is highly desirable to have applicants resolve ambiguity by
amending the claims during prosecution of the application rather than
attempting to resolve the ambiguity in subsequent litigation of the
issued patent.123 Likewise, if the applicant traverses a rejection
under §112, ¶2, with or without the submission of an amendment, and the
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 133 |
examiner considers applicant's arguments to be persuasive, the examiner
should indicate in the next Office communication that the previous
rejection under §112, ¶2, has been withdrawn and provide an explanation as
to what prompted the change in the examiner's position (e.g., by making
specific reference to portions of applicant's remarks).124
C. Practice Compact Prosecution
1. Interpret the Claim and Apply Art With an Explanation of How an
Indefinite Term Is Interpreted: The goal of examination is to clearly
articulate any rejection early in the prosecution process so that the
applicant has the chance to provide evidence of patentability and
otherwise reply completely at the earliest opportunity.125 Under the
principles of compact prosecution, the examiner should review each
claim for compliance with every statutory requirement for patentability
in the initial review of the application and identify all of the
applicable grounds of rejection in the first Office action to avoid
unnecessary delays in the prosecution of the application.126
Thus, when the examiner determines that a claim term or phrase
renders the claim indefinite, the examiner should make a rejection
based on indefiniteness under §112, ¶2, as well as a rejection(s) in view
of the prior art under §102 or §103 that renders the prior art applicable
based on the examiner's interpretation of the claim. When making a
rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important that the
examiner state on the record how the claim term or phrase is being
interpreted with respect to the prior art applied in the rejection. By
rejecting each claim on all reasonable grounds available, the examiner can
avoid piecemeal examination.127
2. Open Lines of Communication With the Applicant-When Indefiniteness
Is the Only Issue, Attempt Resolution Through an Interview Before Resorting
to a Rejection: Examiners are reminded that interviews can be an effective
examination tool and are encouraged to initiate an interview with the
applicant or applicant's representative at any point during the pendency of
an application, if the interview can help further prosecution, shorten
pendency, or provide a benefit to the examiner or applicant.128 Issues of
claim interpretation and clarity of scope may lend themselves to resolution
through an examiner interview. For example, the examiner may initiate an
interview to discuss, among other issues, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of a claim, the meaning of a particular claim limitation,
and the scope and clarity of preamble language, functional language,
intended use language, and means-plus-function limitations, etc.
An interview can serve to develop and clarify such issues and lead
to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant,
potentially eliminating the need for the examiner to resort to making a
rejection under §112, ¶2. The examiner is reminded that the substance of
any interview, whether in person, by video conference, or by telephone must
be made of record in the application, whether or not an agreement was
reached at the interview.129 Examples of §112 issues that should be made of
record after the interview include: why the discussed claim term is or is
not sufficiently clear; why the discussed claim term is or is not
inconsistent with the specification; why the discussed claim term does or
does not invoke §112, ¶6, (and if it does, the identification of
corresponding structure in the specification for a §112, ¶6 limitation);
and any claim amendments discussed that would resolve identified
ambiguities.
D. Ensure That the Record Is Clear
1. Provide Claim Interpretation in Reasons for Allowance When Record Is
Unclear: Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.104(e), if the examiner believes that the
record of the prosecution as a whole does not make clear his or her reasons
for allowing a claim or claims, the examiner may set forth such reasoning
in reasons for allowance.130 One of the primary purposes of 37 CFR 1.104(e)
is to improve the quality and reliability of issued patents by providing a
complete file history which should clearly reflect the reasons why the
application was allowed. Such information facilitates evaluation of the
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 134 |
scope and strength of a patent by the patentee and the public and may help
avoid or simplify subsequent litigation of an issued patent.131 In meeting
the need for the application file history to speak for itself, it is
incumbent upon the examiner in exercising his or her responsibility to
the public, to see that the file history is complete.132
For example, when allowing a claim based on a claim interpretation
which might not be readily apparent from the record of the prosecution
as a whole, the examiner should set forth in reasons for allowance the
claim interpretation that he or she applied in determining that the
claim is allowable over the prior art.133 This is especially the case
where the application is allowed after an interview. The examiner
should ensure, however, that statements of reasons for allowance do not
place unwarranted interpretations, whether broad or narrow, upon the
claims.134
2. Provide Claim Interpretation When §112, ¶6 Is Invoked: The examiner
should specify in the Office action that a claim limitation has been
interpreted under the provisions of §112, ¶6, as provided above in section
III.C. When claim terms other than "means for" or "step for" are determined
to invoke §112, ¶6 pursuant to the guidance above, the reasons why the
claim was interpreted as invoking 112, ¶6, should also be clearly stated
in the Office action. For example, the Office action can include a
statement that a certain claim limitation is expressed in functional terms
coupled to a non-structural word (e.g., "module for,") that does not
connote structure and therefore invokes treatment under §112, ¶6. When the
examiner has determined that §112, ¶6 applies, the examiner may also
specify what the specification identifies as the corresponding structure.
Additionally, if the corresponding structure for the claimed
function is not clearly identifiable in the specification, the Office
action should, nevertheless, attempt to identify what structure is most
closely associated with the means-plus-function limitation to
facilitate a prior art search. This is especially true when there may
be confusion as to which disclosed implementation of the invention
supports the limitation, as explained in section III.C.3 above.
When allowing a claim that was treated under §112, ¶6, the examiner
should indicate that the claim was interpreted under the provisions of
§112, ¶6 in reasons for allowance if such an explanation has not previously
been made of record. As noted above, the indication should also clarify the
associated structure if not readily apparent in the specification.
Part 2: Supplemental Information for Examining Computer-Implemented
Functional Claim Limitations
The statutory requirements for computer-implemented inventions are
the same as for all inventions, such as the subject matter eligibility135
and utility136 requirements under §101, the definiteness requirement
of §112, ¶2, the three separate and distinct requirements of §112, ¶1,137
the novelty requirement of §102, and nonobviousness requirement of
§103.138 Nevertheless, computer-implemented inventions have certain unique
examination issues, especially those that are claimed using functional
language that is not limited to a specific structure. This section provides
supplemental information to assist examiners in examining
computer-implemented functional claim limitations. See PART 1, sections
III.C. and IV.D. (above) for information regarding means (or step) plus
function limitations that invoke §112, ¶6.
