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 decreased, effective
September 15, 2010, and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1357 O.G.
135, on August 17, 2010.
Korean Intellectual Property Office as Searching and Examining Authority
For use of the Korean Intellectual Property Office as an International
Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority for
international applications filed in the United States Receiving Office,
see the notice appearing in the Official Gazette at 1302 O.G. 1261 on
January 17, 2006.
The search fee of the Korean Intellectual Property Office was increased,
effective January 1, 2010, and was announced in the Official Gazette at
1350 O.G. 72, on January 12, 2010.
Australian Patent Office as Searching and Examining Authority
The Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) may act as the International
Searching Authority (ISA) for an international application filed with the
United States Receiving Office or the International Bureau (IB) as
Receiving Office where at least one of the applicants is either a national
or resident of the United States of America. However, IP Australia is not a
competent ISA, within the meaning of PCT Artical 16(3), for international
applications filed by U.S. residents or nationals in the USPTO or IB as a
Receiving Office, and where the application contains one or more claims
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 327 |
directed to the field of business methods or mechanical inventions.
IP Australia may act as the International Preliminary Examining
Authority (IPEA) for an international application filed in the United
States Receiving Office or the International Bureau as Receiving Office
where at least one of the applicants is either a national or resident of
the United States of America, provided that IP Australia acted as the
International Searching Authority. However, IP Australia is not a competent
IPEA, within the meaning of PCT Article 32(3), for international
applications filed by U.S. residents or nationals in the USPTO or IB as a
Receiving Office where the corresponding demand is filed with IP Australia
and where the application contains one or more claims directed to the
fields of business methods or mechanical engineering or analogous fields of
technology as defined by specified areas of the International Patent
Classification System, as indicated in Annex A to the agreement between the
USPTO and IP Australia. See the notice appearing in the Official Gazette
at 1337 O.G. 261 on December 23, 2008.
For use of IP Australia as an International Searching Authority and
International Preliminary Examining Authority for international
applications filed in the United States Receiving Office, see the notice
appearing in the Official Gazette at 1337 O.G. 265 on December 23, 2008.
The search fee of IP Australia was increased, effective August 1, 2010,
and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1357 O.G. 135, on August 17,
2010.
Fees
The transmittal fee and search fees for the USPTO were changed,
effective January 12, 2009, and were announced in the Federal Register on
November 12, 2008. The fee for filing a request for the restoration of the
right of priority was established, effective November 9, 2007, and was
announced in the Federal Register on September 10, 2007.
International filing fees were decreased, effective September 1, 2010, and
were announced in the Official Gazette at 1357 O.G. 135, on August 17, 2010.
The schedule of PCT fees (in U.S. dollars), as of September 15, 2010, is
as follows:
International Application (PCT Chapter I) fees:
Transmittal fee $240.00
Search fee
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as
International Searching Authority (ISA)
- Search fee $2,080.00
- Supplemental search fee, per additional
invention (payable only upon invitation) $2,080.00
European Patent Office as ISA $2,185.00
Korean Intellectual Property Office as ISA
- for international applications filed in English $1,092.00
IP Australia as ISA $1,605.00
International fees
International filing fee $1,147.00
International filing fee-filed in paper
with PCT EASY zip file or
electronically without PCT EASY zip file $1,061.00
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 328 |
International filing fee-filed
electronically with PCT EASY zip files $974.00
Supplemental fee for each page over 30 $13.00
Restoration of Priority
Filing a request for the restoration of the
right of priority under § 1.452 $1,410.00
International Application (PCT Chapter II) fees associated
with filing a Demand for Preliminary Examination:
Handling fee $195.00
Handling fee-90% reduction, if applicants meet criteria
specified at:
http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/fees/fee_reduction.pdf $19.50
Preliminary Examination Fee
USPTO as International Preliminary
Examining Authority (IPEA)
- USPTO was ISA in PCT Chapter I $600.00
- USPTO was not ISA in PCT Chapter I $750.00
- Additional preliminary examination fee,
per additional invention
(payable only upon invitation) $600.00
U.S. National Stage fees (for international applications entering
the U.S. national phase under 35 U.S.C. 371) can be found on the USPTO's
Web site (www.uspto.gov).
August 12, 2010 DAVID J. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
| Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable |
Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable
Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 1.362(d) provides
that maintenance fees may be paid without surcharge for the six-month
period beginning 3, 7, and 11 years after the date of issue of patents
based on applications filed on or after Dec. 12, 1980. An additional
six-month grace period is provided by 35 U.S.C. 41(b) and 37 CFR 1.362(e)
for payment of the maintenance fee with the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR
1.20(h), as amended effective Dec. 16, 1991. If the maintenance fee is
not paid in the patent requiring such payment the patent will expire on
the 4th, 8th, or 12th anniversary of the grant.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on Sep. 18, 2007
for which maintenance fees due at 3 years and six months may now be paid.
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
Utility Patents 7,269,855 through 7,272,859
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on Sep. 16, 2003
for which maintenance fees due at 7 years and six months may now be paid.
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
Utility Patents 6,618,859 through 6,622,308
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on Sep. 14, 1999
for which maintenance fees due at 11 years and six months may now be paid.
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
Utility Patents 5,950,234 through 5,953,748
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
No maintenance fees are required for design or plant patents.
Payments of maintenance fees in patents may be submitted electronically
over the Internet at www.uspto.gov. Click on the "Site Index" link at the
top of the homepage (www.uspto.gov), and then scroll down and click on the
"Maintenance Fees" link for more information.
Payments of maintenance fees in patents not submitted electronically
over the Internet should be mailed to "United States Patent and Trademark
Office, P.O. Box 979070, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000".
Correspondence related to maintenance fees other than payments of
maintenance fees in patents is not to be mailed to P.O. Box 979070,
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, but must be mailed to "Mail Stop M
Correspondence, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O.
Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450".
Patent owners must establish small entity status according to 37 CFR
1.27 if they have not done so and if they wish to pay the small entity
amount.
The current amounts of the maintenance fees due at 3 years and six
months, 7 years and six months, and 11 years and six months are set forth
in the most recently amended provisions in 37 CFR 1.20(e)-(g). To obtain
the current maintenance fee amounts, please call the USPTO Contact Center
at (800)-786-9199 or see the current USPTO fee schedule posted on the USPTO
Internet web site. At the top of the USPTO homepage at www.uspto.gov, click
on the "Site Index" link and then scroll down and click on the "Fees,
USPTO" link to find the current USPTO fee schedule.
| Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee |
Notice of Expiration of Patents
Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee
35 U.S.C. 41 and 37 CFR 1.362(g) provide that if the required
maintenance fee and any applicable surcharge are not paid in a patent
requiring such payment, the patent will expire at the end of the 4th, 8th
or 12th anniversary of the grant of the patent depending on the first
maintenance fee which was not paid.
According to the records of the Office, the patents listed below have
expired due to failure to pay the required maintenance fee and any
applicable surcharge.
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON August 11, 2010
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
5,790,980 08/792,641 08/11/98
5,790,992 08/623,532 08/11/98
5,790,993 08/924,896 08/11/98
5,790,995 08/872,267 08/11/98
5,791,003 08/666,841 08/11/98
5,791,018 08/754,616 08/11/98
5,791,024 08/833,543 08/11/98
5,791,051 08/746,013 08/11/98
5,791,055 08/625,086 08/11/98
5,791,067 08/786,825 08/11/98
5,791,076 08/725,357 08/11/98
5,791,081 08/888,257 08/11/98
5,791,085 08/904,818 08/11/98
5,791,088 08/738,209 08/11/98
5,791,090 08/155,010 08/11/98
5,791,094 08/780,272 08/11/98
5,791,101 08/661,873 08/11/98
5,791,110 08/792,175 08/11/98
5,791,113 08/673,259 08/11/98
5,791,115 08/724,995 08/11/98
5,791,124 08/555,328 08/11/98
5,791,127 08/742,864 08/11/98
5,791,130 08/707,590 08/11/98
5,791,131 08/702,226 08/11/98
5,791,139 08/393,841 08/11/98
5,791,144 08/854,077 08/11/98
5,791,153 08/740,868 08/11/98
5,791,159 08/688,598 08/11/98
5,791,164 08/664,589 08/11/98
5,791,169 08/918,128 08/11/98
5,791,177 08/574,276 08/11/98
5,791,185 08/403,732 08/11/98
5,791,188 08/769,163 08/11/98
5,791,190 08/694,286 08/11/98
5,791,196 08/605,188 08/11/98
5,791,200 08/763,274 08/11/98
5,791,204 08/592,517 08/11/98
5,791,213 08/747,465 08/11/98
5,791,219 08/531,954 08/11/98
5,791,220 08/732,858 08/11/98
5,791,222 08/432,634 08/11/98
5,791,223 08/823,827 08/11/98
5,791,226 08/762,987 08/11/98
5,791,229 08/751,199 08/11/98
5,791,241 08/703,210 08/11/98
5,791,245 08/765,810 08/11/98
5,791,249 08/825,252 08/11/98
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 331 |
5,791,250 08/889,255 08/11/98
5,791,260 08/670,241 08/11/98
5,791,261 08/735,802 08/11/98
5,791,274 08/752,321 08/11/98
5,791,286 08/608,668 08/11/98
5,791,295 08/679,095 08/11/98
5,791,302 08/727,566 08/11/98
5,791,304 08/800,027 08/11/98
5,791,305 08/694,429 08/11/98
5,791,310 08/703,051 08/11/98
5,791,317 08/892,691 08/11/98
5,791,327 08/526,538 08/11/98
5,791,331 08/730,358 08/11/98
5,791,340 08/743,452 08/11/98
5,791,346 08/670,321 08/11/98
5,791,348 08/592,611 08/11/98
5,791,350 08/482,611 08/11/98
5,791,354 08/779,320 08/11/98
5,791,358 08/752,101 08/11/98
5,791,360 08/482,644 08/11/98
5,791,365 08/865,859 08/11/98
5,791,389 08/828,306 08/11/98
5,791,390 08/796,229 08/11/98
5,791,391 08/664,347 08/11/98
5,791,396 08/778,484 08/11/98
5,791,398 08/674,531 08/11/98
5,791,402 08/869,573 08/11/98
5,791,415 08/816,665 08/11/98
5,791,428 08/538,538 08/11/98
5,791,430 08/689,364 08/11/98
5,791,434 08/752,608 08/11/98
5,791,443 08/639,094 08/11/98
5,791,445 08/870,796 08/11/98
5,791,462 08/719,648 08/11/98
5,791,465 08/792,757 08/11/98
5,791,472 08/648,989 08/11/98
5,791,480 08/704,151 08/11/98
5,791,483 08/221,624 08/11/98
5,791,484 08/498,767 08/11/98
5,791,487 08/683,660 08/11/98
5,791,489 08/642,306 08/11/98
5,791,516 08/538,569 08/11/98
5,791,521 08/661,553 08/11/98
5,791,525 08/783,877 08/11/98
5,791,526 08/666,349 08/11/98
5,791,530 08/906,422 08/11/98
5,791,532 08/809,279 08/11/98
5,791,535 08/556,032 08/11/98
5,791,542 08/825,263 08/11/98
5,791,545 08/681,393 08/11/98
5,791,547 08/942,388 08/11/98
5,791,552 08/448,757 08/11/98
5,791,556 08/879,671 08/11/98
5,791,573 08/791,902 08/11/98
5,791,574 08/819,098 08/11/98
5,791,581 08/757,913 08/11/98
5,791,592 08/374,931 08/11/98
5,791,599 08/504,056 08/11/98
5,791,604 08/791,817 08/11/98
5,791,606 08/685,985 08/11/98
5,791,607 08/800,724 08/11/98
5,791,617 08/738,198 08/11/98
5,791,618 08/758,237 08/11/98
5,791,622 08/674,538 08/11/98
5,791,628 08/723,411 08/11/98
5,791,631 08/562,018 08/11/98
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 332 |
5,791,642 08/754,259 08/11/98
5,791,651 08/827,218 08/11/98
5,791,655 08/926,292 08/11/98
5,791,659 08/912,861 08/11/98
5,791,661 08/735,674 08/11/98
5,791,663 08/740,497 08/11/98
5,791,665 08/677,711 08/11/98
5,791,673 08/651,581 08/11/98
5,791,675 08/610,057 08/11/98
5,791,677 08/639,116 08/11/98
5,791,685 08/803,477 08/11/98
5,791,686 08/611,995 08/11/98
5,791,689 08/470,223 08/11/98
5,791,695 08/424,724 08/11/98
5,791,696 08/736,289 08/11/98
5,791,701 08/696,309 08/11/98
5,791,707 08/704,385 08/11/98
5,791,709 08/713,037 08/11/98
5,791,710 08/780,693 08/11/98
5,791,713 08/686,554 08/11/98
5,791,716 08/652,000 08/11/98
5,791,724 08/743,030 08/11/98
5,791,729 08/916,483 08/11/98
5,791,731 08/821,220 08/11/98
5,791,732 08/858,889 08/11/98
5,791,735 08/680,814 08/11/98
5,791,743 08/746,542 08/11/98
5,791,751 08/655,975 08/11/98
5,791,754 08/783,252 08/11/98
5,791,756 08/697,930 08/11/98
5,791,761 08/674,099 08/11/98
5,791,772 08/784,028 08/11/98
5,791,774 08/717,808 08/11/98
5,791,778 08/767,524 08/11/98
5,791,781 08/741,711 08/11/98
5,791,784 08/618,971 08/11/98
5,791,793 08/860,971 08/11/98
5,791,794 08/776,252 08/11/98
5,791,821 08/812,874 08/11/98
5,791,825 08/725,447 08/11/98
5,791,833 08/365,906 08/11/98
5,791,835 08/604,575 08/11/98
5,791,844 08/735,518 08/11/98
5,791,853 08/859,828 08/11/98
5,791,874 08/786,870 08/11/98
5,791,875 08/710,129 08/11/98
5,791,887 08/734,415 08/11/98
5,791,889 08/644,609 08/11/98
5,791,896 08/765,233 08/11/98
5,791,903 08/840,426 08/11/98
5,791,908 08/678,282 08/11/98
5,791,915 08/621,311 08/11/98
5,791,934 08/656,565 08/11/98
5,791,935 08/674,602 08/11/98
5,791,943 08/562,373 08/11/98
5,791,946 08/586,189 08/11/98
5,791,947 08/476,115 08/11/98
5,791,948 08/888,181 08/11/98
5,791,950 08/759,601 08/11/98
5,791,951 08/799,710 08/11/98
5,791,954 08/881,475 08/11/98
5,791,960 08/755,658 08/11/98
5,791,966 08/598,816 08/11/98
5,791,974 08/795,369 08/11/98
5,791,976 08/753,915 08/11/98
5,791,983 08/546,338 08/11/98
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 333 |
5,791,992 08/690,517 08/11/98
5,791,997 08/738,270 08/11/98
5,792,003 08/699,505 08/11/98
5,792,004 08/596,940 08/11/98
5,792,005 08/706,802 08/11/98
5,792,010 08/640,127 08/11/98
5,792,020 08/805,998 08/11/98
5,792,021 08/661,558 08/11/98
5,792,025 08/763,127 08/11/98
5,792,029 08/604,510 08/11/98
5,792,031 08/901,227 08/11/98
5,792,038 08/648,503 08/11/98
5,792,050 08/615,762 08/11/98
5,792,053 08/818,912 08/11/98
5,792,057 08/979,394 08/11/98
5,792,063 08/834,664 08/11/98
5,792,067 08/615,094 08/11/98
5,792,068 08/157,737 08/11/98
5,792,081 08/544,714 08/11/98
5,792,082 08/662,703 08/11/98
5,792,085 08/661,822 08/11/98
5,792,087 08/740,494 08/11/98
5,792,095 08/673,975 08/11/98
5,792,096 08/422,118 08/11/98
5,792,102 08/687,464 08/11/98
5,792,112 08/546,281 08/11/98
5,792,114 08/766,988 08/11/98
5,792,118 08/764,061 08/11/98
5,792,130 08/646,332 08/11/98
5,792,146 08/623,662 08/11/98
5,792,151 08/590,786 08/11/98
5,792,161 08/666,358 08/11/98
5,792,163 08/679,094 08/11/98
5,792,199 08/900,083 08/11/98
5,792,201 08/749,579 08/11/98
5,792,213 08/559,469 08/11/98
5,792,221 08/755,628 08/11/98
5,792,224 08/789,309 08/11/98
5,792,228 08/728,458 08/11/98
5,792,229 08/877,197 08/11/98
5,792,233 08/560,796 08/11/98
5,792,247 08/638,421 08/11/98
5,792,256 08/719,126 08/11/98
5,792,265 08/583,074 08/11/98
5,792,266 08/693,508 08/11/98
5,792,274 08/747,898 08/11/98
5,792,275 08/467,658 08/11/98
5,792,289 08/624,515 08/11/98
5,792,290 08/707,459 08/11/98
5,792,294 08/559,357 08/11/98
5,792,301 08/910,935 08/11/98
5,792,312 08/662,581 08/11/98
5,792,317 08/597,828 08/11/98
5,792,320 08/725,413 08/11/98
5,792,321 08/546,548 08/11/98
5,792,325 08/708,516 08/11/98
5,792,334 08/787,109 08/11/98
5,792,342 08/606,636 08/11/98
5,792,344 08/742,793 08/11/98
5,792,348 08/728,260 08/11/98
5,792,353 08/756,475 08/11/98
5,792,355 08/529,178 08/11/98
5,792,371 08/701,762 08/11/98
5,792,376 08/580,824 08/11/98
5,792,377 08/460,281 08/11/98
5,792,378 08/691,782 08/11/98
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 334 |
5,792,379 08/825,074 08/11/98
5,792,381 08/486,992 08/11/98
5,792,382 08/486,994 08/11/98
5,792,395 08/406,868 08/11/98
5,792,400 08/538,637 08/11/98
5,792,401 08/653,886 08/11/98
5,792,402 08/815,543 08/11/98
5,792,419 08/825,408 08/11/98
5,792,420 08/855,309 08/11/98
5,792,422 08/771,046 08/11/98
5,792,423 08/400,984 08/11/98
5,792,428 08/650,326 08/11/98
5,792,439 08/746,365 08/11/98
5,792,443 08/708,318 08/11/98
5,792,446 08/802,316 08/11/98
5,792,448 08/866,041 08/11/98
5,792,450 08/405,913 08/11/98
5,792,456 08/487,860 08/11/98
5,792,466 08/766,703 08/11/98
5,792,471 08/635,312 08/11/98
5,792,486 08/832,513 08/11/98
5,792,489 08/567,891 08/11/98
5,792,494 08/693,807 08/11/98
5,792,498 08/804,527 08/11/98
5,792,507 08/788,588 08/11/98
5,792,508 08/615,233 08/11/98
5,792,514 08/954,029 08/11/98
5,792,526 08/530,152 08/11/98
5,792,529 08/361,093 08/11/98
5,792,530 08/696,364 08/11/98
5,792,533 08/700,769 08/11/98
5,792,542 08/835,373 08/11/98
5,792,546 08/289,204 08/11/98
5,792,549 08/655,542 08/11/98
5,792,560 08/535,413 08/11/98
5,792,561 08/690,965 08/11/98
5,792,567 08/545,798 08/11/98
5,792,569 08/618,184 08/11/98
5,792,587 08/920,973 08/11/98
5,792,595 08/608,495 08/11/98
5,792,596 08/595,916 08/11/98
5,792,597 08/236,161 08/11/98
5,792,598 08/623,344 08/11/98
5,792,599 08/710,720 08/11/98
5,792,608 08/417,632 08/11/98
5,792,611 08/652,127 08/11/98
5,792,615 08/812,861 08/11/98
5,792,617 08/476,229 08/11/98
5,792,621 08/496,230 08/11/98
5,792,635 08/474,799 08/11/98
5,792,636 08/765,913 08/11/98
5,792,638 08/247,946 08/11/98
5,792,639 08/783,889 08/11/98
5,792,664 08/474,997 08/11/98
5,792,667 08/491,866 08/11/98
5,792,677 08/784,701 08/11/98
5,792,683 08/837,335 08/11/98
5,792,692 08/912,323 08/11/98
5,792,694 08/648,688 08/11/98
5,792,707 08/789,721 08/11/98
5,792,712 08/737,932 08/11/98
5,792,714 08/754,691 08/11/98
5,792,719 08/643,023 08/11/98
5,792,720 08/572,700 08/11/98
5,792,723 08/752,938 08/11/98
5,792,726 08/412,494 08/11/98