I. Determining Whether There Is Adequate Written Description for a
Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitation: The first paragraph
of §112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and
distinct from the enablement requirement.139 To satisfy the written
description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed
invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably
conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.140
Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a
manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show
that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention.141
The written description requirement of §112, ¶1 applies to all claims
including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed.142
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 135 |
As stated by the Federal Circuit, "[a]lthough many original claims will
satisfy the written description requirement, certain claims may not."143
For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not
satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the
scope of the genus claimed.144 For example, in LizardTech, the claim was
directed to a method of compressing digital images using seamless
discrete wave transformation ("DWT"). The court found that the claim
covered all ways of performing DWT-based compression processes that lead
to a seamless DWT because there were no limitations as to how the seamless
DWT was to be accomplished.145 However, the specification provided only one
method for creating a seamless DWT, and there was no evidence that the
specification contemplated a more generic way of creating a seamless
array of DWT coefficients. Therefore, the written description
requirement was not satisfied in this case because the specification
did not provide sufficient evidence that the inventor invented the
generic claim.146
In addition, original claims may fail to satisfy the written
description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in
functional language but the specification does not sufficiently
identify how the invention achieves the claimed function.147 In
Ariad, the court recognized the problem of using functional claim
language without providing in the specification examples of species
that achieve the claimed function:
The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use
functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In
such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result,
and may do so without describing species that achieve that result.
But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a
generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by
showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to
support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.148
The level of detail required to satisfy the written description
requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and
on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.149
Computer-implemented inventions are often disclosed and claimed in
terms of their functionality. This is because writing computer
programming code for software to perform specific functions is normally
within the skill of the art once those functions have been adequately
disclosed.150 Nevertheless, for computer-implemented inventions, the
determination of the sufficiency of disclosure will require an inquiry
into both the sufficiency of the disclosed hardware as well as the
disclosed software due to the interrelationship and interdependence of
computer hardware and software.151 For instance, in In re Hayes
Microcomputer Products, the written description requirement was
satisfied because the specification disclosed the specific type of
microcomputer used in the claimed invention as well as the necessary
steps for implementing the claimed function. The disclosure was in
sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art would know how to
program the microprocessor to perform the necessary steps described in
the specification.152 Two additional observations made by the Federal
Circuit in Hayes are important. First, the Federal Circuit stressed
that the written description requirement was satisfied because the
particular steps, i.e., algorithm, necessary to perform the claimed
function were "described in the specification."153 Second, the
Court acknowledged that the level of detail required for the written
description requirement to be met is case specific.154
When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners
should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and
the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that
perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of
ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor
invented the claimed subject matter. Specifically, if one skilled in
the art would know how to program the disclosed computer to perform the
necessary steps described in the specification to achieve the claimed
function and the inventor was in possession of that knowledge, the
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 136 |
written description requirement would be satisfied.155 If the
specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and
algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill
in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to
program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a
rejection under §112, ¶1 for lack of written description must be made.
For more information regarding the written description requirement, see
MPEP §2161.01-2163.07(b).
II. Determining Whether the Full Scope of a Computer-Implemented
Functional Claim Limitation Is Enabled: To satisfy the enablement
requirement of §112, ¶1, the specification must teach those skilled in the
art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without
"undue experimentation."156 In In re Wands, the court set forth the
following factors to consider when determining whether undue
experimentation is needed: (1) The breadth of the claims; (2) the nature of
the invention; (3) the state of the prior art; (4) the level of one of
ordinary skill; (5) the level of predictability in the art; (6) the amount
of direction provided by the inventor; (7) the existence of working
examples; and (8) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the
invention based on the content of the disclosure.157 The undue
experimentation determination is not a single factual determination.
Rather, it is a conclusion reached by weighing all the factual
considerations.158
Functional claim language may render the claims broad when the
claim is not limited to any particular structure for performing the
claimed function.159 Since such a claim covers all devices which
perform the recited function, there is a concern regarding whether the
scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the
disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the
claim.160 Applicants who present broad claim language must ensure the
claims are fully enabled. Specifically, the scope of the claims must be
less than or equal to the scope of the enablement provided by the
specification.161
For example, the claims in Sitrick were directed to "integrating"
or "substituting" a user's audio signal or visual image into a pre-
existing video game or movie. While the claims covered both video games
and movies, the specification only taught the skilled artisan how to
substitute and integrate user images into video games. The Federal
Circuit held that the specification failed to enable the full scope of
the claims because the skilled artisan could not substitute a user
image for a preexisting character image in movies without undue
experimentation. Specifically, the court recognized that one skilled in
the art could not apply the teachings of the specification regarding
video games to movies, because movies, unlike video games, do not have
easily separable character functions. Because the specification did not
teach how the substitution and integration of character functions for a
user image would be accomplished in movies, the claims were not
enabled.162
Although the specification need not teach what is well known in the
art, applicant cannot rely on the knowledge of one skilled in the art
to supply information that is required to enable the novel aspect of
the claimed invention, when the enabling knowledge is in fact not known
in the art.163 The Federal Circuit has stated that "`[i]t is the
specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must
supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute
adequate enablement.'"164 The rule that a specification need not disclose
what is well known in the art is "merely a rule of supplementation, not a
substitute for a basic enabling disclosure."165 Therefore, the
specification must contain the information necessary to enable the novel
aspects of the claimed invention.166 For instance, in Auto. Techs., the
claim limitation "means responsive to the motion of said mass" was
construed to include both mechanical side impact sensors and electronic
side impact sensors for performing the function of initiating an occupant
protection apparatus.167 The specification did not disclose any discussion
of the details or circuitry involved in the electronic side impact sensor,
and thus, it failed to apprise one of ordinary skill how to make and use
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 137 |
the electronic sensor. Since the novel aspect of the invention was side
impact sensors, the patentee could not rely on the knowledge of one
skilled in the art to supply the missing information.168
A rejection under §112, ¶1 for lack of enablement must be made when the
specification does not enable the full scope of the claim. USPTO personnel
should establish a reasonable basis to question the enablement provided for
the claimed invention and provide reasons for the uncertainty of the
enablement. For more information regarding the enablement requirement, see
MPEP §§2161.01, 2164.01(a)-2164.08(c), e.g., 2164.06(c) on examples of
computer programming cases.
III. Determining Whether a Computer-Implemented Functional Claim
Limitation Is Patentable Over the Prior Art Under §§102 and 103: Functional
claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all
devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if
the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed
function, a rejection under §102 or 103 may be appropriate.169 See MPEP
§§2112 and 2114 for more information.
Computer-implemented functional claim limitations may also be broad
because the term "computer" is commonly understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art to describe a variety of devices with varying degrees of
complexity and capabilities.170 Therefore, a claim containing the term
"computer" should not be construed as limited to a computer having a
specific set of characteristics and capabilities, unless the term is
modified by other claim terms or clearly defined in the specification to be
different from its common meaning.171 In In re Paulsen, the claims,
directed to a portable computer, were rejected as anticipated under §102 by
a reference that disclosed a calculator, because the term "computer" was
given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification to include a calculator, and a calculator was considered to
be a particular type of computer by those of ordinary skill in the art.172
When determining whether a computer-implemented functional claim is
obvious, examiners should note that broadly claiming an automated means
to replace a manual function to accomplish the same result does not
distinguish over the prior art.173 Furthermore, implementing a known
function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose
computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.174 Likewise, it has been
found to be obvious to adapt an existing process to incorporate
Internet and Web browser technologies for communicating and displaying
information because these technologies had become commonplace for those
functions.175
For more information on the obviousness determination, see MPEP
§2141 and Examination Guidelines Update: Developments in the
Obviousness Inquiry after KSR v. Teleflex, 75 FR 53643 (Sept. 1, 2010).