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 335 |
5,792,747 08/377,764 08/11/98
5,792,749 08/781,020 08/11/98
5,792,758 08/569,269 08/11/98
5,792,762 08/933,801 08/11/98
5,792,766 08/614,878 08/11/98
5,792,770 08/947,859 08/11/98
5,792,774 08/803,731 08/11/98
5,792,785 08/563,431 08/11/98
5,792,791 08/672,308 08/11/98
5,792,794 08/809,460 08/11/98
5,792,796 08/445,398 08/11/98
5,792,799 08/729,290 08/11/98
5,792,800 08/778,436 08/11/98
5,792,815 08/878,691 08/11/98
5,792,816 08/652,543 08/11/98
5,792,823 08/814,823 08/11/98
5,792,830 08/762,481 08/11/98
5,792,839 08/783,299 08/11/98
5,792,841 08/744,652 08/11/98
5,792,842 08/624,604 08/11/98
5,792,855 08/788,201 08/11/98
5,792,857 08/773,001 08/11/98
5,792,858 08/628,344 08/11/98
5,792,860 08/700,405 08/11/98
5,792,863 08/631,947 08/11/98
5,792,877 08/743,325 08/11/98
5,792,884 08/170,985 08/11/98
5,792,891 08/792,980 08/11/98
5,792,900 08/640,894 08/11/98
5,792,901 08/692,892 08/11/98
5,792,921 08/290,301 08/11/98
5,792,931 08/484,815 08/11/98
5,792,933 08/539,304 08/11/98
5,792,944 08/697,019 08/11/98
5,792,945 08/603,774 08/11/98
5,792,949 08/705,895 08/11/98
5,792,958 08/786,820 08/11/98
5,792,959 08/643,668 08/11/98
5,792,962 08/477,624 08/11/98
5,792,965 08/513,924 08/11/98
5,792,983 08/763,229 08/11/98
5,792,990 08/054,907 08/11/98
5,793,015 08/472,972 08/11/98
5,793,022 08/710,158 08/11/98
5,793,023 08/786,975 08/11/98
5,793,026 08/837,143 08/11/98
5,793,033 08/623,963 08/11/98
5,793,034 08/713,441 08/11/98
5,793,039 08/605,572 08/11/98
5,793,043 08/774,871 08/11/98
5,793,045 08/804,377 08/11/98
5,793,048 08/769,047 08/11/98
5,793,049 08/498,606 08/11/98
5,793,050 08/756,133 08/11/98
5,793,063 08/625,638 08/11/98
5,793,065 08/483,325 08/11/98
5,793,070 08/637,290 08/11/98
5,793,091 08/768,019 08/11/98
5,793,099 08/646,031 08/11/98
5,793,112 08/715,446 08/11/98
5,793,121 08/176,235 08/11/98
5,793,131 08/692,953 08/11/98
5,793,135 08/852,036 08/11/98
5,793,137 08/844,025 08/11/98
5,793,147 08/837,657 08/11/98
5,793,149 08/889,956 08/11/98
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 336 |
5,793,150 08/499,627 08/11/98
5,793,155 08/402,996 08/11/98
5,793,161 08/431,881 08/11/98
5,793,170 08/816,160 08/11/98
5,793,173 08/668,812 08/11/98
5,793,201 08/391,979 08/11/98
5,793,211 08/882,998 08/11/98
5,793,214 08/851,815 08/11/98
5,793,215 08/577,664 08/11/98
5,793,216 08/476,575 08/11/98
5,793,218 08/573,026 08/11/98
5,793,223 08/703,317 08/11/98
5,793,227 08/694,048 08/11/98
5,793,233 08/655,475 08/11/98
5,793,234 08/651,366 08/11/98
5,793,250 08/733,120 08/11/98
5,793,253 08/430,988 08/11/98
5,793,259 08/879,957 08/11/98
5,793,261 08/835,664 08/11/98
5,793,265 08/866,188 08/11/98
5,793,267 08/612,090 08/11/98
5,793,270 08/806,030 08/11/98
5,793,277 08/821,573 08/11/98
5,793,280 08/824,353 08/11/98
5,793,291 08/645,597 08/11/98
5,793,296 08/640,159 08/11/98
5,793,319 08/753,762 08/11/98
5,793,320 08/764,791 08/11/98
5,793,340 08/528,975 08/11/98
5,793,341 08/783,410 08/11/98
5,793,350 08/752,475 08/11/98
5,793,354 08/438,323 08/11/98
5,793,364 08/662,243 08/11/98
5,793,380 08/599,163 08/11/98
5,793,384 08/596,737 08/11/98
5,793,391 08/514,141 08/11/98
5,793,392 08/490,055 08/11/98
5,793,395 08/478,687 08/11/98
5,793,405 08/518,361 08/11/98
5,793,408 08/551,805 08/11/98
5,793,411 08/594,498 08/11/98
5,793,417 08/738,808 08/11/98
5,793,418 08/704,192 08/11/98
5,793,420 08/603,464 08/11/98
5,793,428 08/833,583 08/11/98
5,793,430 08/976,937 08/11/98
5,793,436 08/665,522 08/11/98
5,793,438 08/627,176 08/11/98
5,793,442 08/659,778 08/11/98
5,793,462 08/792,891 08/11/98
5,793,465 08/728,249 08/11/98
5,793,474 08/533,933 08/11/98
5,793,481 08/704,669 08/11/98
5,793,487 08/935,905 08/11/98
5,793,488 08/509,161 08/11/98
5,793,496 08/716,645 08/11/98
5,793,501 08/607,035 08/11/98
5,793,502 08/593,089 08/11/98
5,793,509 08/498,426 08/11/98
5,793,510 08/614,176 08/11/98
5,793,512 08/592,862 08/11/98
5,793,521 08/684,786 08/11/98
5,793,527 08/497,673 08/11/98
5,793,531 08/748,419 08/11/98
5,793,537 08/781,593 08/11/98
5,793,541 07/535,944 08/11/98
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 337 |
5,793,550 08/636,059 08/11/98
5,793,552 08/926,572 08/11/98
5,793,554 08/677,148 08/11/98
5,793,557 08/622,913 08/11/98
5,793,560 08/358,402 08/11/98
5,793,563 08/590,085 08/11/98
5,793,564 08/595,484 08/11/98
5,793,574 08/711,618 08/11/98
5,793,576 08/869,732 08/11/98
5,793,578 08/752,012 08/11/98
5,793,582 08/695,418 08/11/98
5,793,583 08/703,378 08/11/98
5,793,586 08/736,752 08/11/98
5,793,590 08/878,182 08/11/98
5,793,599 08/662,624 08/11/98
5,793,603 08/752,312 08/11/98
5,793,604 08/670,355 08/11/98
5,793,614 08/953,491 08/11/98
5,793,633 08/351,217 08/11/98
5,793,639 08/711,740 08/11/98
5,793,641 08/576,187 08/11/98
5,793,652 08/775,675 08/11/98
5,793,664 08/787,237 08/11/98
5,793,665 08/672,996 08/11/98
5,793,670 08/734,333 08/11/98
5,793,681 08/870,358 08/11/98
5,793,686 08/755,930 08/11/98
5,793,690 08/891,959 08/11/98
5,793,711 08/655,115 08/11/98
5,793,714 08/937,898 08/11/98
5,793,730 08/865,195 08/11/98
5,793,732 08/605,504 08/11/98
5,793,734 08/838,651 08/11/98
5,793,735 08/591,299 08/11/98
5,793,740 08/775,283 08/11/98
5,793,747 08/616,147 08/11/98
5,793,749 08/529,252 08/11/98
5,793,768 08/700,709 08/11/98
5,793,769 08/688,211 08/11/98
5,793,782 08/749,811 08/11/98
5,793,790 08/712,365 08/11/98
5,793,797 08/437,764 08/11/98
5,793,802 08/572,262 08/11/98
5,793,806 08/576,842 08/11/98
5,793,808 08/579,324 08/11/98
5,793,814 08/607,562 08/11/98
5,793,815 08/766,240 08/11/98
5,793,816 08/782,761 08/11/98
5,793,820 08/677,987 08/11/98
5,793,840 08/297,966 08/11/98
5,793,841 08/634,391 08/11/98
5,793,856 08/706,980 08/11/98
5,793,862 08/619,403 08/11/98
5,793,869 08/731,263 08/11/98
5,793,875 08/635,550 08/11/98
5,793,878 08/869,955 08/11/98
5,793,886 08/769,973 08/11/98
5,793,895 08/697,652 08/11/98
5,793,896 08/409,514 08/11/98
5,793,903 08/434,560 08/11/98
5,793,908 08/687,734 08/11/98
5,793,910 08/788,189 08/11/98
5,793,912 08/769,459 08/11/98
5,793,916 08/754,034 08/11/98
5,793,917 08/616,974 08/11/98
5,793,920 08/740,609 08/11/98
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 338 |
5,793,921 08/741,608 08/11/98
5,793,922 08/544,176 08/11/98
5,793,923 08/710,543 08/11/98
5,793,933 08/895,997 08/11/98
5,793,939 08/733,324 08/11/98
5,793,948 08/563,004 08/11/98
5,793,949 08/623,681 08/11/98
5,793,953 08/499,199 08/11/98
5,793,954 08/575,506 08/11/98
5,793,957 08/733,341 08/11/98
5,793,962 08/641,387 08/11/98
5,793,965 08/408,633 08/11/98
5,793,971 08/569,243 08/11/98
5,793,983 08/589,276 08/11/98
5,794,000 08/707,962 08/11/98
5,794,005 08/363,546 08/11/98
5,794,018 08/398,164 08/11/98
5,794,020 08/663,982 08/11/98
5,794,022 08/751,948 08/11/98
5,794,033 08/547,635 08/11/98
5,794,035 08/858,196 08/11/98
5,794,046 08/869,647 08/11/98
5,794,047 08/870,749 08/11/98
5,794,062 08/423,560 08/11/98
5,794,065 08/646,075 08/11/98
5,794,067 08/536,134 08/11/98
5,794,069 08/572,265 08/11/98
5,794,071 08/510,500 08/11/98
5,794,077 08/740,392 08/11/98
5,794,085 08/777,483 08/11/98
5,794,087 08/686,806 08/11/98
5,794,088 08/854,545 08/11/98
5,794,093 08/807,814 08/11/98
5,794,112 08/883,060 08/11/98
5,794,114 08/517,879 08/11/98
5,794,116 08/511,853 08/11/98
5,794,129 08/678,996 08/11/98
5,794,133 08/700,996 08/11/98
5,794,138 08/805,619 08/11/98
5,794,139 08/541,528 08/11/98
5,794,150 08/660,206 08/11/98
5,794,165 08/803,375 08/11/98
5,794,170 08/557,209 08/11/98
5,794,190 08/338,158 08/11/98
5,794,198 08/547,544 08/11/98
5,794,204 08/536,563 08/11/98
5,794,208 08/609,828 08/11/98
5,794,244 08/658,039 08/11/98
5,794,249 08/576,106 08/11/98
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON August 6, 2010
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
6,427,241 09/537,534 08/06/02
6,427,244 09/939,334 08/06/02
6,427,245 09/924,642 08/06/02
6,427,248 09/520,300 08/06/02
6,427,253 09/814,310 08/06/02
6,427,255 09/896,620 08/06/02
6,427,257 09/728,109 08/06/02
6,427,261 09/573,837 08/06/02
6,427,266 09/741,775 08/06/02
6,427,267 09/836,725 08/06/02
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 339 |
6,427,268 09/494,021 08/06/02
6,427,272 09/870,760 08/06/02
6,427,273 09/891,252 08/06/02
6,427,276 09/922,020 08/06/02
6,427,289 09/804,545 08/06/02
6,427,293 09/625,424 08/06/02
6,427,298 09/909,721 08/06/02
6,427,300 09/813,388 08/06/02
6,427,305 09/422,538 08/06/02
6,427,309 09/634,758 08/06/02
6,427,313 09/770,207 08/06/02
6,427,315 09/333,907 08/06/02
6,427,323 09/859,690 08/06/02
6,427,324 09/114,790 08/06/02
6,427,325 09/544,114 08/06/02
6,427,333 09/483,307 08/06/02
6,427,337 09/641,850 08/06/02
6,427,340 09/963,406 08/06/02
6,427,341 08/928,045 08/06/02
6,427,343 09/585,777 08/06/02
6,427,344 09/366,479 08/06/02
6,427,345 09/189,443 08/06/02
6,427,352 09/558,212 08/06/02
6,427,353 09/086,102 08/06/02
6,427,354 09/314,022 08/06/02
6,427,356 09/397,734 08/06/02
6,427,360 09/769,865 08/06/02
6,427,369 09/537,928 08/06/02
6,427,375 09/842,462 08/06/02
6,427,377 09/698,658 08/06/02
6,427,383 09/485,106 08/06/02
6,427,384 09/373,890 08/06/02
6,427,387 09/427,813 08/06/02
6,427,389 09/723,998 08/06/02
6,427,391 09/425,725 08/06/02
6,427,393 09/771,176 08/06/02
6,427,395 09/513,184 08/06/02
6,427,397 09/674,901 08/06/02
6,427,400 09/791,696 08/06/02
6,427,405 09/674,494 08/06/02
6,427,414 09/662,562 08/06/02
6,427,415 09/192,906 08/06/02
6,427,417 09/478,441 08/06/02
6,427,418 09/551,057 08/06/02
6,427,419 09/781,717 08/06/02
6,427,427 09/583,615 08/06/02
6,427,429 09/840,509 08/06/02
6,427,432 09/623,909 08/06/02
6,427,433 09/671,805 08/06/02
6,427,438 09/708,707 08/06/02
6,427,440 09/574,615 08/06/02
6,427,441 09/751,767 08/06/02
6,427,460 09/537,665 08/06/02
6,427,462 09/669,908 08/06/02
6,427,463 09/505,390 08/06/02
6,427,465 09/627,485 08/06/02
6,427,466 09/733,957 08/06/02
6,427,467 09/895,240 08/06/02
6,427,468 09/639,467 08/06/02
6,427,482 09/674,727 08/06/02
6,427,484 09/972,808 08/06/02
6,427,485 09/913,185 08/06/02
6,427,490 09/622,077 08/06/02
6,427,494 09/554,228 08/06/02
6,427,495 09/589,344 08/06/02
6,427,496 09/760,573 08/06/02
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 340 |
6,427,498 09/662,529 08/06/02
6,427,504 09/014,311 08/06/02
6,427,505 09/764,835 08/06/02
6,427,506 09/578,061 08/06/02
6,427,515 09/620,967 08/06/02
6,427,520 09/733,118 08/06/02
6,427,523 09/401,776 08/06/02
6,427,531 09/437,583 08/06/02
6,427,543 09/816,595 08/06/02
6,427,546 09/729,840 08/06/02
6,427,547 09/779,181 08/06/02
6,427,549 09/757,805 08/06/02
6,427,552 09/693,670 08/06/02
6,427,553 09/701,995 08/06/02
6,427,557 09/762,335 08/06/02
6,427,567 09/596,155 08/06/02
6,427,571 09/644,834 08/06/02
6,427,572 09/801,145 08/06/02
6,427,573 08/938,875 08/06/02
6,427,581 10/028,628 08/06/02
6,427,582 10/055,084 08/06/02
6,427,583 09/371,688 08/06/02
6,427,584 10/050,643 08/06/02
6,427,585 09/697,359 08/06/02
6,427,596 09/440,945 08/06/02
6,427,602 09/897,256 08/06/02
6,427,605 09/650,833 08/06/02
6,427,606 09/789,066 08/06/02
6,427,613 09/675,886 08/06/02
6,427,614 09/857,935 08/06/02
6,427,615 09/760,762 08/06/02
6,427,618 09/718,753 08/06/02
6,427,620 10/032,965 08/06/02
6,427,625 09/744,399 08/06/02
6,427,628 09/668,578 08/06/02
6,427,641 09/636,820 08/06/02
6,427,642 09/659,748 08/06/02
6,427,644 09/299,085 08/06/02
6,427,646 09/764,701 08/06/02
6,427,647 09/975,726 08/06/02
6,427,649 09/666,336 08/06/02
6,427,650 09/666,337 08/06/02
6,427,651 09/744,694 08/06/02
6,427,653 09/697,148 08/06/02
6,427,657 09/836,797 08/06/02
6,427,659 09/837,420 08/06/02
6,427,666 09/647,051 08/06/02
6,427,669 09/889,012 08/06/02
6,427,670 09/838,184 08/06/02
6,427,678 09/592,000 08/06/02
6,427,695 09/614,561 08/06/02
6,427,698 09/764,173 08/06/02
6,427,699 09/457,863 08/06/02
6,427,700 09/567,460 08/06/02
6,427,701 09/655,658 08/06/02
6,427,703 09/510,117 08/06/02
6,427,706 09/516,589 08/06/02
6,427,710 09/659,079 08/06/02
6,427,711 09/693,265 08/06/02
6,427,712 09/329,190 08/06/02
6,427,718 09/729,713 08/06/02
6,427,719 09/762,364 08/06/02
6,427,722 09/863,643 08/06/02
6,427,729 09/867,369 08/06/02
6,427,732 09/719,444 08/06/02
6,427,734 09/992,391 08/06/02
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 341 |
6,427,735 09/793,178 08/06/02
6,427,741 09/445,864 08/06/02
6,427,743 09/429,078 08/06/02
6,427,747 09/096,285 08/06/02
6,427,752 09/496,752 08/06/02
6,427,753 09/242,136 08/06/02
6,427,765 09/435,805 08/06/02
6,427,766 09/833,313 08/06/02
6,427,797 09/780,309 08/06/02
6,427,798 09/615,802 08/06/02
6,427,803 09/754,138 08/06/02
6,427,813 09/463,166 08/06/02
6,427,820 09/601,164 08/06/02
6,427,821 09/693,018 08/06/02
6,427,830 09/128,120 08/06/02
6,427,833 09/671,655 08/06/02
6,427,834 09/828,790 08/06/02
6,427,835 09/730,726 08/06/02
6,427,838 09/591,979 08/06/02
6,427,843 09/320,530 08/06/02
6,427,849 09/893,783 08/06/02
6,427,855 09/500,091 08/06/02
6,427,857 09/535,393 08/06/02
6,427,858 09/746,115 08/06/02
6,427,866 09/630,106 08/06/02
6,427,870 09/852,271 08/06/02
6,427,877 09/741,390 08/06/02
6,427,879 09/449,296 08/06/02
6,427,882 09/817,549 08/06/02
6,427,888 09/641,309 08/06/02
6,427,891 09/558,958 08/06/02
6,427,894 09/692,406 08/06/02
6,427,895 09/625,334 08/06/02
6,427,900 09/455,690 08/06/02
6,427,901 09/774,850 08/06/02
6,427,909 09/465,289 08/06/02
6,427,910 09/465,291 08/06/02
6,427,911 09/465,292 08/06/02
6,427,928 09/656,424 08/06/02
6,427,933 09/509,616 08/06/02
6,427,936 09/692,300 08/06/02
6,427,937 09/646,717 08/06/02
6,427,960 09/680,744 08/06/02
6,427,962 09/567,461 08/06/02
6,427,966 09/382,741 08/06/02
6,427,967 09/232,559 08/06/02
6,427,969 09/843,677 08/06/02
6,427,976 09/464,012 08/06/02
6,427,977 09/549,437 08/06/02
6,427,984 09/637,484 08/06/02
6,427,987 09/400,505 08/06/02
6,427,988 09/191,452 08/06/02
6,427,991 09/633,086 08/06/02
6,427,994 09/632,183 08/06/02
6,427,995 09/560,266 08/06/02
6,428,002 09/522,050 08/06/02
6,428,004 09/613,678 08/06/02
6,428,006 09/531,128 08/06/02
6,428,017 09/583,414 08/06/02
6,428,023 09/911,115 08/06/02
6,428,025 09/741,545 08/06/02
6,428,028 09/455,083 08/06/02
6,428,030 09/837,256 08/06/02
6,428,038 09/644,535 08/06/02
6,428,039 09/600,126 08/06/02
6,428,041 09/989,915 08/06/02
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 342 |
6,428,047 09/505,113 08/06/02
6,428,049 09/746,293 08/06/02
6,428,054 09/441,445 08/06/02
6,428,055 09/623,772 08/06/02
6,428,063 09/402,291 08/06/02
6,428,065 09/818,453 08/06/02
6,428,066 09/705,194 08/06/02
6,428,069 09/720,148 08/06/02
6,428,077 09/705,832 08/06/02
6,428,078 09/757,176 08/06/02
6,428,081 09/301,673 08/06/02
6,428,083 09/498,915 08/06/02
6,428,087 09/754,922 08/06/02
6,428,088 09/567,300 08/06/02
6,428,089 09/907,912 08/06/02
6,428,091 09/766,370 08/06/02
6,428,093 10/026,202 08/06/02
6,428,094 09/640,195 08/06/02
6,428,096 09/725,062 08/06/02
6,428,097 09/687,806 08/06/02
6,428,102 09/504,253 08/06/02
6,428,108 09/630,158 08/06/02
6,428,112 09/719,246 08/06/02
6,428,114 09/547,296 08/06/02
6,428,119 09/820,219 08/06/02
6,428,125 09/535,588 08/06/02
6,428,144 09/824,656 08/06/02
6,428,154 08/721,205 08/06/02
6,428,167 09/970,654 08/06/02
6,428,172 09/449,121 08/06/02
6,428,184 09/776,717 08/06/02
6,428,188 09/464,187 08/06/02
6,428,205 09/533,867 08/06/02
6,428,211 09/423,203 08/06/02
6,428,218 09/647,163 08/06/02
6,428,221 09/677,391 08/06/02
6,428,236 09/726,326 08/06/02
6,428,238 09/780,157 08/06/02
6,428,239 09/713,404 08/06/02
6,428,242 09/708,369 08/06/02
6,428,245 09/481,960 08/06/02
6,428,251 09/633,565 08/06/02
6,428,254 09/742,634 08/06/02
6,428,258 08/849,940 08/06/02
6,428,259 09/755,304 08/06/02
6,428,268 09/641,572 08/06/02
6,428,277 09/859,859 08/06/02
6,428,289 09/745,755 08/06/02
6,428,301 09/212,561 08/06/02
6,428,306 09/458,102 08/06/02
6,428,307 09/675,558 08/06/02
6,428,316 09/766,447 08/06/02
6,428,317 09/652,278 08/06/02
6,428,320 09/428,693 08/06/02
6,428,322 09/631,631 08/06/02
6,428,327 09/418,665 08/06/02
6,428,332 09/584,726 08/06/02
6,428,333 09/966,525 08/06/02
6,428,334 09/768,380 08/06/02
6,428,342 09/776,832 08/06/02
6,428,346 09/865,669 08/06/02
6,428,352 09/608,981 08/06/02
6,428,357 09/883,187 08/06/02
6,428,358 09/750,419 08/06/02
6,428,359 09/843,602 08/06/02
6,428,363 09/880,136 08/06/02
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 343 |
6,428,367 09/510,965 08/06/02
6,428,379 09/814,967 08/06/02
6,428,381 09/734,263 08/06/02
6,428,394 09/541,144 08/06/02
6,428,402 09/948,129 08/06/02
6,428,406 09/757,710 08/06/02
6,428,407 09/146,852 08/06/02
6,428,409 09/933,507 08/06/02
6,428,410 09/811,650 08/06/02
6,428,421 09/630,493 08/06/02
6,428,424 09/904,642 08/06/02
6,428,425 09/380,770 08/06/02
6,428,430 09/545,204 08/06/02
6,428,439 09/678,718 08/06/02
6,428,441 09/649,202 08/06/02
6,428,442 09/529,212 08/06/02
6,428,449 09/574,575 08/06/02
6,428,450 09/861,499 08/06/02
6,428,456 09/601,206 08/06/02
6,428,462 09/526,322 08/06/02
6,428,470 09/382,495 08/06/02
6,428,473 09/639,488 08/06/02
6,428,481 09/580,639 08/06/02
6,428,485 09/537,613 08/06/02
6,428,497 09/944,018 08/06/02
6,428,518 09/434,975 08/06/02
6,428,521 09/940,645 08/06/02
6,428,532 09/460,860 08/06/02
6,428,535 09/555,966 08/06/02
6,428,555 09/593,975 08/06/02
6,428,564 09/451,330 08/06/02
6,428,574 09/484,544 08/06/02
6,428,582 08/592,898 08/06/02
6,428,592 09/808,356 08/06/02
6,428,594 09/642,396 08/06/02
6,428,595 09/554,694 08/06/02
6,428,597 09/674,735 08/06/02
6,428,607 09/602,719 08/06/02
6,428,608 09/748,624 08/06/02
6,428,618 09/780,058 08/06/02
6,428,645 08/867,617 08/06/02
6,428,647 09/668,470 08/06/02
6,428,650 09/633,791 08/06/02
6,428,652 09/495,533 08/06/02
6,428,661 09/642,158 08/06/02
6,428,667 09/686,147 08/06/02
6,428,670 09/443,720 08/06/02
6,428,675 09/615,432 08/06/02
6,428,676 09/708,168 08/06/02
6,428,678 09/622,557 08/06/02
6,428,682 09/508,242 08/06/02
6,428,687 09/622,224 08/06/02
6,428,690 09/661,013 08/06/02
6,428,694 09/441,570 08/06/02
6,428,695 09/791,765 08/06/02
6,428,698 09/367,491 08/06/02
6,428,700 09/655,675 08/06/02
6,428,715 09/692,961 08/06/02
6,428,716 09/569,910 08/06/02
6,428,725 09/600,328 08/06/02
6,428,727 09/506,265 08/06/02
6,428,731 09/623,443 08/06/02
6,428,732 09/328,338 08/06/02
6,428,734 09/505,433 08/06/02
6,428,737 08/981,467 08/06/02
6,428,738 09/083,943 08/06/02
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 344 |
6,428,747 09/430,219 08/06/02
6,428,760 09/598,073 08/06/02
6,428,778 09/578,731 08/06/02
6,428,783 09/038,621 08/06/02
6,428,785 09/428,375 08/06/02
6,428,791 09/290,759 08/06/02
6,428,798 09/382,074 08/06/02
6,428,803 09/451,691 08/06/02
6,428,808 08/952,426 08/06/02
6,428,816 08/718,522 08/06/02
6,428,819 09/542,237 08/06/02
6,428,822 09/824,925 08/06/02
6,428,823 09/818,562 08/06/02
6,428,827 09/540,383 08/06/02
6,428,830 09/075,284 08/06/02
6,428,833 08/945,788 08/06/02
6,428,837 09/589,887 08/06/02