January 21, 2011 DAVID J. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
1 In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent
examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as
their terms reasonably allow.").
2 In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir.
2010); In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In Buszard,
the claim was directed to a flame retardant composition comprising a
flexible polyurethane foam reaction mixture. Id. at 1365. The
Federal Circuit found that the Board's interpretation that equated a
"flexible" foam with a crushed "rigid" foam was not reasonable.
Id. at 1367. Persuasive argument was presented that persons
experienced in the field of polyurethane foams know that a flexible
mixture is different than a rigid foam mixture. Id. at 1366.
3 In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the
USPTO looks to the ordinary use of the claim terms taking into
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 138 |
account definitions or other "enlightenment" contained in the
written description); But c.f. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("We have cautioned against
reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment
described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment
described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.").
4 See, e.g., Exxon Research and Eng'g Co. v. United States,
265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
5 Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054; Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321-322.
6 Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1212 (Bd. Pat. App. &
Int. 2008) (precedential); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Center, 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("However, the Board is required
to use a different standard for construing claims than that used by
district courts.").
7 Burlington Indus. Inc. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583 (Fed.
Cir. 1987) ("Issues of judicial claim construction such as arise
after patent issuance, for example during infringement litigation,
have no place in prosecution of pending claims before the PTO, when
any ambiguity or excessive breadth may be corrected by merely
changing the claim.") (emphasis added).
8 Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322.
9 See Memorandum entitled "Indefiniteness rejections under 35
U.S.C. 112, second paragraph" available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/
offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/section_112_6th_09_02_2008.pdf.
10 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶6; see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d
1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) ("[W]e hold that paragraph
six applies regardless of the context in which the interpretation of
means-plus-function language arises, i.e., whether as part of a
patentability determination in the PTO or as part of a validity or
infringement determination in a court.").
11 See, e.g., Johnson & Johnston Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv.
Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
12 Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244,
1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added).
13 Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343,
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs,
Inc., 806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In Orthokinetics, a claim
directed to a wheel chair included the phrase "so dimensioned as to
be insertable through the space between the doorframe of an
automobile and one of the seats thereof." Id. at 1568. The court
found the phrase to be as accurate as the subject matter permits,
since automobiles are of various sizes. Id. at 1576. "As long as
those of ordinary skill in the art realized the dimensions could be
easily obtained, §112, 2d ¶ requires nothing more." Id.
14 Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1318
(Fed. Cir. 2005).
15 In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212 (CCPA 1971); see also
MPEP §2173.05(g).
16 Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 212; see also Halliburton Energy
Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255.
17 See, e.g., K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1363
(Fed. Cir. 1999).
18 Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc) ("Means-plus-function claiming applies only to purely
functional limitations that do not provide the structure that
performs the recited function.").
19 In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
20 Id.
21 Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213.
22 Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255 (noting that
the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming
occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has
already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at
the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash
Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon
Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942) (holding
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 139 |
indefinite claims that recited substantially pure carbon black "in
the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded
smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior").
23 Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
24 In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
25 Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340.
26 Hyatt, 708 F.2d at 714-715.
27 Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255.
28 Id. at 1255-56.
29 General Elec. Co., 304 U.S. at 370-71, 375.
30 Id. at 370.
31 United Carbon Co., 317 U.S. at 234.
32 Id. at 233.
33 Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 214.
34 In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
35 Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255-56.
36 Id. at 1256 (citing Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int'l, 316
F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
37 Marosi, 710 F.2d at 803.
38 Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2010); Enzo Biochem, Inc., v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d
1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating
& Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
39 See MPEP §2173.05(b).
40 See, e.g., Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 2007); Exxon Research, 265 F.3d at 1381.
41 Enzo Biochem, 599 F.3d at 1335 (noting that applicant
overcame an indefiniteness rejection over "not interfering
substantially" claim language by submitting a declaration under 37
CFR 1.132 listing eight specific linkage groups that applicant
declared did not substantially interfere with hybridization or
detection).
42 In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970).
43 Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342,
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
44 Id. at 1344-45.
45 Id. at 1352.
46 Id. at 1350.
47 In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20 (CCPA 1980); Ex parte
Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 126, 127 (1924).
48 In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970) ("Breadth is
not indefiniteness.").
49 Harnisch, 631 F.2d at 721.
50 Id. at 722.
51 See MPEP §803.02.
52 See id. for more information on election of species.
53 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶4 ("Subject to the following paragraph, a
claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim
previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the
subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed
to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to
which it refers.").
54 Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding a dependent claim in a patent invalid for
failure to comply with §112, ¶4).
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d
1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating that "reading an additional
limitation from a dependent claim into an independent claim would
not only make that additional limitation superfluous, it might
render the dependent claim invalid" for failing to add a limitation
to the claim upon which it depends, as required by §112, ¶4).
58 See, e.g., Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins.
Co., 359 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 140 |
59 Id.
60 See MPEP §§608.01(o) and 2181.
61 In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993 (CCPA 1971); In re Moore, 439
F.2d 1232, 1235-36 (CCPA 1971); MPEP §2173.03.
62 In re Anderson, 1997 U.S. App. Lexis 167 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 6,
1997) (unpublished).
63 Cohn, 438 F.2d at 993.
64 Id.
65 Id.
66 TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) ("Sufficient structure exists when the claim language
specifies the exact structure that performs the function in question
without need to resort to other portions of the specification or
extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the
structure."); see also Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d
1363, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
67 See, e.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1311; CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Personalized
Media Commc'ns, LLC v. ITC, 161 F.3d 696, 703-04 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
68 Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d
1354, 1358 (2004).
69 Id. at 1360.
70 Id.; Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364,
1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2003); CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1369; Watts v. XL
Sys. Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Personalized Media,
161 F.3d at 704; Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d
1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("Many devices take their names from
the functions they perform.").
71 Watts, 232 F.3d at 800.
72 Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.
Cir. 2008); Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462
F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at
704; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215
(Fed. Cir. 1998).
73 Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311,
1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Apex, 325 F.3d at 1373.
74 Greenberg, 91 F.3d at 1583-84.
75 Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704-05.
76 CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1369-70.
77 Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1358-63.
78 Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 531 (Fed. Cir.
1996).
79 Watts, 232 F.3d at 881.
80 Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int'l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1318-19
(Fed. Cir. 1999).
81 Greenberg, 91 F.3d at 1583 (holding that the term "detent
mechanism" did not to invoke §112, ¶6 because the structural
modifier "detent" denotes a type of structural device with a
generally understood meaning in the mechanical arts).