6,428,838 09/606,949 08/06/02
6,428,840 09/794,000 08/06/02
6,428,843 09/669,427 08/06/02
6,428,844 08/153,239 08/06/02
6,428,845 09/700,777 08/06/02
6,428,847 09/688,555 08/06/02
6,428,850 09/613,694 08/06/02
6,428,851 09/517,064 08/06/02
6,428,852 09/743,008 08/06/02
6,428,855 09/579,353 08/06/02
6,428,861 09/879,593 08/06/02
6,428,863 09/508,538 08/06/02
6,428,864 09/820,354 08/06/02
6,428,865 08/004,500 08/06/02
6,428,869 09/118,331 08/06/02
6,428,873 08/732,866 08/06/02
6,428,877 08/793,826 08/06/02
6,428,880 09/700,705 08/06/02
6,428,882 09/079,238 08/06/02
6,428,886 08/966,168 08/06/02
6,428,894 08/868,772 08/06/02
6,428,896 09/098,743 08/06/02
6,428,897 09/454,932 08/06/02
6,428,902 08/514,782 08/06/02
6,428,913 09/330,164 08/06/02
6,428,915 09/404,088 08/06/02
6,428,916 09/468,027 08/06/02
6,428,924 09/076,869 08/06/02
6,428,928 09/520,797 08/06/02
6,428,932 09/574,957 08/06/02
6,428,937 09/572,723 08/06/02
6,428,946 09/851,890 08/06/02
6,428,947 09/755,419 08/06/02
6,428,948 09/805,335 08/06/02
6,428,974 09/859,213 08/06/02
6,428,975 09/483,228 08/06/02
6,428,977 08/580,031 08/06/02
6,428,979 09/375,417 08/06/02
6,428,982 09/587,754 08/06/02
6,428,987 09/735,372 08/06/02
6,428,993 08/881,742 08/06/02
6,428,995 09/742,737 08/06/02
6,428,999 09/160,036 08/06/02
6,429,002 08/069,458 08/06/02
6,429,004 09/609,566 08/06/02
6,429,005 09/632,155 08/06/02
6,429,006 09/508,277 08/06/02
6,429,010 09/129,668 08/06/02
6,429,019 09/487,512 08/06/02
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 345 |
6,429,023 09/357,204 08/06/02
6,429,028 09/934,647 08/06/02
6,429,031 09/725,268 08/06/02
6,429,033 09/865,851 08/06/02
6,429,038 08/720,003 08/06/02
6,429,039 09/900,022 08/06/02
6,429,045 09/779,215 08/06/02
6,429,066 09/465,097 08/06/02
6,429,067 09/765,036 08/06/02
6,429,068 09/897,868 08/06/02
6,429,077 09/452,106 08/06/02
6,429,078 09/817,118 08/06/02
6,429,079 09/576,233 08/06/02
6,429,080 09/793,517 08/06/02
6,429,082 09/684,118 08/06/02
6,429,084 09/885,828 08/06/02
6,429,090 09/513,308 08/06/02
6,429,091 09/733,324 08/06/02
6,429,099 09/478,037 08/06/02
6,429,101 09/240,753 08/06/02
6,429,105 09/612,960 08/06/02
6,429,113 09/518,447 08/06/02
6,429,122 09/925,820 08/06/02
6,429,139 09/466,628 08/06/02
6,429,149 09/511,394 08/06/02
6,429,157 09/254,211 08/06/02
6,429,163 09/821,769 08/06/02
6,429,173 09/721,648 08/06/02
6,429,174 09/754,134 08/06/02
6,429,182 10/008,906 08/06/02
6,429,188 09/446,352 08/06/02
6,429,193 09/486,020 08/06/02
6,429,195 09/654,156 08/06/02
6,429,203 09/551,016 08/06/02
6,429,215 09/893,568 08/06/02
6,429,218 09/711,376 08/06/02
6,429,219 09/564,070 08/06/02
6,429,220 09/786,291 08/06/02
6,429,225 09/802,270 08/06/02
6,429,226 09/562,447 08/06/02
6,429,229 09/646,059 08/06/02
6,429,233 09/830,371 08/06/02
6,429,237 09/832,429 08/06/02
6,429,245 08/931,169 08/06/02
6,429,251 09/729,933 08/06/02
6,429,252 09/381,972 08/06/02
6,429,257 09/339,689 08/06/02
6,429,263 09/756,695 08/06/02
6,429,264 09/842,172 08/06/02
6,429,270 09/895,939 08/06/02
6,429,272 09/957,379 08/06/02
6,429,282 09/668,556 08/06/02
6,429,284 09/858,681 08/06/02
6,429,289 08/265,428 08/06/02
6,429,291 08/477,831 08/06/02
6,429,292 09/151,957 08/06/02
6,429,297 09/496,744 08/06/02
6,429,302 09/490,818 08/06/02
6,429,308 09/582,224 08/06/02
6,429,309 09/921,203 08/06/02
6,429,312 09/812,199 08/06/02
6,429,313 09/822,109 08/06/02
6,429,317 09/117,089 08/06/02
6,429,319 09/767,668 08/06/02
6,429,323 09/598,933 08/06/02
6,429,327 09/487,420 08/06/02
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 346 |
6,429,332 08/456,085 08/06/02
6,429,335 10/019,196 08/06/02
6,429,340 09/963,421 08/06/02
6,429,342 09/611,499 08/06/02
6,429,345 09/598,460 08/06/02
6,429,347 09/844,227 08/06/02
6,429,348 09/073,148 08/06/02
6,429,353 09/047,910 08/06/02
6,429,374 09/790,510 08/06/02
6,429,384 09/588,836 08/06/02
6,429,387 09/319,779 08/06/02
6,429,391 09/664,098 08/06/02
6,429,401 09/970,454 08/06/02
6,429,402 09/587,183 08/06/02
6,429,409 09/756,367 08/06/02
6,429,425 09/340,402 08/06/02
6,429,427 09/538,886 08/06/02
6,429,433 09/522,737 08/06/02
6,429,438 09/351,964 08/06/02
6,429,441 09/498,923 08/06/02
6,429,443 09/589,029 08/06/02
6,429,444 09/382,051 08/06/02
6,429,458 09/628,905 08/06/02
6,429,463 09/620,117 08/06/02
6,429,469 09/705,031 08/06/02
6,429,473 08/690,629 08/06/02
6,429,477 09/702,315 08/06/02
6,429,478 09/645,061 08/06/02
6,429,487 09/755,118 08/06/02
6,429,488 09/791,273 08/06/02
6,429,495 09/208,478 08/06/02
6,429,501 09/522,171 08/06/02
6,429,507 09/541,843 08/06/02
6,429,508 09/677,598 08/06/02
6,429,510 09/871,445 08/06/02
6,429,517 09/418,974 08/06/02
6,429,521 09/531,177 08/06/02
6,429,523 09/755,899 08/06/02
6,429,527 09/764,047 08/06/02
6,429,545 09/470,597 08/06/02
6,429,551 09/647,259 08/06/02
6,429,557 09/790,465 08/06/02
6,429,558 09/806,015 08/06/02
6,429,559 09/618,418 08/06/02
6,429,560 09/420,109 08/06/02
6,429,570 09/640,492 08/06/02
6,429,572 09/584,863 08/06/02
6,429,575 09/403,850 08/06/02
6,429,598 09/718,338 08/06/02
6,429,603 09/559,174 08/06/02
6,429,605 09/703,572 08/06/02
6,429,608 09/789,313 08/06/02
6,429,613 09/790,659 08/06/02
6,429,614 09/673,037 08/06/02
6,429,616 09/820,487 08/06/02
6,429,619 09/785,688 08/06/02
6,429,622 09/711,998 08/06/02
6,429,631 09/794,363 08/06/02
6,429,640 09/643,902 08/06/02
6,429,644 09/527,577 08/06/02
6,429,652 09/598,621 08/06/02
6,429,655 09/773,420 08/06/02
6,429,656 09/824,373 08/06/02
6,429,658 09/412,097 08/06/02
6,429,660 09/748,881 08/06/02
6,429,668 09/624,137 08/06/02
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 347 |
6,429,673 09/429,215 08/06/02
6,429,675 09/293,449 08/06/02
6,429,677 09/501,654 08/06/02
6,429,694 09/471,522 08/06/02
6,429,704 09/675,547 08/06/02
6,429,718 09/469,334 08/06/02
6,429,738 09/623,576 08/06/02
6,429,743 09/759,157 08/06/02
6,429,745 09/984,796 08/06/02
6,429,755 09/772,459 08/06/02
6,429,759 09/503,393 08/06/02
6,429,760 09/692,784 08/06/02
6,429,767 09/552,936 08/06/02
6,429,778 09/960,567 08/06/02
6,429,779 09/745,869 08/06/02
6,429,787 09/394,126 08/06/02
6,429,791 09/800,299 08/06/02
6,429,794 09/609,048 08/06/02
6,429,796 09/616,235 08/06/02
6,429,802 09/457,749 08/06/02
6,429,831 09/903,197 08/06/02
6,429,834 09/421,402 08/06/02
6,429,840 09/831,904 08/06/02
6,429,860 09/594,208 08/06/02
6,429,874 09/142,658 08/06/02
6,429,878 09/473,389 08/06/02
6,429,894 09/450,820 08/06/02
6,429,895 08/996,287 08/06/02
6,429,898 09/024,946 08/06/02
6,429,899 09/351,847 08/06/02
6,429,923 09/247,059 08/06/02
6,429,926 09/756,405 08/06/02
6,429,936 09/369,526 08/06/02
6,429,966 09/572,577 08/06/02
6,429,967 09/807,829 08/06/02
6,429,978 09/777,958 08/06/02
6,429,979 09/791,771 08/06/02
6,429,981 09/782,525 08/06/02
6,429,989 09/592,740 08/06/02
6,429,993 09/408,049 08/06/02
6,429,995 09/299,893 08/06/02
6,429,997 09/282,740 08/06/02
6,430,001 08/405,278 08/06/02
6,430,003 10/023,814 08/06/02
6,430,011 09/556,055 08/06/02
6,430,013 09/456,043 08/06/02
6,430,014 09/635,722 08/06/02
6,430,015 09/773,743 08/06/02
6,430,017 08/967,152 08/06/02
6,430,030 09/770,357 08/06/02
6,430,043 09/699,861 08/06/02
6,430,045 09/868,890 08/06/02
6,430,046 09/924,470 08/06/02
6,430,056 09/916,261 08/06/02
6,430,083 09/606,577 08/06/02
6,430,091 09/773,621 08/06/02
6,430,096 09/703,768 08/06/02
6,430,097 09/900,023 08/06/02
6,430,108 09/581,273 08/06/02
6,430,112 08/774,126 08/06/02
6,430,114 09/569,613 08/06/02
6,430,118 09/376,780 08/06/02
6,430,121 09/549,700 08/06/02
6,430,124 09/466,756 08/06/02
6,430,127 09/282,336 08/06/02
6,430,130 09/268,614 08/06/02
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 348 |
6,430,139 09/671,710 08/06/02
6,430,141 09/288,390 08/06/02
6,430,143 09/538,701 08/06/02
6,430,154 09/636,479 08/06/02
6,430,156 09/221,531 08/06/02
6,430,157 09/047,815 08/06/02
6,430,161 09/758,154 08/06/02
6,430,166 09/377,031 08/06/02
6,430,179 09/256,160 08/06/02
6,430,187 09/325,185 08/06/02
6,430,197 09/079,930 08/06/02
6,430,204 09/376,292 08/06/02
6,430,207 09/396,597 08/06/02
6,430,208 09/037,704 08/06/02
6,430,211 09/393,040 08/06/02
6,430,221 09/392,078 08/06/02
6,430,230 09/343,630 08/06/02
6,430,241 09/376,945 08/06/02
6,430,242 09/330,713 08/06/02
6,430,244 09/286,561 08/06/02
6,430,254 09/730,960 08/06/02
6,430,256 09/845,242 08/06/02
6,430,258 09/817,975 08/06/02
6,430,260 09/752,014 08/06/02
6,430,272 09/070,150 08/06/02
6,430,276 09/420,872 08/06/02
6,430,287 08/924,069 08/06/02
6,430,291 09/031,687 08/06/02
6,430,292 09/110,144 08/06/02
6,430,294 09/362,148 08/06/02
6,430,295 08/890,768 08/06/02
6,430,308 09/229,989 08/06/02
6,430,310 09/580,045 08/06/02
6,430,312 09/221,473 08/06/02
6,430,316 08/658,590 08/06/02
6,430,318 09/217,431 08/06/02
6,430,324 09/378,209 08/06/02
6,430,329 09/545,191 08/06/02
6,430,335 09/649,455 08/06/02
6,430,338 09/568,972 08/06/02
6,430,340 09/315,030 08/06/02
6,430,347 09/645,025 08/06/02
6,430,350 09/529,328 08/06/02
6,430,352 09/532,296 08/06/02
6,430,355 09/125,091 08/06/02
6,430,362 09/059,355 08/06/02
6,430,367 09/716,939 08/06/02
6,430,373 09/580,224 08/06/02
6,430,375 09/820,713 08/06/02
6,430,380 09/757,371 08/06/02
6,430,394 09/336,378 08/06/02
6,430,422 09/620,379 08/06/02
6,430,428 09/065,055 08/06/02
6,430,429 09/453,421 08/06/02
6,430,430 09/561,956 08/06/02
6,430,432 09/469,457 08/06/02
6,430,443 09/551,154 08/06/02
6,430,444 09/623,688 08/06/02
6,430,451 09/259,651 08/06/02
6,430,453 09/185,743 08/06/02
6,430,455 09/236,425 08/06/02
6,430,464 09/265,020 08/06/02
6,430,470 09/697,430 08/06/02
6,430,496 08/980,645 08/06/02
6,430,514 09/697,668 08/06/02
6,430,523 09/828,274 08/06/02
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 349 |
6,430,526 09/218,918 08/06/02
6,430,529 09/259,512 08/06/02
6,430,538 09/070,636 08/06/02
6,430,540 09/498,465 08/06/02
6,430,541 09/560,319 08/06/02
6,430,546 09/284,963 08/06/02
6,430,548 08/182,886 08/06/02
6,430,551 09/167,424 08/06/02
6,430,561 09/429,963 08/06/02
6,430,579 09/473,859 08/06/02
6,430,586 09/328,304 08/06/02
6,430,593 09/037,173 08/06/02
6,430,598 09/240,638 08/06/02
6,430,624 09/503,797 08/06/02
6,430,632 09/322,603 08/06/02
6,430,643 09/389,438 08/06/02
6,430,658 09/315,540 08/06/02
6,430,667 09/548,949 08/06/02
6,430,670 09/703,536 08/06/02
6,430,672 09/617,829 08/06/02
6,430,678 09/363,463 08/06/02
6,430,679 09/165,521 08/06/02
6,430,681 09/336,075 08/06/02
6,430,683 09/344,023 08/06/02
6,430,687 09/292,192 08/06/02
6,430,701 09/204,761 08/06/02
6,430,707 09/282,684 08/06/02
6,430,717 09/609,775 08/06/02
6,430,729 09/494,975 08/06/02
6,430,733 09/296,369 08/06/02
6,430,738 08/087,824 08/06/02
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON August 8, 2010
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
7,086,092 11/282,383 08/08/06
7,086,094 10/992,541 08/08/06
7,086,101 10/876,289 08/08/06
7,086,106 11/104,052 08/08/06
7,086,108 11/341,612 08/08/06
7,086,110 10/777,512 08/08/06
7,086,114 09/990,074 08/08/06
7,086,115 10/799,894 08/08/06
7,086,116 10/149,803 08/08/06
7,086,117 10/694,515 08/08/06
7,086,120 10/879,051 08/08/06
7,086,122 10/851,052 08/08/06
7,086,123 10/912,072 08/08/06
7,086,124 10/726,825 08/08/06
7,086,126 10/909,193 08/08/06
7,086,129 11/260,874 08/08/06
7,086,130 11/188,362 08/08/06
7,086,136 10/452,645 08/08/06
7,086,139 10/836,136 08/08/06
7,086,147 10/768,836 08/08/06
7,086,156 10/444,715 08/08/06
7,086,163 11/054,313 08/08/06
7,086,172 10/777,223 08/08/06
7,086,176 10/960,911 08/08/06
7,086,192 10/630,323 08/08/06
7,086,197 10/912,755 08/08/06
7,086,201 10/333,156 08/08/06
7,086,202 10/646,626 08/08/06
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 350 |
7,086,209 10/096,011 08/08/06
7,086,212 10/124,774 08/08/06
7,086,218 11/207,035 08/08/06
7,086,224 11/147,517 08/08/06
7,086,237 10/853,995 08/08/06
7,086,239 10/683,731 08/08/06
7,086,242 10/483,081 08/08/06
7,086,246 10/785,812 08/08/06
7,086,254 10/171,547 08/08/06
7,086,265 10/512,803 08/08/06
7,086,272 10/866,269 08/08/06
7,086,280 10/679,883 08/08/06
7,086,286 11/160,120 08/08/06
7,086,287 10/452,605 08/08/06
7,086,291 10/835,030 08/08/06
7,086,292 10/893,441 08/08/06
7,086,301 10/947,338 08/08/06
7,086,303 10/190,994 08/08/06
7,086,311 10/940,628 08/08/06
7,086,315 10/945,059 08/08/06
7,086,319 10/724,610 08/08/06
7,086,324 10/499,899 08/08/06
7,086,326 10/145,983 08/08/06
7,086,333 10/773,470 08/08/06
7,086,341 10/379,421 08/08/06
7,086,346 10/942,064 08/08/06
7,086,351 10/839,823 08/08/06
7,086,352 10/841,600 08/08/06
7,086,354 10/697,749 08/08/06
7,086,356 10/896,283 08/08/06
7,086,359 11/131,361 08/08/06
7,086,367 10/919,641 08/08/06
7,086,371 10/898,263 08/08/06
7,086,377 10/362,265 08/08/06
7,086,380 11/167,101 08/08/06
7,086,381 10/201,199 08/08/06
7,086,388 10/634,085 08/08/06
7,086,418 11/031,319 08/08/06
7,086,419 11/070,588 08/08/06
7,086,430 10/499,795 08/08/06
7,086,433 10/643,171 08/08/06
7,086,434 10/727,314 08/08/06
7,086,437 09/685,466 08/08/06
7,086,438 09/651,786 08/08/06
7,086,444 10/855,742 08/08/06
7,086,447 10/942,256 08/08/06
7,086,448 11/064,652 08/08/06
7,086,456 10/877,716 08/08/06
7,086,460 10/618,785 08/08/06
7,086,470 10/764,192 08/08/06
7,086,491 10/392,655 08/08/06
7,086,496 11/098,513 08/08/06
7,086,510 10/670,760 08/08/06
7,086,512 10/960,111 08/08/06
7,086,515 10/643,661 08/08/06
7,086,530 10/803,523 08/08/06
7,086,536 10/797,074 08/08/06
7,086,551 10/621,549 08/08/06
7,086,557 10/667,527 08/08/06
7,086,559 10/698,428 08/08/06
7,086,561 10/715,021 08/08/06
7,086,563 10/478,607 08/08/06
7,086,564 10/308,908 08/08/06
7,086,567 10/202,059 08/08/06
7,086,570 10/511,082 08/08/06
7,086,573 11/044,357 08/08/06
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 351 |
7,086,575 11/251,362 08/08/06
7,086,577 10/358,265 08/08/06
7,086,579 09/795,068 08/08/06
7,086,581 11/052,591 08/08/06
7,086,582 10/142,469 08/08/06
7,086,599 09/883,200 08/08/06
7,086,607 10/386,712 08/08/06
7,086,609 10/851,142 08/08/06
7,086,616 10/825,461 08/08/06
7,086,624 10/503,912 08/08/06
7,086,632 10/823,826 08/08/06
7,086,635 10/906,915 08/08/06
7,086,640 10/706,455 08/08/06
7,086,642 10/609,083 08/08/06
7,086,647 10/357,976 08/08/06
7,086,651 10/769,045 08/08/06
7,086,662 09/774,351 08/08/06
7,086,664 10/713,599 08/08/06
7,086,667 10/036,934 08/08/06
7,086,671 10/419,017 08/08/06
7,086,672 10/372,380 08/08/06
7,086,678 10/835,508 08/08/06
7,086,680 10/773,711 08/08/06
7,086,682 11/004,582 08/08/06
7,086,683 10/710,498 08/08/06
7,086,684 10/823,526 08/08/06
7,086,694 11/045,110 08/08/06
7,086,695 10/877,993 08/08/06
7,086,702 10/968,204 08/08/06
7,086,706 11/020,073 08/08/06
7,086,733 11/104,502 08/08/06
7,086,737 10/890,111 08/08/06
7,086,738 10/782,348 08/08/06
7,086,748 10/679,895 08/08/06
7,086,752 10/967,466 08/08/06
7,086,754 10/698,336 08/08/06
7,086,755 10/704,614 08/08/06
7,086,759 10/799,830 08/08/06
7,086,760 10/843,343 08/08/06
7,086,766 10/670,728 08/08/06
7,086,776 10/441,631 08/08/06
7,086,791 10/988,654 08/08/06
7,086,793 11/076,657 08/08/06
7,086,800 10/808,293 08/08/06
7,086,803 11/057,269 08/08/06
7,086,811 10/662,528 08/08/06
7,086,816 10/515,894 08/08/06
7,086,827 10/938,698 08/08/06
7,086,851 10/689,555 08/08/06
7,086,853 10/733,369 08/08/06
7,086,859 10/458,417 08/08/06
7,086,865 10/484,235 08/08/06
7,086,867 11/116,356 08/08/06
7,086,869 11/038,708 08/08/06
7,086,877 11/186,050 08/08/06
7,086,883 10/863,100 08/08/06
7,086,884 10/535,786 08/08/06
7,086,889 11/100,828 08/08/06
7,086,893 11/144,926 08/08/06
7,086,896 10/904,198 08/08/06
7,086,900 10/749,717 08/08/06
7,086,901 10/927,666 08/08/06
7,086,905 11/322,557 08/08/06
7,086,911 10/486,014 08/08/06
7,086,914 11/139,053 08/08/06
7,086,920 10/821,742 08/08/06
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 352 |
7,086,921 10/790,616 08/08/06
7,086,923 10/708,630 08/08/06
7,086,936 10/743,923 08/08/06
7,086,940 10/277,774 08/08/06
7,086,956 10/966,368 08/08/06
7,086,958 11/214,024 08/08/06
7,086,964 10/652,233 08/08/06
7,086,971 10/778,829 08/08/06
7,086,972 10/811,267 08/08/06
7,086,991 10/199,551 08/08/06
7,086,994 09/369,508 08/08/06
7,086,997 10/755,436 08/08/06
7,087,000 10/803,372 08/08/06
7,087,002 10/462,869 08/08/06
7,087,003 11/053,637 08/08/06
7,087,009 11/175,611 08/08/06
7,087,019 10/758,079 08/08/06
7,087,027 10/131,407 08/08/06
7,087,030 10/359,670 08/08/06
7,087,031 10/302,311 08/08/06
7,087,042 10/956,787 08/08/06
7,087,069 10/333,832 08/08/06
7,087,078 10/432,156 08/08/06
7,087,081 10/666,451 08/08/06
7,087,091 11/296,682 08/08/06
7,087,092 11/040,960 08/08/06
7,087,094 10/653,725 08/08/06
7,087,108 10/503,068 08/08/06
7,087,121 10/263,125 08/08/06
7,087,136 10/840,572 08/08/06
7,087,147 10/720,521 08/08/06
7,087,150 10/138,359 08/08/06
7,087,151 10/361,023 08/08/06
7,087,156 10/322,417 08/08/06
7,087,158 10/928,132 08/08/06
7,087,161 09/689,831 08/08/06
7,087,166 09/968,225 08/08/06
7,087,183 11/165,728 08/08/06
7,087,186 10/301,876 08/08/06
7,087,193 10/432,111 08/08/06
7,087,195 10/450,134 08/08/06
7,087,199 10/629,556 08/08/06
7,087,203 09/988,850 08/08/06
7,087,213 11/054,585 08/08/06
7,087,214 10/353,788 08/08/06
7,087,217 10/766,279 08/08/06
7,087,218 10/792,013 08/08/06
7,087,220 10/857,493 08/08/06
7,087,233 10/189,240 08/08/06
7,087,240 09/340,338 08/08/06
7,087,247 10/416,472 08/08/06
7,087,257 10/436,808 08/08/06
7,087,274 11/018,121 08/08/06
7,087,282 10/619,642 08/08/06
7,087,284 10/944,421 08/08/06
7,087,311 11/207,463 08/08/06
7,087,312 10/757,837 08/08/06
7,087,321 10/829,011 08/08/06
7,087,324 10/664,066 08/08/06
7,087,327 10/440,025 08/08/06
7,087,347 10/639,296 08/08/06
7,087,366 10/731,462 08/08/06
7,087,367 11/038,397 08/08/06
7,087,368 11/263,157 08/08/06
7,087,373 10/161,613 08/08/06
7,087,375 09/599,877 08/08/06
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 353 |
7,087,382 10/130,137 08/08/06
7,087,403 10/987,524 08/08/06
7,087,404 10/015,610 08/08/06
7,087,405 10/141,908 08/08/06
7,087,407 10/409,532 08/08/06
7,087,417 10/606,608 08/08/06
7,087,420 09/936,759 08/08/06
7,087,421 10/180,998 08/08/06
7,087,428 10/147,512 08/08/06
7,087,435 09/846,328 08/08/06
7,087,443 10/628,981 08/08/06
7,087,446 10/415,532 08/08/06
7,087,447 10/696,278 08/08/06
7,087,463 10/911,052 08/08/06
7,087,470 10/873,012 08/08/06
7,087,475 11/028,060 08/08/06
7,087,477 10/987,532 08/08/06
7,087,486 10/963,228 08/08/06
7,087,501 11/179,659 08/08/06
7,087,506 10/604,116 08/08/06
7,087,507 10/847,538 08/08/06
7,087,513 10/904,138 08/08/06
7,087,529 10/677,433 08/08/06
7,087,531 10/905,681 08/08/06
7,087,532 10/711,683 08/08/06
7,087,548 10/493,745 08/08/06
7,087,549 11/106,813 08/08/06
7,087,552 10/210,363 08/08/06
7,087,558 10/257,809 08/08/06
7,087,567 10/412,831 08/08/06
7,087,570 10/168,749 08/08/06
7,087,576 10/681,827 08/08/06
7,087,582 09/663,889 08/08/06
7,087,597 10/110,381 08/08/06
7,087,601 10/497,452 08/08/06
7,087,602 10/310,074 08/08/06
7,087,605 10/480,947 08/08/06
7,087,615 10/689,388 08/08/06
7,087,616 10/468,371 08/08/06
7,087,617 10/839,055 08/08/06
7,087,618 11/082,466 08/08/06
7,087,622 11/123,995 08/08/06
7,087,629 10/382,396 08/08/06
7,087,630 10/603,098 08/08/06
7,087,634 10/418,556 08/08/06
7,087,635 11/082,106 08/08/06
7,087,649 10/479,774 08/08/06
7,087,659 10/828,727 08/08/06
7,087,660 10/629,421 08/08/06
7,087,661 09/405,269 08/08/06
7,087,664 10/762,302 08/08/06
7,087,670 10/276,866 08/08/06
7,087,671 10/694,700 08/08/06
7,087,681 10/845,838 08/08/06
7,087,682 10/832,850 08/08/06
7,087,683 10/310,479 08/08/06
7,087,684 10/999,800 08/08/06
7,087,689 11/115,431 08/08/06
7,087,701 11/093,909 08/08/06
7,087,711 09/943,944 08/08/06
7,087,716 10/275,555 08/08/06
7,087,719 10/300,233 08/08/06
7,087,730 10/523,241 08/08/06
7,087,732 10/033,195 08/08/06
7,087,735 10/729,667 08/08/06
7,087,737 10/201,769 08/08/06
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 354 |
7,087,738 09/907,942 08/08/06
7,087,746 10/482,957 08/08/06
7,087,758 10/474,084 08/08/06
7,087,759 10/856,983 08/08/06
7,087,763 10/738,940 08/08/06
7,087,764 10/366,356 08/08/06
7,087,765 10/797,355 08/08/06
7,087,774 11/017,166 08/08/06
7,087,776 11/092,316 08/08/06
7,087,779 10/932,564 08/08/06
7,087,784 10/809,125 08/08/06
7,087,788 10/916,355 08/08/06
7,087,794 10/295,419 08/08/06
7,087,796 11/154,400 08/08/06
7,087,797 10/474,679 08/08/06
7,087,798 10/526,016 08/08/06
7,087,801 10/686,680 08/08/06
7,087,803 10/673,372 08/08/06
7,087,805 10/277,305 08/08/06
7,087,811 09/857,841 08/08/06
7,087,813 10/059,909 08/08/06
7,087,839 10/193,565 08/08/06
7,087,841 10/095,651 08/08/06
7,087,852 10/950,005 08/08/06
7,087,863 11/285,078 08/08/06
7,087,871 10/701,336 08/08/06
7,087,894 10/498,317 08/08/06
7,087,904 10/451,755 08/08/06
7,087,909 10/975,874 08/08/06
7,087,929 10/826,364 08/08/06
7,087,937 11/184,971 08/08/06
7,087,939 11/074,041 08/08/06
7,087,948 10/995,444 08/08/06
7,087,965 10/830,347 08/08/06
7,088,000 10/904,439 08/08/06
7,088,022 10/705,629 08/08/06
7,088,025 11/060,405 08/08/06
7,088,028 10/934,779 08/08/06
7,088,034 10/887,814 08/08/06
7,088,035 10/193,230 08/08/06
7,088,038 10/612,117 08/08/06
7,088,043 11/070,082 08/08/06
7,088,044 11/103,435 08/08/06
7,088,055 10/725,553 08/08/06
7,088,056 10/506,445 08/08/06
7,088,078 10/860,907 08/08/06
7,088,093 10/747,681 08/08/06
7,088,106 11/022,245 08/08/06
7,088,107 10/536,996 08/08/06
7,088,109 10/955,627 08/08/06
7,088,110 10/915,235 08/08/06
7,088,116 11/054,564 08/08/06
7,088,124 11/280,008 08/08/06
7,088,137 10/838,391 08/08/06
7,088,154 11/037,790 08/08/06
7,088,170 10/827,783 08/08/06
7,088,190 10/709,811 08/08/06
7,088,194 10/762,338 08/08/06
7,088,199 10/857,742 08/08/06
7,088,207 10/444,591 08/08/06
7,088,208 10/756,342 08/08/06
7,088,209 09/984,181 08/08/06
7,088,211 10/621,208 08/08/06
7,088,212 11/274,593 08/08/06
7,088,217 10/332,898 08/08/06
7,088,228 10/801,747 08/08/06
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 355 |
7,088,253 10/775,925 08/08/06
7,088,272 11/166,080 08/08/06
7,088,282 11/149,313 08/08/06
7,088,292 11/079,243 08/08/06
7,088,293 10/938,734 08/08/06
7,088,295 10/876,757 08/08/06
7,088,296 10/960,428 08/08/06
7,088,307 10/831,464 08/08/06
7,088,314 10/479,491 08/08/06
7,088,324 10/063,788 08/08/06
7,088,343 09/845,552 08/08/06
7,088,377 09/882,551 08/08/06
7,088,385 10/423,806 08/08/06
7,088,395 10/052,706 08/08/06
7,088,396 10/037,322 08/08/06
7,088,405 10/429,601 08/08/06
7,088,418 09/636,783 08/08/06
7,088,421 10/648,796 08/08/06
7,088,422 10/749,638 08/08/06
7,088,435 10/428,398 08/08/06
7,088,444 10/984,463 08/08/06
7,088,448 09/485,325 08/08/06
7,088,453 10/703,307 08/08/06
7,088,468 09/380,270 08/08/06
7,088,470 09/874,524 08/08/06
7,088,491 10/827,328 08/08/06
7,088,496 10/488,324 08/08/06
7,088,527 11/022,837 08/08/06
7,088,529 11/023,867 08/08/06
7,088,530 11/046,252 08/08/06
7,088,536 10/312,706 08/08/06
7,088,550 10/631,940 08/08/06
7,088,572 11/127,272 08/08/06
7,088,578 10/982,579 08/08/06
7,088,580 10/950,322 08/08/06
7,088,581 10/200,828 08/08/06
7,088,584 10/867,991 08/08/06
7,088,587 10/839,870 08/08/06
7,088,589 10/775,200 08/08/06
7,088,594 10/984,846 08/08/06
7,088,611 10/998,807 08/08/06
7,088,612 10/923,639 08/08/06
7,088,622 11/095,798 08/08/06
7,088,638 11/054,176 08/08/06
7,088,643 11/097,080 08/08/06
7,088,650 09/643,106 08/08/06
7,088,662 10/488,370 08/08/06
7,088,669 10/195,417 08/08/06
7,088,684 09/906,596 08/08/06
7,088,686 09/807,378 08/08/06
7,088,693 10/973,800 08/08/06
7,088,715 10/933,598 08/08/06
7,088,730 10/150,252 08/08/06
7,088,744 10/332,847 08/08/06
7,088,745 10/363,765 08/08/06
7,088,757 09/601,434 08/08/06
7,088,762 10/670,401 08/08/06
7,088,766 10/014,455 08/08/06
7,088,769 10/079,595 08/08/06
7,088,775 09/765,852 08/08/06
7,088,779 09/938,378 08/08/06
7,088,790 10/327,745 08/08/06
7,088,795 09/599,968 08/08/06
7,088,822 10/075,016 08/08/06
7,088,823 10/043,369 08/08/06
7,088,827 09/456,676 08/08/06
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 356 |
7,088,833 10/049,147 08/08/06
7,088,839 10/115,528 08/08/06
7,088,840 10/714,628 08/08/06
7,088,843 10/006,294 08/08/06
7,088,881 10/130,166 08/08/06
7,088,895 10/761,989 08/08/06
7,088,906 09/549,592 08/08/06
7,088,907 09/504,740 08/08/06
7,088,908 11/108,441 08/08/06
7,088,923 11/090,492 08/08/06
7,088,924 11/090,501 08/08/06
7,088,941 10/751,909 08/08/06
7,088,951 10/443,894 08/08/06
7,088,964 10/677,704 08/08/06
7,088,968 10/020,423 08/08/06
7,088,986 10/277,876 08/08/06
7,088,994 09/908,026 08/08/06
7,089,001 09/980,949 08/08/06
7,089,007 11/142,802 08/08/06
7,089,010 10/025,409 08/08/06
7,089,013 10/896,185 08/08/06
7,089,015 10/619,444 08/08/06
7,089,021 10/484,337 08/08/06
7,089,032 10/297,800 08/08/06
7,089,042 10/753,077 08/08/06
7,089,053 10/110,590 08/08/06
7,089,054 10/285,313 08/08/06
7,089,077 11/160,719 08/08/06
7,089,083 10/411,184 08/08/06
7,089,120 09/915,813 08/08/06
7,089,123 10/261,563 08/08/06
7,089,130 10/923,709 08/08/06
7,089,131 10/104,139 08/08/06
7,089,132 10/709,805 08/08/06
7,089,136 10/604,414 08/08/06
7,089,139 10/919,170 08/08/06
7,089,147 11/046,785 08/08/06
7,089,156 09/918,986 08/08/06
7,089,157 10/492,779 08/08/06
7,089,159 09/822,512 08/08/06
7,089,160 10/042,539 08/08/06
7,089,195 09/846,431 08/08/06
7,089,215 10/761,404 08/08/06
7,089,219 11/090,737 08/08/06
7,089,224 10/411,829 08/08/06
7,089,228 10/125,190 08/08/06
7,089,230 10/164,767 08/08/06
7,089,231 10/334,268 08/08/06
7,089,235 10/418,592 08/08/06
7,089,242 09/515,021 08/08/06
7,089,244 10/440,442 08/08/06
7,089,269 10/660,224 08/08/06
7,089,279 09/439,130 08/08/06
7,089,299 10/047,831 08/08/06
7,089,305 09/963,144 08/08/06
7,089,311 09/773,437 08/08/06
7,089,312 09/957,823 08/08/06
7,089,341 10/815,247 08/08/06
7,089,353 10/322,996 08/08/06
7,089,354 10/630,527 08/08/06
7,089,355 10/680,655 08/08/06
7,089,364 10/825,188 08/08/06
7,089,370 10/675,170 08/08/06
7,089,372 10/725,853 08/08/06
7,089,376 10/442,485 08/08/06
7,089,387 10/645,742 08/08/06
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 357 |
7,089,392 10/434,613 08/08/06
7,089,401 10/373,152 08/08/06
7,089,403 10/180,811 08/08/06
7,089,406 10/457,610 08/08/06
7,089,408 10/435,879 08/08/06
7,089,411 10/424,488 08/08/06
7,089,414 10/411,414 08/08/06
7,089,419 10/125,115 08/08/06
7,089,425 10/392,591 08/08/06
7,089,440 10/721,592 08/08/06
7,089,441 09/795,733 08/08/06
7,089,446 10/339,957 08/08/06
7,089,451 09/771,989 08/08/06
7,089,456 10/161,207 08/08/06
7,089,457 10/123,728 08/08/06
7,089,461 10/392,504 08/08/06
7,089,474 10/789,710 08/08/06
7,089,482 10/102,832 08/08/06
7,089,499 09/794,338 08/08/06
7,089,504 09/563,624 08/08/06
7,089,505 10/300,622 08/08/06
7,089,507 10/217,711 08/08/06
7,089,511 10/733,210 08/08/06
7,089,512 10/708,608 08/08/06
7,089,513 10/708,715 08/08/06
7,089,514 10/710,879 08/08/06
7,089,518 10/841,729 08/08/06
7,089,520 10/707,069 08/08/06
7,089,521 10/766,549 08/08/06
7,089,534 10/135,409 08/08/06
7,089,535 10/108,681 08/08/06
7,089,540 10/147,195 08/08/06
7,089,542 10/318,823 08/08/06
7,089,545 10/321,971 08/08/06
7,089,551 09/779,135 08/08/06
7,089,554 10/910,488 08/08/06
7,089,555 10/179,100 08/08/06
7,089,562 09/564,619 08/08/06
7,089,575 09/945,871 08/08/06
7,089,578 09/967,873 08/08/06
7,089,593 09/387,452 08/08/06
7,089,594 10/623,932 08/08/06
| Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a Late Maintenance Fee from 08/30/2010 |
Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a
Late Maintenance Fee from 08/30/2010
Patent Application Filing Issue Granted
Number Number Date Date Date
5,607,096 08/613,023 03/11/96 03/04/97 09/02/10
5,618,288 08/589,284 01/22/96 04/08/97 08/31/10
5,640,825 08/387,136 02/10/95 06/24/97 09/02/10
5,657,511 08/576,939 12/22/95 08/19/97 08/31/10
5,664,018 08/615,534 03/12/96 09/02/97 09/02/10
5,702,709 08/423,099 04/18/95 12/30/97 09/01/10
5,772,819 08/487,631 06/07/95 06/30/98 08/31/10
5,775,208 08/504,240 07/19/95 07/07/98 09/02/10
5,775,988 08/751,954 11/18/96 07/07/98 08/31/10
5,780,087 08/717,764 09/23/96 07/14/98 08/30/10
6,114,153 09/360,581 07/26/99 09/05/00 09/03/10
6,129,998 09/058,262 04/10/98 10/10/00 09/04/10
6,143,392 09/251,673 02/17/99 11/07/00 09/03/10
6,213,469 09/027,789 02/23/98 04/10/01 09/02/10
6,285,659 08/926,514 09/10/97 09/04/01 09/03/10
6,333,424 09/269,974 04/08/99 12/25/01 08/30/10
6,345,828 09/925,242 08/08/01 02/12/02 08/31/10
6,354,616 09/413,338 10/12/99 03/12/02 08/31/10
6,382,657 09/735,844 12/13/00 05/07/02 09/03/10
6,401,117 09/282,790 03/31/99 06/04/02 09/03/10
6,406,844 08/456,887 06/01/95 06/18/02 09/01/10
6,414,746 09/449,091 11/24/99 07/02/02 08/31/10
6,421,730 09/283,662 04/01/99 07/16/02 09/03/10
6,425,082 09/619,022 07/19/00 07/23/02 09/03/10
6,752,713 10/410,319 04/09/03 06/22/04 09/02/10
6,814,632 10/162,950 06/04/02 11/09/04 08/30/10
6,859,841 10/084,815 02/27/02 02/22/05 09/03/10
6,891,857 09/560,672 04/27/00 05/10/05 09/03/10
6,907,490 09/738,913 12/13/00 06/14/05 09/03/10
6,923,995 10/107,944 03/27/02 08/02/05 08/30/10
6,935,359 10/164,157 06/06/02 08/30/05 08/30/10
6,948,669 10/186,580 06/28/02 09/27/05 09/01/10
6,965,798 10/318,298 12/13/02 11/15/05 09/01/10
6,981,888 11/053,303 02/08/05 01/03/06 09/02/10
6,994,661 10/286,519 11/01/02 02/07/06 09/01/10
7,011,535 10/713,375 11/14/03 03/14/06 08/30/10
7,058,789 10/358,548 02/04/03 06/06/06 08/30/10
7,062,592 10/392,560 03/19/03 06/13/06 08/31/10
7,071,415 11/062,030 02/18/05 07/04/06 09/02/10
7,073,350 10/826,438 04/15/04 07/11/06 09/01/10
7,080,168 10/622,285 07/18/03 07/18/06 08/30/10
| Reissue Applications Filed |
Reissue Application Filed
6,542,564, Re. S.N. 12/850,600, Aug. 04, 2010, Cl. 375/000, METHOD AND
APPARATUS FOR COMPENSATING REPRODUCED AUDIO SIGNALS OF AN OPTICAL DISC, Jea
Ryong Cho, Owner of Record: LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Attorney or Agent: Esther
H. Choung, Ex. Gp.: 2611
6,542,564, Re. S.N. 12/850,602, Aug. 04, 2010, Cl. 375/000, METHOD AND
APPARATUS FOR COMPENSATING REPRODUCED AUDIO SIGNALS OF AN OPTICAL DISC, Jea
Ryong Cho, Owner of Record: LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Attorney or Agent: Esther
H. Choung, Ex. Gp.: 2611
| Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed |
Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed
RE. 40,384, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,073, Requested Date: Jun. 29, 2010, Cl.
345/629, Title: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANIPULATING SCANNED DOCUMENTS IN
A COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN SYSTEM, Inventor: William Opincar et al., Owners of
Record: American Imaging Services, Inc., Dallas, TX, Attorney or Agent:
Storm, LLP., Dallas, TX, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Autodesk, Inc., San
Rafael, CA, Daniel M. DeVos, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, LLP.,
Sunnyvale, CA
5,799,609, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,766, Requested Date: Jun. 25, 2010, Cl.
119/074, Title: ANIMAL WATERER, Inventor: Mary V. Burns, et al., Owners of
Record: Veterinary Ventures, Inc., Reno, NV, Attorney or Agent: Holland &
Hart, LLP., Denver, CO, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Barry Farris, Pollock
Pines, CA
6,023,683, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,066, Requested Date: Jun. 25, 2010, Cl.
705/026, Title: ELECTRONIC SOURCING SYSTEM AND METHOD, Inventor: James M.
Johnson et al., Owners of Record: ePlus, Inc., Herndon, VA, Attorney or
Agent: Cha & Reiter, LLC., Paramus, NJ, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Lawson
Software, Inc., Robert A. Kalinsky, Merchant & Gould, PC., Minneapolis, MN
6,315,616, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,768, Requested Date: Jul. 17, 2010, Cl.
439/638, Title: PLUG CONNECTOR AND SOCKET CONNECTOR, Inventor: Koji
Hayashi, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Law Office of Clement Cheng, Fountain
Valley, CA
6,397,974, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,059, Requested Date: Jul. 14, 2010, Cl.
187/254, Title: TRACTION ELEVATOR SYSTEM USING FLEXIBLE, FLAT ROPE AND A
PERMANENT MAGNET MACHINE, Inventor: Leandre Adifon et al., Owners of
Record: Otis Elevator Company, Farmington, CT, Attorney or Agent: Otis
Elevator Company, Farmington, CT, Ex. Gp.: 3993, Requester: Robert J. Roby,
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP., Irvine, CA
6,536,188, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,072, Requested Date: Jun. 29, 2010, Cl.
053/425, Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ASEPTIC PACKAGING, Inventor:
Thomas D. Taggart, Owners of Record: Steuben Foods Incorporated, Elma, NY,
Attorney or Agent: Schmeiser Olsen & Watts, Latham, NY, Ex. Gp.: 3993,
Requester: Joseph W. Holland, Holland Law Office, PLLC., Boise, ID
6,590,269, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,061, Requested Date: Jun. 30, 2010, Cl.
257/432, Title: PACKAGE STRUCTURE FOR A PHOTOSENSITIVE CHIP, Inventor:
Jason Chuang et al., Owners of Record: Kingpak Technology, Inc., Taiwan,
Attorney or Agent: Pro-Techtor International Services, Saratoga, CA, Ex.
Gp.: 3992, Requester: Jay Chiu, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, LLP.,
Washington, DC
6,702,857, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,067, Requested Date: Jun. 25, 2010, Cl.
623/023, Title: MEMBRANE FOR USE WITH IMPLANTABLE DEVICES, Inventor: James
H. Brauker et al., Owners of Record: Dexcom, Inc., San Diego, CA, Attorney
or Agent: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP., Irvine, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3993,
Requester: Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., Peter A. Socarras, Esq., Bozicevic
Field & Francis, LLP., East Palo Alto, CA
7,090,506, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,062, Requested Date: Jun. 24, 2010, Cl.
439/067, Title: SIGNAL TRANSMISSION DEVICE HAVING FLEXIBLE PRINTED CIRCUIT
BOARDS, Inventor: Kuang-Tao Sung et al., Owners of Record: AU Optronics
Corp., Taiwan, Attorney or Agent: Thomas Kayden Horstemeyer & Risley, LLP.,
Atlanta, GA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Song K. Jung, Esquire, McKenna Long
& Aldridge, LLP., Washington, DC
7,537,964, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,058, Requested Date: Jun. 23, 2010, Cl.
438/113, Title: METHOD OF FABRICATING A MINIATURE SILICON CONDENSER
MICROPHONE, Inventor: Anthony D. Minervini et al., Owners of Record:
Knowles Electronics, LLC., Chicago, IL, Attorney or Agent: Dykema Gossette,
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 361 |
PLLC., Chicago, IL, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Robert M. Asher, Sunstein
Kann Murphy & Timbers, LLP., Boston, MA
7,578,439, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,070, Requested Date: Jun. 28, 2010, Cl.
235/380, Title: SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR AUTHORIZING STORED VALUE CARD
TRANSACTIONS, Inventor: Phillip Craig Graves et al., Owners of Record:
e2INTERATIVE, Inc., Atlanta, GA, Attorney or Agent: Landmark Intellectual
Property Law, PLLC., Midlothian, VA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Kevin J.
Zimmer, Esq., Cooley, LLP., Washington, DC
7,726,480, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,755, Requested Date: Jun. 10, 2010, Cl.
2Jun. 461, Title: DISPLAY PACK AND PACKAGING METHOD AND APPARATUS, Inventor:
Joseph Nazari, Owners of Record: Winterborne, Inc., Chatsworth, CA,
Attorney or Agent: Christi Parker & Hale, LLP., Pasadena, CA, Ex. Gp.:
3993, Requester: Robert M. DeWitty, Esq., Washington, DC
| Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed |
Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed
6,772,142, Reexam. C.N.: 95/000,554, Requested Date: Jun. 23, 2010, Cl.:
7Jul. 003, Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COLLECTING AND EXPRESSING
GEOGRAPHICALLY REFERENCED DATA, Inventor: Steven T. Kelling et al., Owners
of Record: Cornell Research Foundation, Inc., Ithaca, NY, Attorney or
Agent: Perkins Smith & Cohen, LLP., Boston, MA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester:
Third Party Requester: (Att'y Is: Michael V. Messinger, Sterne Kessler
Goldstein & Fox, PLLC., Washington, DC), Real Party in Interest: Google,
Inc. and Yahoo! Inc.
7,015,868, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,390, Requested Date: Jul. 02, 2010, Cl.:
343/800, Title: MULTILEVEL ANTENNAE, Inventor: Carles Puente Baliarda et
al., Owners of Record: Fractus, SA., Spain, Attorney or Agent: Howison &
Arnott, LLP., Dallas, TX, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester:
Samsung Electronics Co., LTD; (Att'y Is: Tracy W. Druce, Novak Druce &
Quigg, LLP., Houston, TX), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party
Requester
7,123,208, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,389, Requested Date: Jul. 01, 2010, Cl.:
343/800, Title: MULTILEVEL ANTENNAE, Inventor: Carles Puente Baliarda et
al., Owners of Record: Fractus, SA., Spain, Attorney or Agent: Howison &
Arnott, LLP., Dallas, TX, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester:
Samsung Electronics Co., LTD; (Att'y Is: Tracy W. Druce, Novak Druce &
Quigg, LLP., Houston, TX), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party
Requester
7,155,439, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,391, Requested Date: Jul. 07, 2010 Cl.:
707/100, Title: MODULAR AND CUSTOMIZABLE PROCESS AND SYSTEM FOR CAPTURING
FIELD DOCUMENTATION DATA IN A COMPLEX PROJECT WORKFLOW SYSTEM, Inventor:
Warren Scott Cope, Owners of Record: Wellogix Technology Licensing, LLC.,
Houston, TX, Attorney or Agent: The Mathews Firm, Houston, TX, Ex. Gp.:
3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: SAP America; (Att'y Is: Joseph T.