82 Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 462 F.3d at 1354; Mas-Hamilton,
156 F.3d at 1214-1215.
83 Ex parte Rodriguez, 92 USPQ2d 1395, 1404 (Bd
Int. 2009) (precedential).
84 See Memorandum entitled "Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph, when examining means (or step) plus function claim
limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph" available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/section_
112_6th_09_02_2008.pdf.
85 The claimed function may include the functional language
that precedes the phrase "means for." Baran v. Medical Device
Techs., Inc., No. 2010-1058, slip op. at 12-13 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12,
2010).
86 Note that drawings may provide a written description of an
invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112. See Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The corresponding
structure, material, or acts may be disclosed in the original
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 141 |
drawings, figures, tables, or sequence listing. However, the
corresponding structure, material, or acts cannot include any
structure, material, or acts disclosed only in the material
incorporated by reference or a prior art reference. See Pressure
Prods. Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd., 599 F.3d 1308, 1317
(Fed. Cir. 2010); Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198
F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
87 Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316,
1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v.
Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1211-12 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
88 Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2009-
1175, 2009-1184, slip op. at 19 (Fed. Cir. July 6, 2010).
89 Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195.
90 Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953
(Fed. Cir. 2007).
91 See Memorandum entitled "Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph, when examining means (or step) plus function claim
limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph" available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/section_
112_6th_09_02_2008.pdf.
92 See MPEP §704.11(a) (Example R).
93 For more information, see MPEP §704.12 ("Replies to
requirements for information must be complete and filed within the
time period set including any extensions. Failure to reply within
the time period set will result in the abandonment of the
application.")
94 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶6.
95 Welker Bearing, 550 F.3d at 1097; Wenger Mfg., Inc. v.
Coating Mach. Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
96 Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech.,
521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
97 Id.
98 Id.; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323,
1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184
F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
99 Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333.
100 Id. at 1338.
101 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th
edition, 2002.
102 Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340; see also Intel Corp. v. VIA
Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Dossel,
115 F.3d 942, 946-47 (1997); MPEP §2181.
103 Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38.
104 Id. at 1334.
105 Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41.
106 Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371,
1383-1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545
F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Rodriguez, 92 USPQ2d at 1405-06.
107 See, e.g., Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1385; Biomedino, 490
F.3d at 952; Atmel Corp., 198 F.3d at 1380.
108 Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1385 ("A patentee cannot avoid
providing specificity as to structure simply because someone of
ordinary skill in the art would be able to devise a means to perform
the claimed function."); Atmel Corp., 198 F.3d at 1380
("[C]onsideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in
no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient
structure in the specification.").
109 Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384 (stating that language that
simply describes the function to be performed describes an outcome,
not a means for achieving that outcome); Microsoft Computer
Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002; see also
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs., Inc., 355 Fed.
Appx. 389, 394-95, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis. 26358, 10-16 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (holding that implicit or inherent disclosure of a class of
algorithms for performing the claimed functions is not sufficient,
and the purported "one-step" algorithm is not an algorithm at all)
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 142 |
(unpublished).
110 Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337; AllVoice Computing PLC v.
Nuance Commc'ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Intel
Corp., 319 F.3d at 1366-67 (knowledge of a person of ordinary skill
in the art can be used to make clear how to implement a disclosed
algorithm).
111 Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338.
112 See MPEP §1302.14(I).
113 See MPEP §707.07(f).
114 See MPEP §706.03, 707.07(g).
115 See MPEP §2173.02.
116 Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1249.
117 In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see
also Yamamoto, 740 F.2d at 1571; Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322.
118 See MPEP §2173.05(a)(I).
119 See MPEP §2173.02 (citing Morton Int'l, Inc. v.
Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1993)); see also
Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1249 ("Otherwise,
competitors cannot avoid infringement, defeating the public notice
function of patent claims.").
120 Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322.
121 See MPEP §707.07(d).
122 See, e.g., In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, at 1268-69 (Fed.
Cir. 2009).
123 Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255.
124 See MPEP §2173.02.
125 See MPEP §706; see also Best Practices in Compact
Prosecution (2009) examiner training materials, available at
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/exmr_training_materials.jsp.
126 See 37 CFR 1.104(a)(1) ("On taking up an application for
examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner
shall make a thorough study thereof and shall make a thorough
investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject
matter of the claimed invention. The examination shall be complete
with respect both compliance of the application * * * with the
applicable statutes and rules and to the patentability of the
invention as claimed, as well as with respect to matters of form,
unless otherwise indicated.").
127 See MPEP §707.07(g) ("Piecemeal examination should
be avoided as much as possible. The examiner ordinarily should
reject each claim on all valid grounds available * * * .'').
128 See Examiner Interview Training (2009) examiner training
materials, available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/exmr_
training_materials.jsp.
129 See MPEP §713.04; see also 37 CFR 1.2 ("The action
of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the
written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to any
alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to
which there is disagreement or doubt.").
130 Note that, prior to allowance, the examiner may also
specify allowable subject matter and provide reasons for indicating
such allowable subject matter in an Office communication. See MPEP
§1302.14(I).
131 Id.
132 Id.
133 See MPEP §1302.14(II)(G).
134 See MPEP §1302.14(I).
135 For determining whether claimed subject matter complies
with the subject matter eligibility requirement of §101,
examiners should consult the Interim Guidance for Determining
Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v.
Kappos, 75 FR 43922 (July 27, 2010), and Memorandum entitled New
Interim Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examination Instructions,
signed on August 24, 2009, available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/
law/exam/memoranda.jsp.
136 For determining whether claimed subject matter complies
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 143 |
with the utility requirement of §101, examiners should consult
the "Guidelines for Examination of Applications for Compliance with
the Utility Requirement" set forth in MPEP §2107.
137 For determining whether claimed subject matter complies
with the written description requirement of §112, ¶1, examiners
should consult the "Computer Programming and 35 U.S.C. §112,
First Paragraph, Guidelines" set forth in MPEP §2161.01, and
the "Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under
the 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, `Written Description' Requirement" set
forth in MPEP §2163, and for determining whether claimed
subject matter complies with the enablement requirement of §112, ¶1,
examiners should consult the enablement guidelines set
forth in MPEP §2164 et seq., including the "Examples of
Enablement Issues-Computer Programming Cases" set forth in MPEP
§2164.06(c) and "Enablement Commensurate in Scope With the
Claims" set forth in MPEP §2164.08.
138 For determining whether the claims comply with the
nonobviousness requirement of §103, examiners should use
"Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C.
103" set forth in MPEP §2141 and Examination Guidelines
Update: Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry after KSR v.
Teleflex, 75 FR 53643 (Sept. 1, 2010).
139 Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340.
140 Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1562-63.
141 Id.; Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.
142 Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349.
143 Id.; see also LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping,
Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1343-46 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Regents of the
University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
144 Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350; Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 968
(holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in
the original specification did not satisfy the written description
requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus
claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the
specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written
description requirement").