Jakubek, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP., Portland, OR), Real Party in Interest:
Same As Third Party Requester
7,253,892, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,386, Requested Date: Jun. 26, 2010, Cl.:
356/632, Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MEASURING A CHARACTERISTIC OF A
PLASTIC CONTAINER, Inventor: Frank E. Semersky, Owners of Record: Petwall,
LLC., Holland, OH, Attorney or Agent: Fraser Clemens Martin & Miller, LLC.,
Perrysburg, OH, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: Krones AG;
(Att'y Is: Thomas P. Canty, Leydig Voit & Mayer, LTD., Chicago, IL), Real
Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
7,606,382, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,388, Requested Date: Jul. 01, 2010, Cl.:
381/380, Title: BTE/CIC AUDITORY DEVICE AND MODULAR CONNECTOR SYSTEM
THEREFOR, Inventor: Jim Feeley et al., Owners of Record: Hear-Wear
Technologies, LLC., Tulsa, OK, Attorney or Agent: Fulbright & Jaworski,
LLP., Dallas, TX, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: K/S
HIMPP; (Att'y Is: Michael V. Messinger, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox,
PLLC., Washington, DC), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party
Requester
| Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations Due to Failure to Renew |
Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations
Due To Failure to Renew
15 U.S.C. 1059 provides that each trademark registration may be renewed
for periods of ten years from the end of the expiring period upon payment
of the prescribed fee and the filing of an acceptable application for
renewal. This may be done at any time within one year before the expiration
of the period for which the registration was issued or renewed, or it may
be done within six months after such expiration on payment of an additional
fee.
According to the records of the Office, the trademark registrations
listed below are expired due to failure to renew in accordance with 15
U.S.C. 1059.
TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS WHICH EXPIRED
September 3, 2010
DUE TO FAILURE TO RENEW
Reg. Number Serial Number Reg. Date
692,290 72/075,588 02/02/1960
885,094 72/315,823 01/27/1970
885,028 72/318,262 01/27/1970
884,942 72/320,374 01/27/1970
1,130,143 73/117,814 01/29/1980
1,129,772 73/187,218 01/29/1980
1,130,078 73/188,475 01/29/1980
1,130,061 73/190,417 01/29/1980
1,522,302 73/635,331 01/31/1989
1,579,988 73/685,032 01/30/1990
1,580,416 73/730,280 01/30/1990
1,579,676 73/757,776 01/30/1990
1,580,718 73/759,271 01/30/1990
1,580,104 73/760,169 01/30/1990
1,580,378 73/761,329 01/30/1990
1,579,956 73/762,681 01/30/1990
1,579,961 73/766,959 01/30/1990
1,580,108 73/774,259 01/30/1990
1,580,109 73/774,292 01/30/1990
1,579,681 73/780,214 01/30/1990
1,580,216 73/784,245 01/30/1990
1,580,440 73/789,662 01/30/1990
1,580,520 73/792,238 01/30/1990
1,580,669 73/803,088 01/30/1990
1,580,395 73/803,238 01/30/1990
1,580,781 73/804,464 01/30/1990
1,579,688 73/807,930 01/30/1990
1,580,263 73/808,510 01/30/1990
2,312,748 75/138,530 02/01/2000
2,312,846 75/336,497 02/01/2000
2,312,880 75/354,996 02/01/2000
2,313,060 75/438,494 02/01/2000
2,313,150 75/457,680 02/01/2000
2,313,185 75/465,540 02/01/2000
2,313,401 75/509,794 02/01/2000
2,313,564 75/541,034 02/01/2000
2,313,698 75/564,390 02/01/2000
2,314,484 75/629,732 02/01/2000
2,314,538 75/634,655 02/01/2000
2,314,617 75/643,886 02/01/2000
2,314,674 75/655,794 02/01/2000
2,314,745 75/672,825 02/01/2000
692,486 72/073,637 02/02/1960
884,867 72/321,835 01/27/1970
1,580,093 73/796,831 01/30/1990
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 364 |
1,580,619 73/810,796 01/30/1990
2,314,820 74/731,253 02/01/2000
2,314,821 74/732,550 02/01/2000
2,314,825 75/054,084 02/01/2000
2,312,742 75/101,592 02/01/2000
2,314,831 75/106,734 02/01/2000
2,312,745 75/111,755 02/01/2000
2,312,747 75/129,457 02/01/2000
2,312,765 75/190,039 02/01/2000
2,312,766 75/190,861 02/01/2000
2,314,842 75/200,456 02/01/2000
2,314,843 75/218,681 02/01/2000
2,314,845 75/224,312 02/01/2000
2,315,039 75/230,755 02/01/2000
2,312,776 75/232,711 02/01/2000
2,314,849 75/235,469 02/01/2000
2,312,782 75/240,074 02/01/2000
2,314,854 75/249,476 02/01/2000
2,312,787 75/250,166 02/01/2000
2,314,855 75/252,717 02/01/2000
2,312,792 75/270,324 02/01/2000
2,314,866 75/286,348 02/01/2000
2,312,805 75/295,128 02/01/2000
2,314,871 75/300,956 02/01/2000
2,314,876 75/307,205 02/01/2000
2,312,812 75/309,343 02/01/2000
2,314,878 75/311,835 02/01/2000
2,312,819 75/318,695 02/01/2000
2,312,828 75/322,742 02/01/2000
2,314,891 75/336,882 02/01/2000
2,312,863 75/345,823 02/01/2000
2,315,049 75/346,708 02/01/2000
2,314,901 75/348,029 02/01/2000
2,314,906 75/351,135 02/01/2000
2,312,886 75/357,580 02/01/2000
2,312,903 75/370,611 02/01/2000
2,312,905 75/371,221 02/01/2000
2,312,908 75/373,388 02/01/2000
2,314,917 75/375,715 02/01/2000
2,312,912 75/377,054 02/01/2000
2,314,919 75/377,278 02/01/2000
2,312,916 75/380,335 02/01/2000
2,314,920 75/381,464 02/01/2000
2,314,926 75/385,244 02/01/2000
2,312,924 75/385,571 02/01/2000
2,312,930 75/389,018 02/01/2000
2,312,931 75/389,173 02/01/2000
2,312,936 75/390,228 02/01/2000
2,314,929 75/390,434 02/01/2000
2,312,937 75/391,572 02/01/2000
2,314,930 75/391,889 02/01/2000
2,312,940 75/394,826 02/01/2000
2,312,941 75/394,827 02/01/2000
2,315,054 75/395,901 02/01/2000
2,314,934 75/397,327 02/01/2000
2,312,958 75/403,464 02/01/2000
2,312,960 75/404,241 02/01/2000
2,312,962 75/405,921 02/01/2000
2,312,963 75/406,044 02/01/2000
2,312,964 75/406,856 02/01/2000
2,312,967 75/407,937 02/01/2000
2,312,969 75/408,273 02/01/2000
2,312,972 75/410,160 02/01/2000
2,312,976 75/410,808 02/01/2000
2,312,979 75/411,328 02/01/2000
2,312,996 75/415,532 02/01/2000
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 365 |
2,313,005 75/418,620 02/01/2000
2,313,010 75/419,443 02/01/2000
2,313,013 75/422,035 02/01/2000
2,314,951 75/426,205 02/01/2000
2,313,022 75/427,302 02/01/2000
2,313,023 75/427,399 02/01/2000
2,314,952 75/427,629 02/01/2000
2,313,025 75/427,973 02/01/2000
2,313,027 75/428,288 02/01/2000
2,313,028 75/428,289 02/01/2000
2,313,031 75/429,716 02/01/2000
2,314,955 75/431,336 02/01/2000
2,313,037 75/431,791 02/01/2000
2,313,041 75/432,697 02/01/2000
2,313,049 75/436,034 02/01/2000
2,313,052 75/436,541 02/01/2000
2,313,053 75/436,607 02/01/2000
2,314,965 75/439,080 02/01/2000
2,313,085 75/444,573 02/01/2000
2,313,097 75/447,233 02/01/2000
2,313,109 75/449,138 02/01/2000
2,314,978 75/452,297 02/01/2000
2,313,128 75/453,641 02/01/2000
2,314,982 75/454,856 02/01/2000
2,313,144 75/456,900 02/01/2000
2,313,152 75/458,227 02/01/2000
2,313,157 75/459,599 02/01/2000
2,313,167 75/462,533 02/01/2000
2,313,179 75/464,451 02/01/2000
2,313,183 75/465,425 02/01/2000
2,314,993 75/469,139 02/01/2000
2,313,213 75/470,666 02/01/2000
2,313,230 75/475,389 02/01/2000
2,313,246 75/479,272 02/01/2000
2,313,249 75/479,604 02/01/2000
2,313,252 75/480,214 02/01/2000
2,313,253 75/480,625 02/01/2000
2,313,259 75/481,464 02/01/2000
2,315,066 75/486,081 02/01/2000
2,313,298 75/487,051 02/01/2000
2,315,000 75/490,307 02/01/2000
2,313,312 75/490,396 02/01/2000
2,313,313 75/490,399 02/01/2000
2,313,327 75/492,737 02/01/2000
2,315,068 75/495,724 02/01/2000
2,313,354 75/498,750 02/01/2000
2,315,006 75/502,683 02/01/2000
2,313,387 75/506,567 02/01/2000
2,313,388 75/506,593 02/01/2000
2,315,012 75/506,791 02/01/2000
2,313,394 75/508,674 02/01/2000
2,313,395 75/509,012 02/01/2000
2,313,399 75/509,097 02/01/2000
2,313,402 75/509,868 02/01/2000
2,315,013 75/510,341 02/01/2000
2,313,407 75/511,345 02/01/2000
2,315,015 75/512,101 02/01/2000
2,313,419 75/515,182 02/01/2000
2,313,425 75/517,442 02/01/2000
2,313,428 75/518,323 02/01/2000
2,313,429 75/518,437 02/01/2000
2,313,448 75/521,090 02/01/2000
2,313,451 75/521,353 02/01/2000
2,313,456 75/522,018 02/01/2000
2,313,461 75/523,583 02/01/2000
2,313,465 75/524,267 02/01/2000
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 366 |
2,313,475 75/526,100 02/01/2000
2,313,476 75/526,102 02/01/2000
2,313,478 75/526,754 02/01/2000
2,313,483 75/527,040 02/01/2000
2,313,484 75/527,070 02/01/2000
2,313,495 75/529,332 02/01/2000
2,313,496 75/529,351 02/01/2000
2,313,497 75/529,353 02/01/2000
2,313,499 75/529,657 02/01/2000
2,313,503 75/530,108 02/01/2000
2,313,504 75/530,611 02/01/2000
2,313,505 75/530,637 02/01/2000
2,313,508 75/531,057 02/01/2000
2,313,513 75/531,788 02/01/2000
2,313,516 75/532,129 02/01/2000
2,313,523 75/533,283 02/01/2000
2,313,537 75/536,345 02/01/2000
2,313,548 75/538,500 02/01/2000
2,313,553 75/539,928 02/01/2000
2,313,556 75/540,075 02/01/2000
2,313,581 75/545,266 02/01/2000
2,313,583 75/545,670 02/01/2000
2,313,589 75/546,214 02/01/2000
2,313,603 75/548,885 02/01/2000
2,313,605 75/549,089 02/01/2000
2,313,606 75/549,166 02/01/2000
2,313,611 75/550,724 02/01/2000
2,315,025 75/551,049 02/01/2000
2,313,622 75/552,206 02/01/2000
2,313,636 75/553,935 02/01/2000
2,313,637 75/553,946 02/01/2000
2,313,640 75/554,125 02/01/2000
2,315,027 75/554,482 02/01/2000
2,315,028 75/556,009 02/01/2000
2,313,654 75/556,315 02/01/2000
2,313,685 75/562,345 02/01/2000
2,313,686 75/562,577 02/01/2000
2,313,689 75/563,007 02/01/2000
2,313,695 75/563,945 02/01/2000
2,313,699 75/564,396 02/01/2000
2,313,700 75/564,500 02/01/2000
2,313,704 75/565,340 02/01/2000
2,313,714 75/566,968 02/01/2000
2,313,721 75/568,044 02/01/2000
2,313,725 75/568,349 02/01/2000
2,313,732 75/568,663 02/01/2000
2,313,736 75/568,917 02/01/2000
2,313,742 75/569,601 02/01/2000
2,313,747 75/570,041 02/01/2000
2,313,752 75/570,432 02/01/2000
2,313,753 75/570,457 02/01/2000
2,313,761 75/571,477 02/01/2000
2,313,788 75/574,200 02/01/2000
2,313,795 75/575,137 02/01/2000
2,313,797 75/575,268 02/01/2000
2,313,798 75/575,540 02/01/2000
2,313,806 75/576,704 02/01/2000
2,313,809 75/576,833 02/01/2000
2,313,810 75/576,992 02/01/2000
2,313,817 75/578,288 02/01/2000
2,313,819 75/578,503 02/01/2000
2,313,820 75/578,575 02/01/2000
2,313,825 75/578,771 02/01/2000
2,313,830 75/579,107 02/01/2000
2,313,833 75/579,519 02/01/2000
2,313,835 75/579,600 02/01/2000
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 367 |
2,313,845 75/580,105 02/01/2000
2,313,852 75/580,579 02/01/2000
2,313,855 75/581,371 02/01/2000
2,313,859 75/581,486 02/01/2000
2,313,862 75/581,886 02/01/2000
2,313,863 75/581,950 02/01/2000
2,313,866 75/582,139 02/01/2000
2,313,877 75/583,531 02/01/2000
2,313,893 75/585,786 02/01/2000
2,313,904 75/587,195 02/01/2000
2,313,915 75/588,533 02/01/2000
2,313,919 75/588,884 02/01/2000
2,313,926 75/589,364 02/01/2000
2,313,931 75/590,505 02/01/2000
2,313,942 75/591,526 02/01/2000
2,313,966 75/593,325 02/01/2000
2,313,970 75/593,443 02/01/2000
2,313,971 75/593,465 02/01/2000
2,313,977 75/593,629 02/01/2000
2,313,981 75/593,825 02/01/2000
2,313,989 75/594,185 02/01/2000
2,314,005 75/595,269 02/01/2000
2,314,012 75/595,854 02/01/2000
2,314,018 75/596,003 02/01/2000
2,314,024 75/596,692 02/01/2000
2,314,028 75/596,982 02/01/2000
2,314,029 75/597,087 02/01/2000
2,314,031 75/597,304 02/01/2000
2,314,034 75/597,476 02/01/2000
2,314,045 75/598,228 02/01/2000
2,314,058 75/598,956 02/01/2000
2,314,060 75/599,287 02/01/2000
2,314,070 75/599,752 02/01/2000
2,314,074 75/599,839 02/01/2000
2,314,075 75/599,840 02/01/2000
2,314,078 75/600,144 02/01/2000
2,314,094 75/600,884 02/01/2000
2,314,102 75/601,375 02/01/2000
2,314,106 75/601,396 02/01/2000
2,314,113 75/601,623 02/01/2000
2,314,114 75/601,713 02/01/2000
2,314,138 75/603,795 02/01/2000
2,314,142 75/604,032 02/01/2000
2,314,145 75/604,138 02/01/2000
2,315,096 75/604,367 02/01/2000
2,314,153 75/604,924 02/01/2000
2,314,159 75/605,401 02/01/2000
2,314,162 75/605,570 02/01/2000
2,314,165 75/605,799 02/01/2000
2,314,172 75/606,504 02/01/2000
2,314,187 75/607,643 02/01/2000
2,314,195 75/608,308 02/01/2000
2,314,198 75/608,487 02/01/2000
2,314,214 75/609,375 02/01/2000
2,314,228 75/610,636 02/01/2000
2,314,229 75/610,970 02/01/2000
2,314,231 75/610,984 02/01/2000
2,314,233 75/611,090 02/01/2000
2,314,236 75/611,430 02/01/2000
2,314,247 75/612,046 02/01/2000
2,314,248 75/612,047 02/01/2000
2,314,250 75/612,156 02/01/2000
2,314,255 75/612,398 02/01/2000
2,314,257 75/612,591 02/01/2000
2,314,258 75/613,076 02/01/2000
2,314,263 75/613,082 02/01/2000
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 368 |
2,314,292 75/614,625 02/01/2000
2,314,295 75/614,655 02/01/2000
2,314,297 75/614,801 02/01/2000
2,314,300 75/615,160 02/01/2000
2,314,315 75/616,361 02/01/2000
2,314,318 75/616,683 02/01/2000
2,314,324 75/617,122 02/01/2000
2,314,325 75/617,127 02/01/2000
2,314,328 75/617,329 02/01/2000
2,314,336 75/618,174 02/01/2000
2,314,338 75/618,326 02/01/2000
2,314,342 75/618,617 02/01/2000
2,314,357 75/619,652 02/01/2000
2,314,358 75/619,656 02/01/2000
2,314,369 75/620,247 02/01/2000
2,314,382 75/621,084 02/01/2000
2,314,389 75/621,655 02/01/2000
2,314,391 75/621,926 02/01/2000
2,314,399 75/622,473 02/01/2000
2,314,403 75/622,682 02/01/2000
2,314,412 75/623,550 02/01/2000
2,314,414 75/623,614 02/01/2000
2,314,427 75/624,577 02/01/2000
2,314,429 75/624,717 02/01/2000
2,314,444 75/625,893 02/01/2000
2,314,445 75/625,981 02/01/2000
2,314,453 75/626,878 02/01/2000
2,314,454 75/626,892 02/01/2000
2,314,455 75/626,893 02/01/2000
2,314,461 75/627,131 02/01/2000
2,314,482 75/629,675 02/01/2000
2,315,099 75/630,226 02/01/2000
2,314,507 75/631,585 02/01/2000
2,314,520 75/633,284 02/01/2000
2,314,522 75/633,476 02/01/2000
2,314,536 75/634,568 02/01/2000
2,314,543 75/635,293 02/01/2000
2,314,558 75/636,852 02/01/2000
2,314,560 75/636,900 02/01/2000
2,314,561 75/636,902 02/01/2000
2,314,562 75/636,959 02/01/2000
2,314,563 75/637,006 02/01/2000
2,314,568 75/637,149 02/01/2000
2,315,103 75/638,949 02/01/2000
2,314,589 75/639,653 02/01/2000
2,314,591 75/640,321 02/01/2000
2,314,600 75/641,210 02/01/2000
2,315,106 75/641,963 02/01/2000
2,314,622 75/644,487 02/01/2000
2,314,630 75/645,491 02/01/2000
2,314,637 75/646,598 02/01/2000
2,314,641 75/647,091 02/01/2000
2,314,650 75/648,269 02/01/2000
2,314,660 75/650,271 02/01/2000
2,314,669 75/652,452 02/01/2000
2,314,678 75/656,204 02/01/2000
2,314,679 75/656,205 02/01/2000
2,314,683 75/656,946 02/01/2000
2,314,690 75/659,634 02/01/2000
2,314,692 75/659,685 02/01/2000
2,314,693 75/659,845 02/01/2000
2,314,696 75/660,356 02/01/2000
2,314,699 75/661,588 02/01/2000
2,314,701 75/662,171 02/01/2000
2,314,706 75/663,837 02/01/2000
2,314,710 75/664,045 02/01/2000
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 369 |
2,314,725 75/668,866 02/01/2000
2,314,729 75/669,680 02/01/2000
2,314,746 75/672,912 02/01/2000
2,314,754 75/676,249 02/01/2000
2,314,761 75/676,877 02/01/2000
2,314,768 75/678,663 02/01/2000
2,314,771 75/679,837 02/01/2000
2,314,772 75/679,839 02/01/2000
2,314,773 75/680,655 02/01/2000
2,314,776 75/680,920 02/01/2000
2,314,785 75/684,396 02/01/2000
2,314,792 75/689,600 02/01/2000
2,314,798 75/694,576 02/01/2000
2,314,802 75/697,980 02/01/2000
2,315,123 75/754,846 02/01/2000
2,322,722 75/263,280 02/29/2000
Service by Publication
A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed,
and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known
address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice
is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or
legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this
publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default.
Jam Web designs Inc., Oklahoma City, OK, Registration No. 2981108 for the
mark "SPIRITSITES", Cancellation No. 92052695.
MILLICENT CANADY
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
LYNNE G. BERESFORD
Commissioner for Trademarks
Service by Publication
A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed,
and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known
address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice
is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or
legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this
publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default.
Infragas North America Inc., Edmunton, Canada, Registration No. 2921903 for
the mark "BOOSTERCAT", Cancellation No. 92052567.
MONIQUE TYSON
Paralegal Specialist
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
LYNNE G. BERESFORD
Commissioner for Trademarks
Service by Publication
A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed,
and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known
address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice
is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or
legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this
publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default.
Gwendolyn Goodloe, Prairie Village, Kansas, Registration No. 2871665 for the
mark "LIMELIGHT", Cancellation No. 92052474.
NICOLE M. THEIR
Paralegal Specialist
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
LYNNE G. BERESFORD
Commissioner for Trademarks
| 37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication |
37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of a national stage application with
a petition under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without
the signature of all inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventors. The inventor
whose signature is missing (Roger Jinteh Arrigo Chen) may join in the
application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying
with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is PCT/US08/04467 and
was filed on in the names of Mark A. Akeson, David W. Deamer, William B.
Dunbar, Seico Benner, Roger Jinteh Arrigo Chen, Noah A.Wilson, Kate Lieberman,
Robin Abu-Shumays, Nicholas Hurt, Daniel Branton, entitled COMPOSITIONS,
DEVICES, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING A NANOPORE. The national stage
application is assigned number 12/450,633 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of
22 July 2010.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of all the inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known addresses of the non-signing inventors. The
inventors whose signatures are missing (Hiroki NAKAE, Atsuhiko MINEKAWA, and
Takeshi KURONO) may join in the application by promptly filing an appropriate
oath or declaration complying with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application
number is PCT/JP2007/075133 and was filed 27 December 2007 in the names of
Hiroki NAKAE, Haruka UESAKA, Atsuhiko MINEKAWA, and Takeshi KURONO for the
invention entitled VACUUM BLOOD COLLECTION TUBE. The national stage number is
12/520,994 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of 07 October 2009.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of all the inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor. The inventor
whose signature is missing (Nikhil R. Jana) may join in the application by
promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying with 37 CFR 1.63.
The international application number is PCT/US2007/002536 and was filed 31
January 2007 in the names of Jackie Y. Ying, Nandanan Erathodiyil and Nikhil
R. Jana for the invention entitled POLYMER-COATED NANOPARTICLES. The national
stage number is 12/449,227 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of 09 August 2010.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of all the inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor. The inventor
whose signature is missing (Anne Philippi) may join in the application by
promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying with 37 CFR 1.63.
The international application number is PCT/EP2008/054378 and was filed 10
April 2007 in the names of Anne Philippi, Jorg Hager and Francis Rousseau for
the invention entitled HUMAN DIABETES SUSCEPTIBILITY TNFRSF10A GENE. The
national stage number is 12/593,077 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of 02
July 2010.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of a national stage application with
a petition under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without
the signature of all inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor. The inventor
whose signature is missing (Konstantinos Arapoglou) may join in the
application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying
with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is PCT/DE2008/000627
and was filed on 15 April 2008 in the names Michael Menzel, Henning Rorup and
Konstantinos Arapoglou for the invention entitled DENTAL IMPLANT SYSTEM. The
national stage application number is 12/596,372 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371 date
of 23 June 2010.
| Examination Guidelines Update: Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex |
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No.: PTO-P-2010-0055]
Examination Guidelines Update:
Developments in the Obviousness
Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is
issuing an update (2010 KSR Guidelines Update) to its obviousness
guidelines for its personnel to be used when applying the law of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. This 2010 KSR Guidelines Update highlights
case law developments on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 since the 2007
decision by the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) in KSR Int'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc. These guidelines are intended to be used by Office
personnel in conjunction with the guidance in the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure when applying the law of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103. Members of the public are invited to provide comments on the 2010 KSR
Guidelines Update. The Office is especially interested in receiving
suggestions of recent decisional law in the field of obviousness that would
have particular value as teaching tools.
DATES: Effective Date: This 2010 KSR Guidelines Update is effective
September 1, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update may be sent
by electronic mail message over the Internet addressed to
KSR_Guidance@uspto.gov, or submitted by mail addressed to: Mail Stop
Comments - Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA
22313-1450. Although comments may be submitted by mail, the Office prefers
to receive comments via the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Kahler Fonda or Pinchus M.