145 LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346 ("[T]he description of one
method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor * *
* to claim any and all means for achieving that objective.").
146 Id.
147 Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 ("[A]n adequate written
description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic
statement of an invention's boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119
F.3d at 1568).
148 Id.
149 Id. at 1351; Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58 (Fed.
Cir. 2005).
150 Fonar Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1549
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
151 See MPEP §2161.01.
152 In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc. Patent Litigation,
982 F.2d 1527, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
153 Id. at 1534 (emphasis in original).
154 Id.
155 Id.
156 See, e.g., In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir.
1993); In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 736-37 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
157 Wands, 858 F.2d at 737.
158 Id.
159 Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213.
160 Id.; AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234, 1244 (Fed.
Cir. 2003); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1236 (CCPA 1971).
161 Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 999 (Fed. Cir.
2008) ("The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 144 |
scope of the enablement to ensure that the public knowledge is
enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least
commensurate with the scope of the claims.") (quotation omitted).
162 Sitrick, 516 F.3d at 999-1001.
163 ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 941 (Fed.
Cir. 2010) ("ALZA was required to provide an adequate enabling
disclosure in the specification; it cannot simply rely on the
knowledge of a person of ordinary skill to serve as a substitute for
the missing information in the specification."); Auto. Techs.
Int'l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1283 (Fed. Cir.
2007) ("Although the knowledge of one skilled in the art is indeed
relevant, the novel aspect of an invention must be enabled in the
patent.").
164 Auto. Techs., 501 F.3d at 1283 (quoting Genentech, Inc. v.
Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
165 Genentech, 108 F.3d at 1366; see also ALZA Corp., 603 F.3d
at 940-41.
166 ALZA Corp., 603 F.3d at 941; Auto. Techs., 501 F.3d at
1283-84 ("[T]he `omission of minor details does not cause a
specification to fail to meet the enablement requirement. However,
when there is no disclosure of any specific stating material or of
any of the conditions under which a process can be carried out,
undue experimentation is required.'") (quoting Genentech,108 F.3d
at 1366).
167 Auto. Techs., 501 F.3d at 1282.
168 Id. at 1283.
169 Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478; In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,
1254 (CCPA 1977); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971);
Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 212-213("[I]t is elementary that the mere
recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently
possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn
to those things to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally,
where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional
limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the
claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic
of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant
to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not
possess the characteristic relied on.").
170 In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479-80 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
171 Id.
172 Id.
173 Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("Accommodating a prior art mechanical
device that accomplishes [a desired] goal to modern electronics
would have been reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in
designing children's learning devices. Applying modern electronics
to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent
years."); In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958); see also MPEP
§2144.04.
174 KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007);
see also MPEP §2143, Exemplary Rationales D and F.
175 Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1326-27
(Fed. Cir. 2008).
| Update of Examination for Registration to Practice in Patent Matters before the United States Patent and Trademark Office |
Update of Examination for Registration to Practice in
Patent Matters before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Effective on or about April 12, 2011, the computer-delivered registration
examination will be updated to utilize the following reference materials:
1. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), Edition 8, Revision 8
(available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep.htm);
2. Examination Guidelines Update: Developments in the Obviousness
Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex (available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/
2010/pdf/2010-21646.pdf);
3. New Interim Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examination
Instructions, August 2009 (available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/
pac/dapp/opla/2009-08-25_interim_101_instructions.pdf);
4. Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for
Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos (available at http://edocket.
access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-18424.pdf);
5. Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for
Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos, July 2010 (available at
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/bilski_guidance_27jul2010.pdf); and
6. Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with
35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications
(available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/pdf/2011-2841.pdf)
These reference materials will be available on the computer monitor
during the examination.
There will be a blackout period prior to the initial administration date
for the updated registration. No examinations will be administered during
the blackout period, which is expected to begin on or about April 5, 2011.
The format of the registration examination will remain the same. The
computer-delivered examination will continue to have 100 multiple-choice
questions.
February 11, 2011 WILLIAM R. COVEY
Acting Director
Office of Enrollment and Discipline
Disclaimer
6,491,287-Peter Savenok, 2S 425 Orchard Rd., Wheaton., IL (US) 60187.
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURE OF A BALUSTRADE OF SYNTHETIC MATERIAL AND APPARATUS
THEREOF. Patent dated December 10, 2002.
Disclaimer filed January 28, 2011 by the inventor.
Hereby disclaim the patent and its claims in their entirety.
Errata
"All reference to Patent No. 7,884,828 to Yasuharu Tanaka of Osaka, Japan
for IMAGE DATA TRANSFER METHOD, IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE, AND IMAGING SYSTEM
appearing in the Official Gazette of February 08, 2011 should be deleted
since no patent number was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,886,215 to Toshiyuki, et al of Hyogo,
Japan for CAN SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of February 08,
2011 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,885,052 to Victor Chiu-Kit Fong of San
Jose, CA for HIGH DENSITY CAPACITORS appearing in the Official Gazette of
February 08, 2011 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,884,907 to Minoru Yamaguchi, et al of
Tokyo, Japan for VERTICAL ALIGNMENT LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY DEVICE IN WHICH
A PIXEL ELECTRODE HAS SLITS WHICH DIVIDE THE PIXEL ELECTRODE INTO ELECTRODE
PORTIONS appearing in the Official Gazette of February 08, 2011 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,885,860 to Eugene August Fusz of St.
Louis, MI for PRODUCT EXCHANGE SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of
February 08, 2011 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,883,781 to Michael M. Thompson of
Ballwin, MI for PRESERVATIVE COMPOSITIONS FOR WOOD PRODUCTS appearing in
the Official Gazette of February 08, 2011 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,883,030 to Nolte Hans-Jurgen, et al of
Besigneim, Germany for ATOMIZER appearing in the Official Gazette of
February 08, 2011 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,883,792 to Richard L. Bouffard, et al of
Litchfield, CT for BATTERY CELL WITH IMPROVED PRESSURE RELIEF VENT appearing
in the Official Gazette of February 08, 2011 should be deleted since no
patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,885,672 to Kenji Tsuchiyama of Tokyo,
Japan for BROADCAST RECEIVING SYSTEM, BROADCAST RECEIVING METHOD, RELAY
APPARATUS, MOBILE STATION, AND CONTROL PROGRAM THEREFOR appearing in the
Official Gazette of February 08, 2011 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,879,302 to Douglas C. Comrie of Port
Clinton, OH for REDUCING MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM THE BURNING OF COAL
appearing in the Official Gazette of February 08, 2011 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,885,646 to Yuji Kubota, et al of Kawasaki,
Japan for MOBILE PHONE AND FORWARDING PROGRAM STORAGE MEDIUM appearing in
the Official Gazette of February 08, 2011 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,880,191 to June-O Song, et al of
Gwangju-si Korea, Republic of for NITRIDE-BASED LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME appearing in the Official Gazette of February
08, 2011 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,884,821 to Kun Zhou, et al of Beijing
China for REAL-TIME RENDERING OF LIGHT-SCATTERING MEDIA appearing in the
Official Gazette of February 08, 2011 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 148 |
"All reference to Patent No. 7,883,679 to Stephen David Pollington, et
al of Tyne and Wear, United Kingdom for METHOD OF DECOMPOSING NITROGEN
DIOXIDE appearing in the Official Gazette of February 08, 2011 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. RE. 42,133 to Robert E. Simonson of Boca
Raton, FL for CANNULA AND SIZING INSERTION METHOD appearing in the Official
Gazette of February 08, 2011 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,884,603 to Diana Martin, et al of
Herzogenaurach, Germany for METHOD FOR OPERATING A HYBRID MEDICAL IMAGING
UNIT COMPRISING A FIRST IMAGING DEVICE OF HIGH SPATIAL RESOLUTION AND A
SECOND NUCLEAR MEDICINE IMAGING DEVICE OF HIGH SENSITIVITY appearing in the
Official Gazette of February 08, 2011 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,883,852 to Jay Wohlgemuth, et al of Menlo
Park, CA for METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR DIAGNOSING AND MONITORING
TRANSPLANT REJECTION appearing in the Official Gazette of February 08, 2011
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
| Certificates of Correction |
Certificates of Correction
for February 15, 2011
5,485,210 7,585,646 7,743,325 7,817,163
5,491,069 7,590,178 7,744,508 7,817,196
5,711,239 7,590,521 7,744,570 7,817,579
5,795,728 7,590,685 7,745,427 7,818,185
5,841,814 7,590,726 7,747,713 7,818,396
5,979,672 7,592,970 7,747,986 7,818,412
6,058,304C1 7,593,987 7,748,803 7,818,773
6,114,712 7,594,025 7,749,956 7,818,859
6,124,439 7,595,004 7,750,116 7,819,005
6,251,488 7,595,722 7,750,833 7,820,860
6,410,931 7,597,886 7,751,212 7,822,061
6,460,126 7,599,662 7,751,369 7,822,064
6,477,550 7,599,952 7,751,793 7,822,128
6,529,276 7,599,989 7,753,968 7,822,434
6,562,051 7,602,907 7,754,886 7,822,556
6,601,403 7,602,956 7,754,979 7,822,970
6,648,074 7,603,097 7,755,074 7,823,125
6,668,179 7,605,082 7,756,306 7,823,350
6,675,935 7,605,816 7,756,814 7,823,750
6,731,188 7,605,947 7,757,181 7,823,915
6,792,543 7,609,689 7,757,279 7,823,919
6,796,376 7,609,831 7,757,281 7,824,092
6,799,197 7,609,898 7,757,299 7,824,966
6,823,460 7,613,692 7,758,234 7,825,212
6,844,184 7,613,718 7,759,449 7,826,064
6,855,985 7,614,043 7,759,874 7,827,048
6,858,001 7,614,057 7,760,193 7,827,467
6,893,776 7,615,359 7,760,902 7,827,487
6,904,404 7,617,444 7,761,130 7,827,490
7,007,274 7,617,449 7,761,253 7,828,199
7,046,239 7,617,620 7,762,403 7,828,668
7,052,799 7,620,380 7,763,697 7,828,711
7,053,230 7,621,839 7,764,120 7,828,893
7,065,984 7,624,006 7,764,445 7,828,927
7,130,052 7,627,141 7,764,852 7,829,261
7,186,800 7,627,592 7,765,017 7,829,320
7,189,536 7,627,690 7,765,051 7,829,524
7,200,838 7,629,056 7,765,106 7,829,528
7,203,691 7,632,837 7,765,461 7,829,631
7,237,122 7,633,511 7,766,991 7,829,650
7,243,624 7,633,551 7,767,548 7,829,779
7,248,451 7,633,554 7,768,007 7,829,986
7,253,283 7,633,934 7,768,497 7,830,582
7,296,080 7,634,011 7,768,552 7,830,746
7,302,363 7,634,066 7,769,167 7,830,887
7,311,166 7,634,137 7,769,179 7,831,075
7,312,965 7,636,978 7,769,180 7,831,118
7,314,739 7,640,430 7,769,707 7,831,786
7,315,308 7,643,030 7,770,099 7,831,823
7,316,011 7,644,374 7,770,322 7,832,148
7,317,449 7,645,736 7,770,770 7,832,547
7,317,827 7,648,141 7,771,174 7,832,947
7,319,949 7,649,338 7,771,347 7,832,960
7,320,002 7,651,368 7,771,352 7,833,358
7,320,068 7,651,524 7,771,728 7,833,666
7,321,856 7,652,046 7,771,864 7,833,730
7,321,901 7,652,051 7,771,928 7,833,908
7,325,188 7,662,394 7,772,391 7,833,967
7,326,225 7,663,641 7,773,606 7,834,008
7,328,000 7,664,752 7,773,661 7,834,174
7,328,207 7,666,395 7,773,756 7,834,426
7,328,221 7,667,133 7,773,758 7,835,073
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 150 |
7,328,404 7,668,684 7,773,990 7,835,530
7,330,875 7,668,983 7,774,279 7,835,759
7,330,890 7,669,021 7,774,490 7,835,780
7,330,970 7,669,140 7,774,674 7,835,990
7,330,971 7,670,701 7,774,825 7,836,329
7,330,981 7,670,855 7,776,071 7,836,399
7,331,553 7,671,860 7,776,564 7,836,473
7,334,076 7,676,499 7,776,681 7,836,480
7,334,099 7,676,828 7,776,859 7,836,511
7,334,195 7,677,349 7,776,897 7,836,517
7,334,197 7,678,549 7,777,002 7,836,844