Laufer, Legal Advisors, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of
the Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at
(571) 272-7754 or (571) 272-7726; by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments
Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA
22313-1450; or by facsimile transmission to (571) 273-7754, marked to the
attention of Kathleen Kahler Fonda.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Introduction. The purpose of this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update is to
remind Office personnel of the principles of obviousness explained by the
Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S 398 (2007) (KSR),
and to provide additional guidance in view of decisions by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) since
KSR. This body of case law developed over the past three years provides
additional examples that will be useful to Office personnel as well as
practitioners during the examination process. Although every question of
obviousness must be decided on its own facts, these cases begin to clarify
the contours of the obviousness inquiry after KSR, and help to show when a
rejection on this basis is proper and when it is not.
This 2010 KSR Guidelines Update does not constitute substantive rule
making and hence does not have the force and effect of law. It has been
developed as a matter of internal Office management and is not intended to
create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any
party against the Office. Rejections will continue to be based upon the
substantive law, and it is these rejections that are appealable.
Consequently, any failure by Office personnel to follow this 2010 KSR
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 373 |
Guidelines Update is neither appealable nor petitionable.
After a review of the principles of obviousness and Office policy as
reflected in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), this 2010 KSR
Guidelines Update addresses a number of issues that arise when Office
personnel consider whether or not a claimed invention is obvious. The
concepts discussed are grounded in Federal Circuit cases, and correlated
with existing Office policy as appropriate. A number of cases which have
been selected for their instructional value on the issue of obviousness
will be discussed in detail.
The law of obviousness will continue to be refined, and Office personnel
are encouraged to maintain an awareness of precedential case law from the
Federal Circuit and precedential decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences (Board) in this area. The Office will train Office
personnel and update the MPEP as necessary to reflect the current state of
the law.
2. Principles of Obviousness and the Guidelines. In response to the
Supreme Court's April 2007 decision in KSR, the Office developed guidelines
for patent examiners to follow when determining obviousness of a claimed
invention and published these guidelines in the Federal Register and
Official Gazette. See Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness
Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 72 FR 57526 (Oct. 10, 2007), 1324 Off.
Gaz. Pat. Office 23 (Nov. 6, 2007) (2007 KSR Guidelines). The 2007 KSR
Guidelines have been incorporated in the MPEP. See MPEP Sec. 2141 (8th ed.
2001) (Rev. 6, Sept. 2007). The purpose of the 2007 KSR Guidelines was to
give Office personnel practical guidance on how to evaluate obviousness
issues under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in accordance with the Supreme Court's
instruction in KSR. The 2007 KSR Guidelines also alerted Office personnel
to the importance of considering rebuttal evidence submitted by patent
applicants in response to obviousness rejections.
The 2007 KSR Guidelines pointed out, as had the Supreme Court in KSR,
that the factual inquiries announced in Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1,
17-18 (1966) (scope and content of the prior art; differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art; level of ordinary skill in the art;
and secondary indicia of nonobviousness), remain the foundation of any
determination of obviousness. It remains true that "[t]he determination of
obviousness is dependent on the facts of each case." Sanofi-Synthelabo v.
Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Graham, 383 U.S.
at 17-18 (1966)). As for the reasoning required to support an obviousness
determination, the 2007 KSR Guidelines noted that the teaching-suggestion-
motivation (TSM) test was but one possible approach. The 2007 KSR
Guidelines identified six other rationales gleaned from the KSR decision as
examples of appropriate lines of reasoning that could also be used. The six
other rationales identified in the 2007 KSR Guidelines are: (1) Combining
prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(2) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
predictable results; (3) use of a known technique to improve similar
devices, methods, or products in the same way; (4) applying a known
technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to
yield predictable results; (5) obvious to try - choosing from a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation
of success; and (6) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt
variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based
on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are
predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Any rationale employed
must provide a link between the factual findings and the legal conclusion
of obviousness.
It is important for Office personnel to recognize that when they do
choose to formulate an obviousness rejection using one of the rationales
suggested by the Supreme Court in KSR and discussed in the 2007 KSR
Guidelines, they are to adhere to the instructions provided in the MPEP
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 374 |
regarding the necessary factual findings. However, the 2007 KSR Guidelines
also stressed that while the Graham inquiries and the associated reasoning
are crucial to a proper obviousness determination, the Supreme Court in KSR
did not place any limit on the particular approach to be taken to formulate
the line of reasoning. In other words, the KSR decision is not to be seen
as replacing a single test for obviousness - the TSM test - with the seven
rationales listed in the 2007 KSR Guidelines. See MPEP §§ 2141 and 2143
(8th ed. 2001) (Rev. 8, July 2010) (references to the MPEP are to Revision
8 of the 8th Edition of the MPEP unless otherwise indicated). It remains
Office policy that appropriate factual findings are required in order to
apply the enumerated rationales properly. If a rejection has been made that
omits one of the required factual findings, and in response to the
rejection a practitioner or inventor points out the omission, Office
personnel must either withdraw the rejection, or repeat the rejection
including all required factual findings.
3. The Impact of the KSR Decision. KSR's renewed emphasis on the
foundational principles of Graham coupled with its abrogation of the strict
TSM test have clearly impacted the manner in which Office personnel and
practitioners carry out the business of prosecuting patent applications
with regard to issues of obviousness. However, Office personnel as well as
practitioners should also recognize the significant extent to which the
obviousness inquiry has remained constant in the aftermath of KSR.
In footnote 2 of the 2007 KSR Guidelines, the Office acknowledged that
ongoing developments in the law of obviousness were to be expected in the
wake of the KSR decision. That footnote also stated that it was "not clear
which Federal Circuit decisions will retain their viability" after KSR. See
2007 KSR Guidelines, 72 FR at 57,528 n.2. The edition of the MPEP that was
current when the KSR decision was handed down had made the following
statement in § 2144:
The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be
expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or
impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established
scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law.
MPEP § 2144 (8th ed. 2001) (Rev. 5, Aug. 2006) (citing five pre-KSR
Federal Circuit opinions and two decisions of the Board). The KSR decision
has reinforced those earlier decisions that validated a more flexible
approach to providing reasons for obviousness. However, the Supreme Court's
pronouncement in KSR has at the same time clearly undermined the continued
viability of cases such as In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
insofar as Lee appears to require a strict basis in record evidence as a
reason to modify the prior art.
The Supreme Court's flexible approach to the obviousness inquiry is
reflected in numerous pre-KSR decisions, as can be seen in a review of MPEP
§ 2144. This section provides many lines of reasoning to support a
determination of obviousness based upon earlier legal precedent that had
condoned the use of particular examples of what may be considered common
sense or ordinary routine practice (e.g., making integral, changes in
shape, making adjustable). Thus, the type of reasoning sanctioned by the
opinion in KSR has long been a part of the patent examination process. See
MPEP § 2144.
Although the KSR approach is flexible with regard to the line of
reasoning to be applied, the 2007 KSR Guidelines and MPEP § 2143 state:
"The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit." MPEP § 2143. In Ball Aerosol
v. Limited Brands, 555 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit
offered additional instruction as to the need for an explicit analysis. The
Federal Circuit explained, as is consistent with the 2007 KSR Guidelines,
that the Supreme Court's requirement for an explicit analysis does not
require record evidence of an explicit teaching of a motivation to combine
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 375 |
in the prior art.
[T]he analysis that "should be made explicit" refers not to the
teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court's
analysis * * *. Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court,
the district court therefore erred by failing to take account of "the
inferences and creative steps," or even routine steps, that an inventor
would employ and by failing to find a motivation to combine related pieces
from the prior art.
Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 993. The Federal Circuit's directive in Ball
Aerosol was addressed to a lower court, but it applies to Office personnel
as well. When setting forth a rejection, Office personnel are to continue
to make appropriate findings of fact as explained in MPEP §§ 2141 and 2143,
and must provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention. This requirement for explanation remains even in
situations in which Office personnel may properly rely on intangible
realities such as common sense and ordinary ingenuity.
When considering obviousness, Office personnel are cautioned against
treating any line of reasoning as a per se rule. MPEP § 2144 discusses
supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 by reliance on scientific theory
and legal precedent. In keeping with the flexible approach and the
requirement for explanation, Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as
a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately
supported. See MPEP § 2144.04. So, for example, automating a manual
activity, making portable, making separable, reversal or duplication of
parts, or purifying an old product may form the basis of a rejection.
However, such rationales should not be treated as per se rules, but rather
must be explained and shown to apply to the facts at hand. A similar caveat
applies to any obviousness analysis. Simply stating the principle (e.g.,
"art recognized equivalent," "structural similarity") without providing
an explanation of its applicability to the facts of the case at hand is
generally not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Many basic approaches that a practitioner may use to demonstrate
nonobviousness also continue to apply in the post-KSR era. Since it is now
clear that a strict TSM approach is not the only way to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness, it is true that practitioners have been required
to shift the emphasis of their nonobviousness arguments to a certain
degree. However, familiar lines of argument still apply, including teaching
away from the claimed invention by the prior art, lack of a reasonable
expectation of success, and unexpected results. Indeed, they may have even
taken on added importance in view of the recognition in KSR of a variety of
possible rationales.
At the time the KSR decision was handed down, some observers questioned
whether the principles discussed were intended by the Supreme Court to
apply to all fields of inventive endeavor. Arguments were made that because
the technology at issue in KSR involved the relatively well-developed and
predictable field of vehicle pedal assemblies, the decision was relevant
only to such fields. The Federal Circuit has soundly repudiated such a
notion, stating that KSR applies across technologies:
This court also declines to cabin KSR to the "predictable arts" (as
opposed to the "unpredictable art" of biotechnology). In fact, this record
shows that one of skill in this advanced art would find these claimed
"results" profoundly "predictable."
In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Thus, Office
personnel should not withdraw any rejection solely on the basis that the
invention lies in a technological area ordinarily considered to be
unpredictable.
The decisions of the Federal Circuit discussed in this 2010 KSR
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 376 |
Guidelines Update provide Office personnel as well as practitioners with
additional examples of the law of obviousness. The purpose of the 2007 KSR
Guidelines was, as stated above, to help Office personnel to determine when
a claimed invention is not obvious, and to provide an appropriate
supporting rationale when an obviousness rejection is appropriate. Now that
a body of case law is available to guide Office personnel and practitioners
as to the boundaries between obviousness and nonobviousness, it is possible
in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update to contrast situations in which the
subject matter was found to have been obvious with those in which it was
determined not to have been obvious. Thus, Office personnel may use this
2010 KSR Guidelines Update in conjunction with the 2007 KSR Guidelines
(incorporated into MPEP §§ 2141 and 2143) to provide a more complete view
of the state of the law of obviousness.
This 2010 KSR Guidelines Update provides a "teaching point" for each
discussed case. The "teaching point" may be used to quickly determine the
relevance of the discussed case, but should not be used as a substitute for
reading the remainder of the discussion of the case in this 2010 KSR
Guidelines Update. Nor should any case in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update
be applied or cited in an Office action solely on the basis of what is
stated in the "teaching point" for the case.
4. Obviousness Examples from Federal Circuit Cases. The impact of the
Supreme Court's decision in KSR can be more readily understood in the
context of factual scenarios. The cases in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update
are broadly grouped according to obviousness concepts in order to provide
persons involved with patent prosecution with ready access to the examples
that are most pertinent to the issue at hand. The first three groups
correspond directly with three of the rationales identified in the 2007 KSR
Guidelines. These rationales - combining prior art elements, substituting
one known element for another, and obvious to try - have each been the
subject of a significant number of post-KSR obviousness decisions. The
fourth group focuses on issues concerning consideration of evidence during
prosecution. Office personnel as well as practitioners are reminded of the
technology-specific obviousness examples previously posted on the Office's
Web site at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=
leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/
opla/ksr/ksr_training_materials.htm.
Although the other rationales discussed in the 2007 KSR Guidelines are
not the focus of separate discussions in this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update,
it will be noted that obviousness concepts such as applying known
techniques, design choice, and market forces are addressed when they arise
in the selected cases. The cases included in this 2010 KSR Guidelines
Update reinforce the idea, presented in the 2007 KSR Guidelines, that there
may be more than one line of reasoning that can properly be applied to a
particular factual scenario. The selected decisions also illustrate the
overlapping nature of the lines of reasoning that may be employed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Although the 2007 KSR
Guidelines presented the rationales as discrete, self-contained lines of
reasoning, and they may indeed be employed that way, it is useful to
recognize that real-world situations may require analyses that may not be
so readily pigeon-holed into distinct categories.
A. Combining Prior Art Elements. In discussing the obviousness rationale
concerning combining prior art elements, identified as Rationale A, the
2007 KSR Guidelines quoted KSR and noted that "it can be important to
identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in
the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new
invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. In view of the cases decided since
KSR, one situation when it is important to identify a reason to combine
known elements in a known manner to obtain predictable results is when the
combination requires a greater expenditure of time, effort, or resources
than the prior art teachings. Even though the components are known, the
combining step is technically feasible, and the result is predictable, the
claimed invention may nevertheless be nonobvious when the combining step
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 377 |
involves such additional effort that no one of ordinary skill would have
undertaken it without a recognized reason to do so. When a combination
invention involves additional complexity as compared with the prior art,
the invention may be nonobvious unless an examiner can articulate a reason
for including the added features or steps. This is so even when the claimed
invention could have been readily implemented.
Example 4.1. In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 536 F.3d 1361 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). Teaching point: Even where a general method that could have
been applied to make the claimed product was known and within the level of
skill of the ordinary artisan, the claim may nevertheless be nonobvious if
the problem which had suggested use of the method had been previously
unknown.
The case of In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation is one in which the
claims in question were found to be nonobvious in the context of an
argument to combine prior art elements. The invention involved applying
enteric coatings to a drug in pill form for the purpose of ensuring that
the drug did not disintegrate before reaching its intended site of action.
The drug at issue was omeprazole, the generic name for gastric acid
inhibitor marketed as Prilosec[reg]. The claimed formulation included two
layers of coatings over the active ingredient.
The district court found that Astra's patent in suit was infringed by
defendants Apotex and Impax. The district court rejected Apotex's defense
that the patents were invalid for obviousness. Apotex had argued that the
claimed invention was obvious because coated omeprazole tablets were known
from a prior art reference, and because secondary subcoatings in
pharmaceutical preparations generally were also known. There was no
evidence of unpredictability associated with applying two different enteric
coatings to omeprazole. However, Astra's reason for applying an intervening
subcoating between the prior art coating and omeprazole had been that the
prior art coating was actually interacting with omeprazole, thereby
contributing to undesirable degradation of the active ingredient. This
degradation of omeprazole by interaction with the prior art coating had not
been recognized in the prior art. Therefore, the district court reasoned
that based on the evidence available, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had no reason to include a subcoating in an omeprazole pill
formulation.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that the
claimed invention was not obvious. Even though subcoatings for enteric drug
formulation were known, and there was no evidence of undue technical
hurdles or lack of a reasonable expectation of success, the formulation was
nevertheless not obvious because the flaws in the prior art formulation
that had prompted the modification had not been recognized. Thus there
would have been no reason to modify the initial formulation, even though
the modification could have been done. Moreover, a person of skill in the
art likely would have chosen a different modification even if he or she had
recognized the problem.
Office personnel should note that in this case the modification of the
prior art that had been presented as an argument for obviousness was an
extra process step that added an additional component to a known,
successfully marketed formulation. The proposed modification thus amounted
to extra work and greater expense for no apparent reason. This is not the
same as combining known prior art elements A and B when each would have
been expected to contribute its own known properties to the final product.
In the Omeprazole case, in view of the expectations of those of ordinary
skill in the art, adding the subcoating would not have been expected to
confer any particular desirable property on the final product. Rather, the
final product obtained according to the proposed modifications would merely
have been expected to have the same functional properties as the prior art
product.
The Omeprazole case can also be analyzed in view of the discovery of a
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 378 |
previously unknown problem by the patentee. If the adverse interaction
between active agent and coating had been known, it might well have been
obvious to use a subcoating. However, since the problem had not been
previously known, there would have been no reason to incur additional time
and expense to add another layer, even though the addition would have been
technologically possible. This is true because the prior art of record
failed to mention any stability problem, despite the acknowledgment during
testimony at trial that there was a known theoretical reason that
omeprazole might be subject to degradation in the presence of the known
coating material.
Example 4.2. Crocs, Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, 598
F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Teaching point: A claimed combination of prior
art elements may be nonobvious where the prior art teaches away from the
claimed combination and the combination yields more than predictable
results.
The case of Crocs, Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission is a
decision in which the claimed foam footwear was held by the Federal Circuit
to be nonobvious over a combination of prior art references.
The claims involved in the obviousness issue were from Crocs' U.S.
Patent No. 6,993,858, and were drawn to footwear in which a one-piece
molded foam base section formed the top of the shoe (the upper) and the
sole. A strap also made of foam was attached to the foot opening of the
upper, such that the strap could provide support to the Achilles portion of
the wearer's foot. The strap was attached via connectors that allowed it to
be in contact with the base section, and to pivot relative to the base
section. Because both the base portion and the strap were made of foam,
friction between the strap and the base section allowed the strap to
maintain its position after pivoting. In other words, the foam strap did
not fall under the force of gravity to a position adjacent to the heel of
the base section.
The International Trade Commission (ITC) determined that the claims
were obvious over the combination of two pieces of prior art. The first
was the Aqua Clog, which was a shoe that corresponded to the base section
of the footwear of the `858' patent. The second was the Aguerre patent,
which taught heel straps made of elastic or another flexible material. In
the ITC's view, the claimed invention was obvious because the prior art
Aqua Clog differed from the claimed invention only as to the presence of
the strap, and a suitable strap was taught by Aguerre.
The Federal Circuit disagreed. The Federal Circuit stated that the prior
art did not teach foam heel straps, or that a foam heel strap should be
placed in contact with a foam base. The Federal Circuit pointed out that
the prior art actually counseled against using foam as a material for the
heel strap of a shoe.
The record shows that the prior art would actually discourage and teach
away from the use of foam straps. An ordinary artisan in this field would
not add a foam strap to the foam Aqua Clog because foam was likely to
stretch and deform, in addition to causing discomfort for a wearer. The
prior art depicts foam as unsuitable for straps.
Id. at 1309.
The Federal Circuit continued, stating that even if - contrary to fact -
the claimed invention had been a combination of elements that were known in
the prior art, the claims still would have been nonobvious. There was
testimony in the record that the loose fit of the heel strap made the shoe
more comfortable for the wearer than prior art shoes in which the heel
strap was constantly in contact with the wearer's foot. In the claimed
footwear, the foam heel strap contacted the wearer's foot only when needed
to help reposition the foot properly in the shoe, thus reducing wearer
discomfort that could arise from constant contact. This desirable feature
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 379 |
was a result of the friction between the base section and the strap that
kept the strap in place behind the Achilles portion of the wearer's foot.
The Federal Circuit pointed out that this combination "yielded more than
predictable results." Id. at 1310. Aguerre had taught that friction between
the base section and the strap was a problem rather than an advantage, and
had suggested the use of nylon washers to reduce friction. Thus the Federal
Circuit stated that even if all elements of the claimed invention had been
taught by the prior art, the claims would not have been obvious because the
combination yielded more than predictable results.
The Federal Circuit's discussion in Crocs serves as a reminder to Office
personnel that merely pointing to the presence of all claim elements in the
prior art is not a complete statement of a rejection for obviousness. In
accordance with MPEP § 2143 A(3), a proper rejection based on the rationale
that the claimed invention is a combination of prior art elements also
includes a finding that results flowing from the combination would have
been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2143
A(3). If results would not have been predictable, Office personnel should
not enter an obviousness rejection using the combination of prior art
elements rationale, and should withdraw such a rejection if it has been
made.
Example 4.3. Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356
(Fed. Cir. 2008). Teaching point: A claimed invention is likely to be
obvious if it is a combination of known prior art elements that would
reasonably have been expected to maintain their respective properties or
functions after they have been combined.
Sundance involved a segmented and mechanized cover for trucks, swimming
pools, or other structures. The claim was found to be obvious over the
prior art applied.
A first prior art reference taught that a reason for making a segmented
cover was ease of repair, in that a single damaged segment could be readily
removed and replaced when necessary. A second prior art reference taught
the advantages of a mechanized cover for ease of opening. The Federal
Circuit noted that the segmentation aspect of the first reference and the
mechanization function of the second perform in the same way after
combination as they had before. The Federal Circuit further observed that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that adding
replaceable segments as taught by the first reference to the mechanized
cover of the other would result in a cover that maintained the advantageous
properties of both of the prior art covers.
Thus, the Sundance case points out that a hallmark of a proper
obviousness rejection based on combining known prior art elements is that
one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected the
elements to maintain their respective properties or functions after they
have been combined.
Example 4.4. Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335 (Fed Cir. 2009).
Teaching point: A combination of known elements would have been prima facie
obvious if an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized an apparent
reason to combine those elements and would have known how to do so.
In the case of Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., an "apparent reason to
combine" in conjunction with the technical ability to optimize led to the
conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious.
The invention in question was a method of treating meat to reduce the
incidence of pathogens, by spraying the meat with an antibacterial solution
under specified conditions. The parties did not dispute that a single prior
art reference had taught all of the elements of the claimed invention,
except for the pressure limitation of "at least 50 psi."
FMC had argued at the district court that the claimed invention would
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 380 |
have been obvious in view of the first prior art reference mentioned above
in view of a second reference that had taught the advantages of spray-
treating at pressures of 20 to 150 psi when treating meat with a different
antibacterial agent. The district court did not find FMC's argument to be
convincing, and denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law that the
claim was obvious.
Disagreeing with the district court, the Federal Circuit stated that
"there was an apparent reason to combine these known elements - namely to
increase contact between the [antibacterial solution] and the bacteria on
the meat surface and to use the pressure to wash additional bacteria off
the meat surface." Id. at 1350. The Federal Circuit explained that because
the second reference had taught "using high pressure to improve the
effectiveness of an antimicrobial solution when sprayed onto meat, and
because an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized the reasons for
applying [the claimed antibacterial solution] using high pressure and would
have known how to do so, Ecolab's claims combining high pressure with other
limitations disclosed in FMC's patent are invalid as obvious." Id.
When considering the question of obviousness, Office personnel should
keep in mind the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill. In Ecolab, the
Federal Circuit stated:
Ecolab's expert admitted that one skilled in the art would know how to
adjust application parameters to determine the optimum parameters for a
particular solution. The question then is whether it would have been
obvious to combine the high pressure parameter disclosed in the Bender
patent with the PAA methods disclosed in FMC's `676 patent. The answer is
yes.
Id. If optimization of the application parameters had not been within the
level of ordinary skill in the art, the outcome of the Ecolab case may well
have been different.
Example 4.5. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., No. 2009-1412, - F.3d - , 2010 WL
2901839 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2010). Teaching point: The scope of analogous
art is to be construed broadly and includes references that are reasonably
pertinent to the problem that the inventor was trying to solve. Common
sense may be used to support a legal conclusion of obviousness so long as
it is explained with sufficient reasoning.
In the case of Wyers v. Master Lock Co., the Federal Circuit held that
the claimed barbell-shaped hitch pin locks used to secure trailers to
vehicles were obvious.
The court discussed two different sets of claims in Wyers, both drawn to
improvements over the prior art hitch pin locks. The first improvement was
a removable sleeve that could be placed over the shank of the hitch pin
lock so that the same lock could be used with towing apertures of varying
sizes. The second improvement was an external flat flange seal adapted to
protect the internal lock mechanism from contaminants. Wyers had admitted
that each of several prior art references taught every element of the
claimed inventions except for the removable sleeve and the external
covering. Master Lock had argued that these references, in combination with
additional references teaching the missing elements, would have rendered
the claims obvious.