7,334,217 7,680,333 7,777,035 7,837,087
7,337,147 7,680,883 7,778,663 7,837,830
7,337,174 7,685,109 7,779,011 7,838,470
7,337,177 7,685,337 7,779,130 7,838,625
7,337,181 7,685,338 7,779,207 7,838,657
7,337,273 7,686,038 7,779,538 7,838,783
7,337,324 7,692,636 7,779,627 7,839,137
7,337,358 7,693,035 7,779,982 7,839,552
7,337,401 7,693,762 7,780,028 7,841,225
7,346,901 7,695,457 7,780,881 7,841,735
7,355,622 7,697,574 7,781,201 7,841,785
7,356,161 7,699,216 7,782,803 7,841,970
7,358,965 7,700,652 7,783,052 7,842,825
7,358,973 7,701,954 7,783,123 7,842,908
7,358,978 7,702,145 7,784,065 7,843,085
7,359,907 7,702,202 7,784,096 7,843,943
7,359,910 7,703,545 7,785,040 7,843,946
7,359,915 7,703,635 7,785,330 7,844,497
7,359,958 7,706,529 7,786,157 7,844,710
7,359,963 7,706,551 7,786,171 7,844,774
7,360,169 7,706,607 7,786,953 7,845,526
7,360,172 7,707,034 7,787,262 7,846,150
7,360,202 7,708,768 7,787,696 7,846,468
7,360,253 7,709,642 7,787,719 7,846,488
7,362,341 7,709,776 7,787,971 7,846,493
7,362,462 7,710,081 7,788,233 7,846,656
7,363,027 7,711,846 7,788,481 7,846,920
7,363,202 7,714,161 7,790,154 7,847,504
7,363,221 7,714,840 7,791,284 7,847,697
7,363,296 7,715,353 7,792,020 7,847,734
7,363,301 7,715,430 7,792,144 7,847,835
7,363,378 7,715,657 7,792,510 7,849,477
7,368,377 7,716,054 7,794,767 7,849,944
7,369,573 7,716,243 7,798,208 7,850,654
7,370,052 7,716,344 7,798,421 7,851,815
7,370,103 7,716,699 7,798,425 7,851,881
7,370,212 7,717,383 7,798,426 7,852,579
7,373,404 7,718,133 7,799,275 7,852,848
7,373,418 7,718,431 7,799,827 7,852,921
7,373,590 7,718,676 7,800,077 7,853,252
7,373,603 7,718,753 7,800,322 7,853,452
7,376,453 7,719,015 7,800,341 7,853,860
7,376,739 7,719,265 7,800,578 7,853,984
7,383,988 7,719,388 7,800,652 7,854,144
7,396,732 7,719,760 7,801,170 7,855,244
7,416,267 7,720,682 7,801,443 7,855,348
7,417,099 7,720,906 7,801,772 7,855,640
7,419,633 7,722,657 7,801,826 7,855,932
7,427,260 7,723,073 7,802,394 7,856,613
7,446,164 7,723,078 7,802,409 7,856,649
7,452,812 7,723,378 7,802,951 7,857,884
7,455,146 7,723,471 7,803,383 7,857,890
7,455,463 7,723,725 7,803,778 7,857,910
7,462,208 7,724,827 7,803,843 7,858,087
7,462,623 7,724,867 7,803,910 7,858,324
| March 8, 2011 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1364 OG 151 |
7,465,362 7,725,329 7,804,524 7,859,404
7,468,975 7,727,997 7,804,686 7,859,764
7,470,669 7,730,451 7,805,054 7,860,483
7,471,937 7,731,758 7,805,159 7,860,520
7,472,091 7,733,430 7,805,289 7,860,566
7,480,233 7,734,491 7,805,375 7,860,578
7,481,031 7,734,631 7,805,784 7,862,575
7,485,384 7,734,633 7,806,562 7,862,826
7,495,118 7,734,914 7,807,242 7,863,840
7,518,742 7,736,424 7,807,268 7,863,962
7,521,212 7,737,972 7,807,383 7,864,248
7,530,992 7,738,001 7,807,839 7,864,766
7,542,384 7,738,158 7,807,934 7,865,920
7,543,637 7,738,230 7,808,034 D. 598,002
7,544,194 7,738,800 7,808,090 D. 615,896
7,555,497 7,738,975 7,808,415 D. 618,858
7,557,807 7,739,076 7,808,604 D. 626,039
7,563,441 7,739,221 7,808,623 D. 627,997
7,572,779 7,739,246 7,809,132 D. 628,030
7,574,282 7,739,259 7,809,169 D. 630,091
7,575,876 7,739,894 7,810,425 D. 630,516
7,576,059 7,740,014 7,811,563 PP. 21,557
7,579,168 7,740,019 7,811,808 PP. 21,598
7,582,297 7,740,845 7,814,234 RE. 41,061
7,584,278 7,740,860 7,814,277 RE. 41,535
7,584,449 7,741,085 7,815,000 RE. 41,950
7,585,382 7,741,534 7,815,897 RE. 41,977
| Summary of Final Decisions Issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board |
SUMMARY OF FINAL DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
January 31 – February 4, 2011
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 |
| 1-31 |
EX |
77695481 |
Phusion Projects, Inc. |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
"EARTHQUAKE HIGH GRAVITY LAGER"
[high gravity lager beer] |
"EARTHQUAKE" [wine] |
No |
| 1-31 |
EX |
77663302 |
Cheryl Lynn Ingberg |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
"LUVDOG" (and design) [sweatshirts, t-shirts, hats, caps, visors, scarves, bandannas, dresses, skirts, jackets, underclothes, sleepwear, slippers and sportswear, namely, shirts, pants, shorts, jogging shorts, sweatpants, socks, swimwear, sarongs, beach cover-ups, flip flops and sandals] |
"THE LOVED DOG" [t-shirts, sweatshirts, tank tops, shorts, caps, hats and unitards for infants] |
No |
| 1-31 |
OPP |
91177965 |
Liberty Bell Equipment Corp. v. Graco Minnesota Inc. |
2(d) |
Opposition Sustained |
"FINISH PRO" (two registrations, one with design) [acetone] [paint thinners and paint reducers, namely enamels and urethanes] [masking paper] [plastic sheeting for use as drop cloths, vapor barriers and masking material] (all the foregoing for automotive, industrial and marine use) [aerosol spray automotive paint; automotive finishing coatings in the nature of clear coats, primers, surfacers, reducers, hardeners, activators and paint thinners] |
"FINISHPRO" [paint sprayers] |
|
No |
| 1-31 |
OPP |
91184197 |
United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Powertech Industrial Co. Ltd. |
2(d), 2(e)(1)
|
Opposition Sustained on 2(e)(1) ground |
"UPS" (in various forms and in conjunction with other words or designs) (fourteen registrations) [wide variety of goods and services relating to shipping and transportation] [various types of business, consulting and franchising services] [various types of paper goods, office supplies and stationery items] |
"HYBRID GREEN UPS" [power supplies; mobile phone battery chargers; mobile phone battery charging stations; battery chargers; universal power supplies; power saving adapters; electric storage batteries; uninterruptible power supplies; AC/DC converters; power source stable adapters] |
|
No |
| 1-31 |
EX |
77599306 |
H.D. Vest, Inc. |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
"VEST FINANCIAL SERVICES" [investment consultation, brokerage, banking and management services; financial investment services for securities, mutual funds, CDs and portfolio management; estate planning, retirement planning; insurance consultation and brokerage; money management services] (many provided to tax and accounting professionals) |