The court first addressed the question of whether the additional
references relied on by Master Lock were analogous prior art. As to the
reference teaching the sleeve improvement, the court concluded that it
dealt specifically with using a vehicle to tow a trailer, and was
therefore in the same field of endeavor as Wyers' sleeve improvement. The
reference teaching the sealing improvement dealt with a padlock rather than
a lock for a tow hitch. The court noted that Wyers' specification had
characterized the claimed invention as being in the field of locking
devices, thus at least suggesting that the sealed padlock reference was in
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 381 |
the same field of endeavor. However, the court also observed that even if
sealed padlocks were not in the same field of endeavor, they were
nevertheless reasonably pertinent to the problem of avoiding contamination
of a locking mechanism for tow hitches. The court explained that the
Supreme Court's decision in KSR "directs [it] to construe the scope of
analogous art broadly." Wyers, slip. op. at 12. For these reasons, the
court found that Master Lock's asserted references were analogous prior
art, and therefore relevant to the obviousness inquiry.
The court then turned to the question of whether there would have been
adequate motivation to combine the prior art elements as had been urged by
Master Lock. The court recalled the Graham inquiries, and also emphasized
the "expansive and flexible" post-KSR approach to obviousness that must not
"deny factfinders recourse to common sense." Wyers, slip op. at 13 (quoting
KSR, 550 U.S. at 415 and 421). The court stated:
KSR and our later cases establish that the legal determination of
obviousness may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense, in
lieu of expert testimony * * *.
Thus, in appropriate cases, the ultimate inference as to the existence
of a motivation to combine references may boil down to a question of
"common sense," appropriate for resolution on summary judgment or JMOL.
Id. at 15 (citing Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324,
1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 993).
After reviewing these principles, the court proceeded to explain why
adequate motivation to combine had been established in this case. With
regard to the sleeve improvement, it pointed out that the need for
different sizes of hitch pins was well known in the art, and that this was
a known source of inconvenience and expense for users. The court also
mentioned the marketplace aspect of the issue, noting that space on store
shelves was at a premium, and that removable sleeves addressed this
economic concern. As to the sealing improvement, the court pointed out that
both internal and external seals were well-known means to protect locks
from contaminants. The court concluded that the constituent elements were
being employed in accordance with their recognized functions, and would
have predictably retained their respective functions when combined as
suggested by Master Lock. The court cited In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,
904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) for the proposition that a reasonable expectation of
success is a requirement for a proper determination of obviousness.
Office personnel should note that although the Federal Circuit invoked
the idea of common sense in support of a conclusion of obviousness, it did
not end its explanation there. Rather, the court explained why a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in view of the
facts relevant to the case, would have found the claimed inventions to have
been obvious. As stated in the MPEP:
The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear
articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been
obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated
that "[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."
MPEP § 2141 III. Office personnel should continue to provide a reasoned
explanation for every obviousness rejection.
Example 4.6. DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567
F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Teaching point: Predictability as discussed in
KSR encompasses the expectation that prior art elements are capable of
being combined, as well as the expectation that the combination would have
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 382 |
worked for its intended purpose. An inference that a claimed combination
would not have been obvious is especially strong where the prior art's
teachings undermine the very reason being proffered as to why a person of
ordinary skill would have combined the known elements.
The claim in DePuy Spine was directed to a polyaxial pedicle screw used
in spinal surgeries that included a compression member for pressing a screw
head against a receiver member. A prior art reference (Puno) disclosed all
of the elements of the claim except for the compression member. Instead,
the screw head in Puno was separated from the receiver member to achieve a
shock absorber effect, allowing some motion between receiver member and the
vertebrae. The missing compression member was readily found in another
prior art reference (Anderson), which disclosed an external fracture
immobilization splint for immobilizing long bones with a swivel clamp
capable of polyaxial movement until rigidly secured by a compression
member. It was asserted during trial that a person of ordinary skill would
have recognized that the addition of Anderson's compression member to
Puno's device would have achieved a rigidly locked polyaxial pedicle screw
covered by the claim.
In conducting its analysis, the Federal Circuit noted that the
"predictable result" discussed in KSR refers not only to the expectation
that prior art elements are capable of being physically combined, but also
that the combination would have worked for its intended purpose. In this
case, it was successfully argued that Puno "teaches away" from a rigid
screw because Puno warned that rigidity increases the likelihood that the
screw will fail within the human body, rendering the device inoperative for
its intended purpose. In fact, the reference did not merely express a
general preference for pedicle screws having a "shock absorber" effect, but
rather expressed concern for failure and stated that the shock absorber
feature "decrease[s] the chance of failure of the screw of the bone-screw
interface" because "it prevent[s] direct transfer of load from the rod to
the bone-screw interface." Thus, the alleged reason to combine the prior
art elements of Puno and Anderson - increasing the rigidity of the screw -
ran contrary to the prior art that taught that increasing rigidity would
result in a greater likelihood of failure. In view of this teaching and the
backdrop of collective teachings of the prior art, the Federal Circuit
determined that Puno teaches away from the proposed combination such that a
person of ordinary skill would have been deterred from combining the
references as proposed. Secondary considerations evaluated by the Federal
Circuit relating to failure by others and copying also supported the view
that the combination would not have been obvious at the time of the
invention.
B. Substituting One Known Element for Another. As explained in the 2007
KSR Guidelines, the substitution rationale applies when the claimed
invention can be viewed as resulting from substituting a known element for
an element of a prior art invention. The rationale applies when one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been technologically capable of making
the substitution, and the result obtained would have been predictable. See
MPEP § 2143(B).
Example 4.7. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2007). Teaching point: When determining whether a reference in a different
field of endeavor may be used to support a case of obviousness (i.e., is
analogous), it is necessary to consider the problem to be solved.
The claimed invention in ICON was directed to a treadmill with a folding
tread base that swivels into an upright storage position, including a gas
spring connected between the tread base and the upright structure to assist
in stably retaining the tread base in the storage position. On
reexamination, the examiner rejected the claims as obvious based on a
combination of references including an advertisement (Damark) for a folding
treadmill demonstrating all of the claim elements other than the gas
spring, and a patent (Teague) with a gas spring. Teague was directed to a
bed that folds into a cabinet using a novel dual-action spring that
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 383 |
reverses force as the mechanism passes a neutral position, rather than a
single-action spring that would provide a force pushing the bed closed at
all times. The dual-action spring reduced the force required to open the
bed from the closed position, while reducing the force required to lift the
bed from the open position.
The Federal Circuit addressed the propriety of making the combination
since Teague comes from a different field than the application. Teague was
found to be reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed in the
application because the folding mechanism did not require any particular
focus on treadmills, but rather generally addressed problems of supporting
the weight of such a mechanism and providing a stable resting position.
Other evidence was considered concerning whether one skilled in the art
would have been led to combine the teachings of Damark and Teague.
Appellant argued that Teague teaches away from the invention because it
directs one skilled in the art not to use single-action springs and does
not satisfy the claim limitations as the dual-action springs would render
the invention inoperable. The Federal Circuit considered the arguments and
found that while Teague at most teaches away from using single-action
springs to decrease the opening force, it actually instructed that single-
action springs provide the result desired by the inventors, which was to
increase the opening force provided by gravity. As to inoperability, the
claims were not limited to single-action springs and were so broad as to
encompass anything that assists in stably retaining the tread base, which
is the function that Teague accomplished. Additionally, the fact that the
counterweight mechanism from Teague used a large spring, which appellant
argued would overpower the treadmill mechanism, ignores the modifications
that one skilled in the art would make to a device borrowed from the prior
art. One skilled in the art would size the components from Teague
appropriately for the application.
ICON is another useful example for understanding the scope of analogous
art. The art applied concerned retaining mechanisms for folding beds, not
treadmills. When determining whether a reference may properly be applied to
an invention in a different field of endeavor, it is necessary to consider
the problem to be solved. It is certainly possible that a reference may be
drawn in such a way that its usefulness as a teaching is narrowly
restricted. However, in ICON, the "treadmill" concept was too narrow a lens
through which to view the art in light of the prior art teachings
concerning the problem to be solved. The Teague reference was analogous art
because "Teague and the current application both address the need to stably
retain a folding mechanism," id. at 1378, and because "nothing about ICON's
folding mechanism requires any particular focus on treadmills," id. at
1380.
ICON is also informative as to the relationship between the problem to
be solved and existence of a reason to combine. "Indeed, while perhaps not
dispositive of the issue, the finding that Teague, by addressing a similar
problem, provides analogous art to ICON's application goes a long way
towards demonstrating a reason to combine the two references. Because
ICON's broad claims read on embodiments addressing that problem as]
described by Teague, the prior art here indicates a reason to incorporate
its teachings." Id. at 1380-81.
The Federal Circuit's discussion in ICON also makes clear that if the
reference does not teach that a combination is undesirable, then it cannot
be said to teach away. An assessment of whether a combination would render
the device inoperable must not "ignore the modifications that one skilled
in the art would make to a device borrowed from the prior art." Id. at
1382.
Example 4.8. Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir.
2008). Teaching point: Analogous art is not limited to references in the
field of endeavor of the invention, but also includes references that would
have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as useful for
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 384 |
applicant's purpose.
Agrizap involved a stationary pest control device for electrocution of
pests such as rats and gophers, in which the device is set in an area where
the pest is likely to encounter it. The only difference between the claimed
device and the prior art stationary pest control device was that the
claimed device employed a resistive electrical switch, while the prior art
device used a mechanical pressure switch. A resistive electrical switch was
taught in two prior art patents, in the contexts of a hand-held pest
control device and a cattle prod.
In determining that the claimed invention was obvious, the Federal
Circuit noted that "[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive
electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch" employed in the prior
art device. Id. at 1344. In this case, the prior art concerning the hand-
held devices revealed that the function of the substituted resistive
electrical switch was well known and predictable, and that it could be used
in a pest control device. According to the Federal Circuit, the references
that taught the hand-held devices showed that "the use of an animal body as
a resistive switch to complete a circuit for the generation of an electric
charge was already well known in the prior art." Id. Finally, the Federal
Circuit noted that the problem solved by using the resistive electrical
switch in the prior art hand-held devices - malfunction of mechanical
switches due to dirt and dampness - also pertained to the prior art
stationary pest control device.
The Federal Circuit recognized Agrizap as "a textbook case of when the
asserted claims involve a combination of familiar elements according to
known methods that does no more than yield predictable results." Id.
Agrizap exemplifies a strong case of obviousness based on simple
substitution that was not overcome by the objective evidence of
nonobviousness offered. It also demonstrates that analogous art is not
limited to the field of applicant's endeavor, in that one of the references
that used an animal body as a resistive switch to complete a circuit for
the generation of an electric charge was not in the field of pest control.
Example 4.9. Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). Teaching point: Because Internet and Web browser technologies
had become commonplace for communicating and displaying information, it
would have been obvious to adapt existing processes to incorporate them for
those functions.
The invention at issue in Muniauction was a method for auctioning
municipal bonds over the Internet. A municipality could offer a package of
bond instruments of varying principal amounts and maturity dates, and an
interested buyer would then submit a bid comprising a price and interest
rate for each maturity date. It was also possible for the interested buyer
to bid on a portion of the offering. The claimed invention considered all
of the noted parameters to determine the best bid. It operated on
conventional Web browsers and allowed participants to monitor the course of
the auction.
The only difference between the prior art bidding system and the claimed
invention was the use of a conventional Web browser. At trial, the district
court had determined that Muniauction's claims were not obvious. Thomson
argued that the claimed invention amounted to incorporating a Web browser
into a prior art auction system, and was therefore obvious in light of KSR.
Muniauction rebutted the argument by offering evidence of skepticism by
experts, copying, praise, and commercial success. Although the district
court found the evidence to be persuasive of nonobviousness, the Federal
Circuit disagreed. It noted that a nexus between the claimed invention and
the proffered evidence was lacking because the evidence was not coextensive
with the claims at issue. For this reason, the Federal Circuit determined
that Muniauction's evidence of secondary considerations was not entitled to
substantial weight.
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 385 |
The Federal Circuit analogized this case to Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc.
v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007), cited in the 2007
KSR Guidelines. The Leapfrog case involved a determination of obviousness
based on application of modern electronics to a prior art mechanical
children's learning device. In Leapfrog, the court had noted that market
pressures would have prompted a person of ordinary skill to use modern
electronics in the prior art device. Similarly in Muniauction, market
pressures would have prompted a person of ordinary skill to use a
conventional Web browser in a method of auctioning municipal bonds.
Example 4.10. Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293
(Fed. Cir. 2007). Teaching point: A chemical compound would have been
obvious over a mixture containing that compound as well as other compounds
where it was known or the skilled artisan had reason to believe that some
desirable property of the mixture was derived in whole or in part from the
claimed compound, and separating the claimed compound from the mixture was
routine in the art.
In Aventis, the claims were drawn to the 5(S) stereoisomer of the blood
pressure drug ramipril in stereochemically pure form, and to compositions
and methods requiring 5(S) ramipril. The 5(S) stereoisomer is one in which
all five stereocenters in the ramipril molecule are in the S rather than
the R configuration. A mixture of various stereoisomers including 5(S)
ramipril had been taught by the prior art. The question before the court
was whether the purified single stereoisomer would have been obvious over
the known mixture of stereoisomers.
The record showed that the presence of multiple S stereocenters in drugs
similar to ramipril was known to be associated with enhanced therapeutic
efficacy. For example, when all of the stereocenters were in the S form in
the related drug enalapril (SSS enalapril) as compared with only two
stereocenters in the S form (SSR enalapril), the therapeutic potency was
700 times as great. There was also evidence to indicate that conventional
methods could be used to separate the various stereoisomers of ramipril.
The district court saw the issue as a close case, because, in its view,
there was no clear motivation in the prior art to isolate 5(S) ramipril.
However, the Federal Circuit disagreed, and found that the claims would
have been obvious. The Federal Circuit cautioned that requiring such a
clearly stated motivation in the prior art to isolate 5(S) ramipril ran
counter to the Supreme Court's decision in KSR. The
court stated:
Requiring an explicit teaching to purify the 5(S) stereoisomer from a
mixture in which it is the active ingredient is precisely the sort of rigid
application of the TSM test that was criticized in KSR.
Id. at 1301. The Aventis court also relied on the settled principle that
in chemical cases, structural similarity can provide the necessary reason
to modify prior art teachings. The Federal Circuit also addressed the kind
of teaching that would be sufficient in the absence of an explicitly stated
prior art-based motivation, explaining that an expectation of similar
properties in light of the prior art can be sufficient, even without an
explicit teaching that the compound will have a particular utility.
In the chemical arts, the cases involving so-called "lead compounds"
form an important subgroup of the obviousness cases that are based on
substitution. The Federal Circuit has had a number of opportunities since
the KSR decision to discuss the circumstances under which it would have
been obvious to modify a known compound to arrive at a claimed compound.
The following cases explore the selection of a lead compound, the need to
provide a reason for any proposed modification, and the predictability of
the result.
Example 4.11. Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy's Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353
(Fed. Cir. 2008). Teaching point: A claimed compound would not have been
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 386 |
obvious where there was no reason to modify the closest prior art lead
compound to obtain the claimed compound and the prior art taught that
modifying the lead compound would destroy its advantageous property. Any
known compound may serve as a lead compound when there is some reason for
starting with that lead compound and modifying it to obtain the claimed
compound.
Eisai concerns the pharmaceutical compound rabeprazole. Rabeprazole is a
proton pump inhibitor for treating stomach ulcers and related disorders.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment of
nonobviousness, stating that no reason had been advanced to modify the
prior art compound in a way that would destroy an advantageous property.
Co-defendant Teva based its obviousness argument on the structural
similarity between rabeprazole and lansoprazole. The compounds were
recognized as sharing a common core, and the Federal Circuit characterized
lansoprazole as a "lead compound." The prior art compound lansoprazole was
useful for the same indications as rabeprazole, and differed from
rabeprazole only in that lansoprazole has a trifluoroethoxy substituent at
the 4-position of the pyridine ring, while rabeprazole has a methoxypropoxy
substituent. The trifluoro substituent of lansoprazole was known to be a
beneficial feature because it conferred lipophilicity to the compound. The
ability of a person of ordinary skill to carry out the modification to
introduce the methoxypropoxy substituent, and the predictability of the
result were not addressed.
Despite the significant similarity between the structures, the Federal
Circuit did not find any sufficient reason to modify the lead compound.
According to the Federal Circuit:
Obviousness based on structural similarity thus can be proved by
identification of some motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill
in the art to select and then modify a known compound (i.e. a lead
compound) in a particular way to achieve the claimed compound. * * * In
keeping with the flexible nature of the obviousness inquiry, KSR Int'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739, 167 L.Ed.2d 705
(2007), the requisite motivation can come from any number of sources and
need not necessarily be explicit in the art. See Aventis Pharma Deutschland
GmbH v. Lupin, Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Rather "it is
sufficient to show that the claimed and prior art compounds possess a
`sufficiently close relationship * * * to create an expectation,' in light
of the totality of the prior art, that the new compound will have `similar
properties' to the old." Id. (quoting Dillon, 919 F.2d at 692).
Eisai, 533 F.3d at 1357. The prior art taught that introducing a
fluorinated substituent was known to increase lipophilicity, so a skilled
artisan would have expected that replacing the trifluoroethoxy substituent
with a methoxypropoxy substituent would have reduced the lipophilicity of
the compound. Thus, the prior art created the expectation that rabeprazole
would be less useful than lansoprazole as a drug for treating stomach
ulcers and related disorders because the proposed modification would have
destroyed an advantageous property of the prior art compound. The compound
was not obvious as argued by Teva because, upon consideration of all of the
facts of the case, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would not have had a reason to modify lansoprazole so as to form
rabeprazole.
Office personnel are cautioned that the term "lead compound" in a
particular opinion can have a contextual meaning that may vary from the way
a pharmaceutical chemist might use the term. In the field of pharmaceutical
chemistry, the term "lead compound" has been defined variously as "a
chemical compound that has pharmacological or biological activity and whose
chemical structure is used as a starting point for chemical modifications
in order to improve potency, selectivity, or pharmacokinetic parameters;"
"[a] compound that exhibits pharmacological properties which suggest its
development;" and "a potential drug being tested for safety and efficacy."
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 387 |
See, e.g.,http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=
leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_compound,
accessed January 13, 2010; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.
cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.combichemistry.com/
glossary_k.html, accessed January 13, 2010; and http://frwebgate.access.
gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.
building biotechnology.com/glossary4.php,accessed January 13, 2010.
The Federal Circuit in Eisai makes it clear that from the perspective of
the law of obviousness, any known compound might possibly serve as a lead
compound: "Obviousness based on structural similarity thus can be proved by
identification of some motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill
in the art to select and then modify a known compound (i.e. a lead '
compound) in a particular way to achieve the claimed compound." Eisai, 533
F.3d at 1357. Thus, Office personnel should recognize that a proper
obviousness rejection of a claimed compound that is useful as a drug might
be made beginning with an inactive compound, if, for example, the reasons
for modifying a prior art compound to arrive at the claimed compound have
nothing to do with pharmaceutical activity. The inactive compound would not
be considered to be a lead compound by pharmaceutical chemists, but could
potentially be used as such when considering obviousness. Office personnel
might also base an obviousness rejection on a known compound that
pharmaceutical chemists would not select as a lead compound due to expense,
handling issues, or other business considerations. However, there must be
some reason for starting with that lead compound other than the mere fact
that the "lead compound" merely exists. See Altana Pharma AG v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 999, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding
that there must be some reason "to select and modify a known compound");
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Labs, Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2008).
Example 4.12. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Teaching point: It is not necessary to
select a single compound as a "lead compound" in order to support an
obviousness rejection. However, where there was reason to select and modify
the lead compound to obtain the claimed compound, but no reasonable
expectation of success, the claimed compound would not have been obvious.
A chemical compound was also found to be nonobvious in Procter & Gamble.
The compound at issue was risedronate - the active ingredient of Procter &
Gamble's osteoporosis drug Actonel[reg]. Risedronate is an example of a
bisphosphonate, which is a class of compounds known to inhibit bone
resorption.
When Procter & Gamble sued Teva for infringement, Teva defended by
arguing invalidity for obviousness over one of Procter & Gamble's earlier
patents. The prior art patent did not teach risedronate, but instead taught
thirty-six other similar compounds including 2-pyr EHDP that were
potentially useful with regard to osteoporosis. Teva argued obviousness on
the basis of structural similarity to 2-pyr EHDP, which is a positional
isomer of risedronate.
The district court found no reason to select 2-pyr EHDP as a lead
compound in light of the unpredictable nature of the art, and no reason to
modify it so as to obtain risedronate. In addition, there were unexpected
results as to potency and toxicity. Therefore the district court found that
Teva had not made a prima facie case, and even if it had, it was rebutted
by evidence of unexpected results.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The Federal
Circuit did not deem it necessary in this case to consider the question of
whether 2-pyr EHDP had been appropriately selected as a lead compound.
Rather, the Federal Circuit stated that if 2-pyr EHDP is presumed to be an
appropriate lead compound, there must be both a reason to modify it so as
to make risedronate, and a reasonable expectation of success. Here there
was no evidence that the necessary modifications would have been routine,
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 388 |
so there would have been no reasonable expectation of success.
Procter & Gamble is also informative in its discussion of the treatment
of secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Although the court found
that no prima facie case of obviousness had been presented, it proceeded to
analyze Procter & Gamble's proffered evidence countering the alleged prima
facie case in some detail, thus shedding light on the proper treatment of
such evidence.
The Federal Circuit noted in dicta that even if a prima facie case of
obviousness had been established, sufficient evidence of unexpected results
was introduced to rebut such a showing. At trial, the witnesses
consistently testified that the properties of risedronate were not
expected, offering evidence that researchers did not predict either the
potency or the low dose at which the compound was effective, and that the
superior properties were unexpected and could not be predicted. Tests
comparing risedronate to a compound in the prior art reference showed that
risedronate outperformed the other compound by a substantial margin, could
be administered in a greater amount without an observable toxic effect, and
was not lethal at the same levels as the other compound. The weight of the
evidence and the credibility of the witnesses were sufficient to show
unexpected results that would have rebutted an obviousness determination.
Thus, nonobviousness can be shown when a claimed invention is shown to have
unexpectedly superior properties when compared to the prior art.
The court then addressed the evidence of commercial success of
risedronate and the evidence that risedronate met a long-felt need. The
court pointed out that little weight was to be afforded to the commercial
success because the competing product was also assigned to Procter &
Gamble. However, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's
conclusion that risedronate met a long-felt, unsatisfied need. The court
rejected Teva's contention that because the competing drug was available
before Actonel[supreg], there was no unmet need that the invention
satisfied. The court emphasized that whether there was a long-felt
unsatisfied need is to be evaluated based on the circumstances as of the
filing date of the challenged invention - not as of the date that the
invention is brought to market.
It should be noted that the lead compound cases do not stand for the
proposition that identification of a single lead compound is necessary in
every obviousness rejection of a chemical compound. For example, one might
envision a suggestion in the prior art to formulate a compound having
certain structurally defined moieties, or moieties with certain properties.
If a person of ordinary skill would have known how to synthesize such a
compound, and the structural and/or functional result could reasonably have
been predicted, then a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed
chemical compound might exist even without identification of a particular
lead compound. As a second example, it could be possible to view a claimed
compound as consisting of two known compounds attached via a chemical
linker. The claimed compound might properly be found to have been obvious
if there would have been a reason to link the two, if one of ordinary skill
would have known how to do so, and if the resulting compound would have
been the predictable result of the linkage procedure. Thus, Office
personnel should recognize that in certain situations, it may be proper to
reject a claimed chemical compound as obvious even without identifying a
single lead compound.
Example 4.13. Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 566
F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Teaching point: Obviousness of a chemical
compound in view of its structural similarity to a prior art compound may
be shown by identifying some line of reasoning that would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to select and modify a prior art lead compound in
a particular way to produce the claimed compound. It is not necessary for
the reasoning to be explicitly found in the prior art of record, nor is it
necessary for the prior art to point to only a single lead compound.
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 389 |
Although the decision reached by the Federal Circuit in Altana involved
a motion for preliminary injunction and did not include a final
determination of obviousness, the case is nevertheless instructive as to
the issue of selecting a lead compound.
The technology involved in Altana was the compound pantoprazole, which
is the active ingredient in Altana's antiulcer drug Protonix[supreg].
Pantoprazole belongs to a class of compounds known as proton pump
inhibitors that are used to treat gastric acid disorders
in the stomach.