"FINANCIAL VEST" (and design) [financial planning related to the sale of insurance and services] |
No |
| 2-1 |
OPP |
91178736 |
Nature’s First Law, Inc. v. NutraMarks, Inc. |
2(d) |
Opposition Dismissed |
"DAVID WOLFE’S SUNFOOD NUTRITION" [foodstuffs, appliances for food preparation, books and tapes on health and nutrition] |
"SUN FOOD ENERGY" [body and face lotions, creams and gels; nutritional and dietary supplements; edible oils; whey; vegetable protein powder for use as a food additive] |
|
No |
| 2-2 |
OPP |
91185327 |
Color Me Mine Enterprises, Inc. v. Southern States Marketing, Inc. |
2(d) |
Opposition Sustained |
"COLOR ME MINE" ["do-it-yourself" ceramic studio providing the use of unpainted ceramic bowls, dishes and containers in a variety of shapes and sizes, picture frames, night lights, salt and pepper shakers, paints, glazes and firing materials] |
"COLOR ME MINE" [decorative purse and tote bag hobby arts and crafts activity kits containing purse or bag, markers to decorate bag, and accessory stationery items including blank journals, erasers, notebooks, paper, pencils, pens] |
|
No |
| 2-3 |
EX |
77638962 77640964 |
Vertical Sales and Marketing, Inc. |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed in Both Cases |
|
"EAST WEST CUISINE" (with and without design) [pre-packaged refrigerated meals consisting primarily of meat, fish, poultry or vegetables] |
"EAST WEST" (and design) [meat, fish, poultry, meat extract, preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables, jellies, jams, eggs, milk and other dairy products, namely, yogurt, sour cream and cheese, edible oils and fruit preserves] |
No |
| 2-3 |
CANC |
92051525 |
General Council of the Assemblies of God dba Gospel Publishing House v. Heritage Music Foundation |
Motion to Strike |
Motion Denied |
|
|
|
Yes |
| 2-3 |
EX |
77649391 |
Miracle Tuesday, LLC |
2(e)(3) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
"JPK PARIS 75" (and design) [sunglasses; wallets, handbags and purses, travel bags, suitcases; belts, shoes] |
|
No |
(1) EX=Ex Parte Appeal; OPP=Opposition; CANC=Cancellation; CU=Concurrent Use; (SJ)=Summary Judgment; (MD)=Motion to Dismiss; (MS)=Motion for Sanctions; (R)=Request for Reconsideration (2) *=Opinion Writer; (D)=Dissenting Panel Member
| 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
| 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, Orbach
Science Library (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 Library (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 Tech Library of
the University of Montana (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,
Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center (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: New York Public Library,
Science Industry & Business Library (212) 592-7000
Stony Brook: Engineering Library,
State University of New York at
Stony Brook (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: PAMS Library,
Pennsylvania State University (814) 865-7617
Puerto Rico Bayamon: Learning Resources Center,
University of Puerto Rico (787) 993-0000
Ext. 3222
Mayaquez General Library,
University of Puerto Rico (787) 832-4040
Ext. 2023
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 and
Engineering 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
| Patent Technology Centers |
| PATENT TECHNOLOGY CENTERS |
| AVERAGE FILING DATE OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVING A FIRST OFFICE ACTION IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS1
|
Technology
Center |
GAU |
Avg Filing Date |
| 1600 |
BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND ORGANIC CHEMISTRY |
| |
1610 |
11/28/2008 |
| |
1620 |
07/05/2009 |
| |
1630 |
06/26/2009 |
| |
1640 |
08/25/2009 |
| |
1650 |
05/02/2009 |
| |
1660 |
01/18/2010 |
| |
TOTAL |
06/01/2009 |
| |
|
|
| 1700 |
CHEMICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND DESIGNS |
| |
1710 |
11/12/2008 |
| |
1720 |
11/09/2008 |
| |
1730 |
07/17/2009 |
| |
1740 |
05/23/2009 |
| |
1750 |
09/16/2008 |
| |
1760 |
08/13/2009 |
| |
1770 |
03/29/2009 |
| |
1780 |
12/25/2008 |
| |
1790 |
04/26/2009 |
| |
TOTAL |
03/20/2009 |
| |
|
|
| 2100 |
COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE AND SOFTWARE |
| |
2110 |
12/04/2008 |
| |
2120 |
11/06/2008 |
| |
2150 |
01/21/2009 |
| |
2160 |
01/12/2009 |
| |
2170 |
04/17/2008 |
| |
2180 |
01/06/2009 |
| |
2190 |
07/15/2007 |
| |
TOTAL |
09/13/2008 |
| |
|
|
| 2400 |
NETWORKING, MULTIPLEXING, CABLE AND SECURITY |
| |
2420 |
09/16/2008 |
| |
2430 |
04/07/2008 |
| |
2440 |
06/01/2009 |
| |
2450 |
05/05/2009 |
| |
2460 |
10/19/2008 |
| |
2470 |
12/22/2008 |
| |
2480 |
08/01/2008 |
| |
2490 |
05/05/2008 |
| |
TOTAL |
10/31/2008 |
| |
|
|
| 2600 |
COMMUNICATIONS |
| |
2610 |
07/23/2008 |
| |
2620 |
07/02/2008 |
| |
TOTAL |
07/14/2008 |
| |
|
|
| 2800
|
SEMICONDUCTORS/MEMORY, CIRCUITS/MEASURING AND TESTING, OPTICS/PHOTOCOPYING |
| |
2810 |
10/07/2009 |
| |
2820 |
06/19/2009 |
| |
2830 |
07/05/2009 |
| |
2840 |
10/01/2009 |
| |
2850 |
02/27/2009 |
| |
2860 |
06/13/2009 |
| |
2870 |
06/13/2009 |
| |
2880 |
05/05/2009 |
| |
2890 |
08/01/2009 |
| |
TOTAL |
06/19/2009 |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 2900
|
|
| |
2910 |
06/10/2010 |
| |
TOTAL |
06/10/2010 |
| |
|
|
| 3600
|
TRANSPORTATION, CONSTRUCTION, ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND LICENSE AND REVIEW
|
| |
3610 |
08/07/2009 |
| |
3620 |
09/28/2008 |
| |
3630 |
04/29/2009 |
| |
3640 |
06/22/2009 |
| |
3650 |
01/12/2009 |
| |
3660 |
12/07/2008 |
| |
3670 |
08/01/2009 |
| |
3680 |
10/10/2008 |
| |
3690 |
03/14/2009 |
| |
TOTAL |
03/11/2009 |
| |
|
|
| 3700
|
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTS |
| |
3710 |
11/03/2008 |
| |
3720 |
02/12/2009 |
| |
3730 |
12/22/2008 |
| |
3740 |
08/01/2008 |
| |
3750 |
12/22/2008 |
| |
3760 |
03/05/2009 |
| |
3770 |
09/16/2008 |
| |
3780 |
10/28/2008 |
| |
TOTAL |
11/28/2008 |
| |
|
|
| |
1 Report last updated on 01-31-11. |
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
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 March 8, 2011