Altana accused Teva of infringement. The district court denied Altana's
motion for preliminary injunction for failure to establish a likelihood of
success on the merits, determining that Teva had demonstrated a substantial
question of invalidity for obviousness in light of one of Altana's prior
patents. Altana's patent discussed a compound referred to as compound 12,
which was one of eighteen compounds disclosed. The claimed compound
pantoprazole was structurally similar to compound 12. The district court
found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected compound 12
as a lead compound for modification, and the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Obviousness of a chemical compound in view of its structural similarity
to a prior art compound may be shown by identifying some line of reasoning
that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to select and modify
the prior art compound in a particular way to produce the claimed compound.
The necessary line of reasoning can be drawn from any number of sources and
need not necessarily be explicitly found in the prior art of record. The
Federal Circuit determined that ample evidence supported the district
court's finding that compound 12 was a natural choice for further
development. For example, Altana's prior art patent claimed that its
compounds, including compound 12, were improvements over the prior art;
compound 12 was disclosed as one of the more potent of the eighteen
compounds disclosed; the patent examiner had considered the compounds of
Altana's prior art patent to be relevant during the prosecution of the
patent in suit; and experts had opined that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have selected the eighteen compounds to pursue further
investigation into their potential as proton pump inhibitors.
In response to Altana's argument that the prior art must point to only a
single lead compound for further development, the Federal Circuit stated
that a "restrictive view of the lead compound test would present a rigid
test similar to the teaching-suggestion-motivation test that the Supreme
Court explicitly rejected in KSR * * *. The district court in this case
employed a flexible approach - one that was admittedly preliminary - and
found that the defendants had raised a substantial question that one of
skill in the art would have used the more potent compounds of [Altana's
prior art] patent, including compound 12, as a starting point from which to
pursue further development efforts. That finding was not clearly
erroneous." Id. at 1008.
C. The "Obvious to Try" Rationale. The question of whether a claimed
invention can be shown to be obvious based on an "obvious to try" line of
reasoning has been explored extensively by the Federal Circuit in several
cases since the KSR decision. The 2007 KSR Guidelines explain, in view of
the Supreme Court's instruction, that this rationale is only appropriate
when there is a recognized problem or need in the art; there are a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need or
problem; and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued these
known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. The
case law in this area is developing quickly in the chemical arts, although
the rationale has been applied in other art areas as well.
Some commentators on the KSR decision have expressed a concern that
because inventive activities are always carried out in the context of what
has come before and not in a vacuum, few inventions will survive scrutiny
under an obvious to try standard. The cases decided since KSR have proved
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 390 |
this fear to have been unfounded. Courts appear to be applying the KSR
requirement for "a finite number of identified predictable solutions" in a
manner that places particular emphasis on predictability and the reasonable
expectations of those of ordinary skill in the art.
In a recent Federal Circuit decision, the court pointed out the
challenging nature of the task faced by the courts - and likewise by Office
personnel - when considering the viability of an obvious to try argument:
"The evaluation of the choices made by a skilled scientist, when such
choices lead to the desired result, is a challenge to judicial
understanding of how technical advance is achieved in the particular field
of science or technology." Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544 F.3d 1341,
1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Federal Circuit cautioned that an obviousness
inquiry based on an obvious to try rationale must always be undertaken in
the context of the subject matter in question, "including the
characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the
nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior
art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest." Id.
Example 4.14. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Teaching
point: A claimed polynucleotide would have been obvious over the known
protein that it encodes where the skilled artisan would have had a
reasonable expectation of success in deriving the claimed polynucleotide
using standard biochemical techniques, and the skilled artisan would have
had a reason to try to isolate the claimed polynucleotide. KSR applies to
all technologies, rather than just the "predictable" arts.
The Federal Circuit's decision in In re Kubin was an affirmance of the
Board's decision in Ex parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Interf.
2007), and the Board in turn had affirmed the examiner's determination that
the claims in question would have been obvious over the prior art applied.
A discussion of Ex parte Kubin was included in the 2007 KSR Guidelines. See
2007 KSR Guidelines, 72 FR at 57532. The claimed invention in Kubin was an
isolated nucleic acid molecule. The claim stated that the nucleic acid
encoded a particular polypeptide. The encoded polypeptide was identified in
the claim by its partially specified sequence, and by its ability to bind
to a specified protein. A prior art patent to Valiante taught the
polypeptide encoded by the claimed nucleic acid, but did not disclose
either the sequence of the polypeptide, or the claimed isolated nucleic
acid molecule. However, Valiante did disclose that by employing
conventional methods, such as those disclosed by a prior art laboratory
manual by Sambrook, the sequence of the polypeptide could be determined,
and the nucleic acid molecule could be isolated. In view of Valiante's
disclosure of the polypeptide, and of routine prior art methods for
sequencing the polypeptide and isolating the nucleic acid molecule, the
Board found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reasonable expectation that a nucleic acid molecule within the claimed
scope could have been successfully obtained.
Relying on In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1995), Appellant argued
that it was improper for the Office to use the polypeptide of the Valiante
patent together with the methods described in Sambrook to reject a claim
drawn to a specific nucleic acid molecule without providing a reference
showing or suggesting a structurally similar nucleic acid molecule. Citing
KSR, the Board stated that "when there is motivation to solve a problem and
there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or
her technical grasp. If this leads to anticipated success, it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." The
Board noted that the problem facing those in the art was to isolate a
specific nucleic acid, and there were a limited number of methods available
to do so. The Board concluded that the skilled artisan would have had
reason to try these methods with the reasonable expectation that at least
one would be successful. Thus, isolating the specific nucleic acid molecule
claimed was "the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
sense." The Board's reasoning was substantially adopted by the Federal
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 391 |
Circuit. However, it is important to note that in the Kubin decision, the
Federal Circuit held that "the Supreme Court in KSR unambiguously
discredited" the Federal Circuit's decision in Deuel, insofar as it
"implies the obviousness inquiry cannot consider that the combination of
the claim's constituent elements was `obvious to try.'" Kubin, 561 F.3d at
1358. Instead, Kubin stated that KSR "resurrects" the Federal Circuit's own
wisdom in O'Farrell, in which "to differentiate between proper and improper
applications of `obvious to try,'" the Federal Circuit "outlined two
classes of situations where `obvious to try' is erroneously equated with
obviousness under § 103." Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359. These two classes of
situations are: (1) When what would have been "obvious to try" would have
been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until
one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave
either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as
to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful; and (2) when
what was "obvious to try" was to explore a new technology or general
approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the
prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the
claimed invention or how to achieve it. Id. (citing O'Farrell, 853 F.2d at
903).
Example 4.15. Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd.,
492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Teaching point: A claimed compound would
not have been obvious where it was not obvious to try to obtain it from a
broad range of compounds, any one of which could have been selected as the
lead compound for further investigation, and the prior art taught away from
using a particular lead compound, and there was no predictability or
reasonable expectation of success in making the particular modifications
necessary to transform the lead compound into the claimed compound.
Takeda is an example of a chemical case in which the Federal Circuit
found that the claim was not obvious. The claimed compound was
pioglitazone, a member of a class of drugs known as thiazolidinediones
(TZDs) marketed by Takeda as a treatment for Type 2 diabetes. The Takeda
case brings together the concept of a "lead compound" and the obvious-to-
try argument.
Alphapharm had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the Food
and Drug Administration, which was a technical act of infringement of
Takeda's patent. When Takeda brought suit, Alphapharm's defense was that
Takeda's patent was invalid due to obviousness. Alphapharm argued that a
two-step modification - involving homologation and ring-walking - of a known
compound identified as "compound b" would have produced pioglitazone, and
that it was therefore obvious.
The district court found that there would have been no reason to select
compound b as a lead compound. There were a large number of similar prior
art TZD compounds; fifty-four were specifically identified in Takeda's
prior patent, and the district court observed that "hundreds of millions"
were more generally disclosed. Although the parties agreed that compound b
represented the closest prior art, one reference had taught certain
disadvantageous properties associated with compound b, which according to
the district court would have taught the skilled artisan not to select that
compound as a lead compound. The district court found no prima facie case
of obviousness, and stated that even if a prima facie case had been
established, it would have been overcome in this case in view of the
unexpected lack of toxicity of pioglitazone.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court, citing
the need for a reason to modify a prior art compound. The Federal Circuit
quoted KSR, stating:
The KSR Court recognized that "[w]hen there is a design need or market
pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,
predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp." KSR, 127 S.Ct. at
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 392 |
1732. In such circumstances, "the fact that a combination was obvious to
try might show that it was obvious under § 103." Id. That is not the case
here. Rather than identify predictable solutions for antidiabetic
treatment, the prior art disclosed a broad selection of compounds any one
of which could have been selected as a lead compound for further
investigation. Significantly, the closest prior art compound (compound b,
the 6-methyl) exhibited negative properties that would have directed one of
ordinary skill in the art away from that compound. Thus, this case fails to
present the type of situation contemplated by the Court when it stated that
an invention may be deemed obvious if it was "obvious to try." The evidence
showed that it was not obvious to try.
Takeda, 492 F.3d at 1359.
Accordingly, Office personnel should recognize that the obvious to try
rationale does not apply when the appropriate factual findings cannot be
made. In Takeda, there was a recognized need for treatment of diabetes.
However, there was no finite number of identified, predictable solutions to
the recognized need, and no reasonable expectation of success. There were
numerous known TZD compounds, and although one clearly represented the
closest prior art, its known disadvantages rendered it unsuitable as a
starting point for further research, and taught the skilled artisan away
from its use. Furthermore, even if there had been reason to select compound
b, there had been no predictability or reasonable expectation of success
associated with the particular modifications necessary to transform
compound b into the claimed compound pioglitazone. Thus, an obviousness
rejection based on an obvious to try rationale was not appropriate in this
situation.
Example 4.16. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Labs, Inc., 520
F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Teaching point: Where the claimed anti-
convulsant drug had been discovered somewhat serendipitously in the course
of research aimed at finding a new anti-diabetic drug, it would not have
been obvious to try to obtain a claimed compound where the prior art did
not present a finite and easily traversed number of potential starting
compounds, and there was no apparent reason for selecting a particular
starting compound from among a number of unpredictable alternatives.
The Ortho-McNeil case provides another example in which a chemical
compound was determined not to be obvious. The claimed subject matter was
topiramate, which is used as an anti-convulsant. As in DePuy Spine, whether
the combination would predictably be effective for its intended purpose is
part of the obviousness analysis.
In the course of working toward a new anti-diabetic drug, Ortho-McNeil's
scientist had unexpectedly discovered that a reaction intermediate had
anti-convulsant properties. Mylan's defense of invalidity due to
obviousness rested on an obvious to try argument. However, Mylan did not
explain why it would have been obvious to begin with an anti-diabetic drug
precursor, especially the specific one that led to topiramate, if one had
been seeking an anti-convulsant drug. The district court ruled on summary
judgment that Ortho-McNeil's patent was not invalid for obviousness.
The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Federal Circuit pointed out that there
was no apparent reason why a person of ordinary skill would have chosen the
particular starting compound or the particular synthetic pathway that led
to topiramate as an intermediate. Furthermore, there would have been no
reason to test that intermediate for anticonvulsant properties if treating
diabetes had been the goal. The Federal Circuit recognized an element of
serendipity in this case, which runs counter to the requirement for
predictability. Summarizing their conclusion with regard to Mylan's obvious
to try argument, the Federal Circuit stated:
[T]his invention, contrary to Mylan's characterization, does not present
a finite (and small in the context of the art) number of options easily
traversed to show obviousness * * *. KSR posits a situation with a finite,
and in the context of the art, small or easily traversed, number of options
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 393 |
that would convince an ordinarily skilled artisan of obviousness* * * .
[T]his clearly is not the easily traversed, small and finite number of
alternatives that KSR suggested might support an inference of obviousness.
Id. at 1364. Thus, Ortho-McNeil helps to clarify the Supreme Court's
requirement in KSR for "a finite number" of predictable solutions when an
obvious to try rationale is applied: Under the Federal Circuit's case law
"finite" means "small or easily traversed" in the context of the art in
question. As taught in Abbott, discussed above, it is essential that the
inquiry be placed in the context of the subject matter at issue, and each
case must be decided on its own facts.
Example 4.17. Bayer Schering Pharma A.G. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 575 F.3d
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Teaching point: A claimed compound would have been
obvious where it was obvious to try to obtain it from a finite and easily
traversed number of options that was narrowed down from a larger set of
possibilities by the prior art, and the outcome of obtaining the claimed
compound was reasonably predictable.
In Bayer the claimed invention was an oral contraceptive containing
micronized drospirenone marketed as Yasmin[reg].
The prior art compound drospirenone was known to be a poorly water-
soluble, acid-sensitive compound with contraceptive effects. It was also
known in the art that micronization improves the solubility of poorly water
soluble drugs.
Based on the known acid sensitivity, Bayer had studied how effectively
an enteric-coated drospirenone tablet delivered a formulation as compared
to an intravenous injection of the same formulation to measure the
"absolute bioavailability" of the drug. Bayer added an unprotected (normal)
drospirenone tablet and compared its bioavailability to that of the
enteric-coated formulation and the intravenous delivery. Bayer expected to
find that the enteric-coated tablet would produce a lower bioavailability
than an intravenous injection, while the normal pill would produce an even
lower bioavailability than the enteric-coated tablet. However, they found
that despite observations that drospirenone would quickly isomerize in a
highly acidic environment (supporting the belief that an enteric coating
would be necessary to preserve bioavailability), the normal pill and the
enteric-coated pill resulted in the same bioavailability. Following this
study, Bayer developed micronized drospirenone in a normal pill, the basis
for the disputed patent.
The district court found that a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have considered the prior art result that a structurally related
compound, spirorenone, though acid-sensitive, would nevertheless absorb in
vivo, would have suggested the same result for drospirenone. It also found
that while another reference taught that drospirenone isomerizes in vitro
when exposed to acid simulating the human stomach, a person of ordinary
skill would have been aware of the study's shortcomings, and would have
verified the findings as suggested by a treatise on the science of dosage
form design, which would have then showed that no enteric coating was
necessary.
The Federal Circuit held that the patent was invalid because the claimed
formulation was obvious. The Federal Circuit reasoned that the prior art
would have funneled the formulator toward two options. Thus, the formulator
would not have been required to try all possibilities in a field unreduced
by the prior art. The prior art was not vague in pointing toward a general
approach or area of exploration, but rather guided the formulator precisely
to the use of either a normal pill or an enteric-coated pill.
It is important for Office personnel to recognize that the mere
existence of a large number of options does not in and of itself lead to a
conclusion of nonobviousness. Where the prior art teachings lead one of
ordinary skill in the art to a narrower set of options, then that reduced
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 394 |
set is the appropriate one to consider when determining obviousness using
an obvious to try rationale.
Example 4.18. Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). Teaching point: A claimed isolated stereoisomer would not have
been obvious where the claimed stereoisomer exhibits unexpectedly strong
therapeutic advantages over the prior art racemic mixture without the
correspondingly expected toxicity, and the resulting properties of the
enantiomers separated from the racemic mixture were unpredictable.
The case of Sanofi also sheds light on the obvious to try line of
reasoning. The claimed compound was clopidogrel, which is the
dextrorotatory isomer of methyl alpha-5(4,5,6,7-tetrahydro(3,2-
c)thienopyridyl)(2-chlorophenyl)-acetate. Clopidogrel is an anti-thrombotic
compound used to treat or prevent heart attack or stroke. The racemate, or
mixture of dextrorotatory and levorotatory (D- and L-) isomers of the
compound, was known in the prior art. The two forms had not previously been
separated, and although the mixture was known to have anti-thrombotic
properties, the extent to which each of the individual isomers contributed
to the observed properties of the racemate was not known and was not
predictable.
The district court assumed that in the absence of any additional
information, the D-isomer would have been prima facie obvious over the
known racemate. However, in view of the evidence of unpredicted therapeutic
advantages of the D-isomer presented in the case, the district court found
that any prima facie case of obviousness had been overcome. At trial, the
experts for both parties testified that persons of ordinary skill in the
art could not have predicted the degree to which the isomers would have
exhibited different levels of therapeutic activity and toxicity. Both
parties' experts also agreed that the isomer with greater therapeutic
activity would most likely have had greater toxicity. Sanofi witnesses
testified that Sanofi's own researchers had believed that the separation of
the isomers was unlikely to have been productive, and experts for both
parties agreed that it was difficult to separate isomers at the time of the
invention. Nevertheless, when Sanofi ultimately undertook the task of
separating the isomers, it found that they had the "rare characteristic of
`absolute stereoselectivity,'" whereby the D-isomer provided all of the
favorable therapeutic activity but no significant toxicity, while the
L-isomer produced no therapeutic activity but virtually all of the
toxicity. Based on this record, the district court concluded that Apotex
had not met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that
Sanofi's patent was invalid for obviousness. The Federal Circuit affirmed
the district court's conclusion.
Office personnel should recognize that even when only a small number of
possible choices exist, the obvious to try line of reasoning is not
appropriate when, upon consideration of all of the evidence, the outcome
would not have been reasonably predictable and the inventor would not have
had a reasonable expectation of success. In Bayer, there were art-based
reasons to expect that both the normal pill and the enteric-coated pill
would be therapeutically suitable, even though not all prior art studies
were in complete agreement. Thus, the result obtained was not unexpected.
In Sanofi, on the other hand, there was strong evidence that persons of
ordinary skill in the art, prior to the separation of the isomers, would
have had no reason to expect that the D-isomer would have such strong
therapeutic advantages as compared with the L-isomer. In other words, the
result in Sanofi was unexpected.
Example 4.19. Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Technologies Corp., 603 F.3d
1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Teaching point: An obvious to try rationale may be
proper when the possible options for solving a problem were known and
finite. However, if the possible options were not either known or finite,
then an obvious to try rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion of
obviousness.
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 395 |
In Rolls-Royce the Federal Circuit addressed the obvious to try
rationale in the context of a fan blade for jet engines. The case had
arisen out of an interference proceeding. Finding that the district court
had correctly determined that there was no interference-in-fact because
Rolls-Royce's claims would not have been obvious in light of United's
application, the Federal Circuit affirmed.
The Federal Circuit described the fan blade of the count as follows:
Each fan blade has three regions - an inner, an intermediate, and an
outer region. The area closest to the axis of rotation at the hub is the
inner region. The area farthest from the center of the engine and closest
to the casing surrounding the engine is the outer region. The intermediate
region falls in between. The count defines a fan blade with a swept-
forward inner region, a swept-rearward intermediate region, and forward-
leaning outer region.
Id. at 1328.
United had argued that it would have been obvious for a person of
ordinary skill in the art to try a fan blade design in which the sweep
angle in the outer region was reversed as compared with prior art fan
blades from rearward to forward sweep, in order to reduce endwall shock.
The Federal Circuit disagreed with United's assessment that the claimed fan
blade would have been obvious based on an obvious to try rationale. The
Federal Circuit pointed out that in a proper obvious to try approach to
obviousness, the possible options for solving a problem must have been
"known and finite." Id. at 1339, citing Abbott, 544 F.3d at 1351. In this
case, there had been no suggestion in the prior art that would have
suggested that changing the sweep angle as Rolls-Royce had done would have
addressed the issue of endwall shock. Thus, the Federal Circuit concluded
that changing the sweep angle "would not have presented itself as an option
at all, let alone an option that would have been obvious to try." Rolls-
Royce, 603 F.3d at 1339. The decision in Rolls-Royce is a reminder to
Office personnel that the obvious to try rationale can properly be used to
support a conclusion of obviousness only when the claimed solution would
have been selected from a finite number of potential solutions known to
persons of ordinary skill in the art.
Example 4.20. Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d
1324, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Teaching point: Where there were a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions and there is no evidence of
unexpected results, an obvious to try inquiry may properly lead to a legal
conclusion of obviousness. Common sense may be used to support a legal
conclusion of obviousness so long as it is explained with sufficient
reasoning.
The Perfect Web case provides an example in which the Federal Circuit
held that a claimed method for managing bulk e-mail distribution was
obvious on the basis of an obvious to try argument. In Perfect Web, the
method required selecting the intended recipients, transmitting the
e-mails, determining how many of the e-mails had been successfully
received, and repeating the first three steps if a pre-determined minimum
number of intended recipients had not received the e-mail.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's determination on
summary judgment that the claimed invention would have been obvious.
Failure to meet a desired quota of e-mail recipients was a recognized
problem in the field of e-mail marketing. The prior art had also
recognized three potential solutions: Increasing the size of the initial
recipient list; resending e-mails to recipients who did not receive them on
the first attempt; and selecting a new recipient list and sending e-mails
to them. The last option corresponded to the fourth step of the invention
as claimed.
The Federal Circuit noted that based on "simple logic," selecting a new
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 396 |
list of recipients was more likely to result in the desired outcome than
resending to those who had not received the e-mail on the first attempt.
There had been no evidence of any unexpected result associated with
selecting a new recipient list, and no evidence that the method would not
have had a reasonable likelihood of success. Thus, the Federal Circuit
concluded that, as required by KSR, there were a "finite number of
identified, predictable solutions," and that the obvious to try inquiry
properly led to the legal conclusion of
obviousness.
The Federal Circuit in Perfect Web also discussed the role of common
sense in the determination of obviousness. The district court had cited KSR
for the proposition that "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton," and found that "the final step [of
the claimed invention] is merely the logical result of common sense
application of the maxim `try, try again.'" In affirming the district
court, the Federal Circuit undertook an extended discussion of common sense
as it has been applied to the obviousness inquiry, both before and since
the KSR decision.
The Federal Circuit pointed out that application of common sense is not
really an innovation in the law of obviousness when it stated, "Common
sense has long been recognized to inform the analysis of obviousness if
explained with sufficient reasoning." Perfect Web, 587 F.3d at 1328
(emphasis added). The Federal Circuit then provided a review of a number of
precedential cases that inform the understanding of common sense, including
In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) (explaining that a patent
examiner may rely on "common knowledge and common sense of the person of
ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a
particular reference") and In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 1385 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (clarifying that a factual foundation is needed in order for an
examiner to invoke "good common sense" in a case in which "basic knowledge
and common sense was not based on any evidence in the record").
The Federal Circuit implicitly acknowledged in Perfect Web that the
kind of strict evidence-based teaching, suggestion, or motivation
required in In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002), is not an
absolute requirement for an obviousness rejection in light of the
teachings of KSR. The Federal Circuit explained that "[a]t the time
[of the Lee decision], we required the PTO to identify record evidence
of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references."
However, Perfect Web went on to state that even under Lee, common sense
could properly be applied when analyzing evidence relevant to
obviousness. Citing DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir.
2006), two cases decided shortly before the Supreme Court's decision in
KSR, the Federal Circuit noted that although "a reasoned explanation
that avoids conclusory generalizations" is required to use common
sense, identification of a "specific hint or suggestion in a
particular reference" is not.
5. Federal Circuit Cases Discussing Consideration of Evidence.
Office personnel should consider all rebuttal evidence that is timely
presented by the applicants when reevaluating any obviousness
determination. In the case of a claim rendered obvious by a combination
of prior art references, applicants may submit evidence or argument to
demonstrate that the results of the claimed combination were
unexpected.
Another area that has thus far remained consistent with pre-KSR
precedent is the consideration of rebuttal evidence and secondary
considerations in the determination of obviousness. As reflected in the
MPEP, such evidence should not be considered simply for its
"knockdown" value; rather, all evidence must be reweighed to
determine whether the claims are nonobvious.
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 397 |
Once the applicant has presented rebuttal evidence, Office
personnel should reconsider any initial obviousness determination in
view of the entire record. See, e.g., In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 90
F.2d 943, 945, 14 USPQ2d 1741, 1743 (Fed. Cir. 1990). All the
rejections of record and proposed rejections and their bases should
be reviewed to confirm their continued viability.
MPEP § 2141.
Office personnel should not evaluate rebuttal evidence for its
"knockdown" value against the prima facie case, Piasecki, 745 F.2d
at 1473, 223 USPQ at 788, or summarily dismiss it as not compelling
or insufficient. If the evidence is deemed insufficient to rebut the
prima facie case of obviousness, Office personnel should
specifically set forth the facts and reasoning that justify this
conclusion.
MPEP § 2145. The following cases exemplify the continued
application of these principles both at the Federal Circuit and within
the Office. Note that these principles were at issue in some of the
cases previously discussed, and have been addressed there in a more
cursory fashion.
Example 5.1. PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., 491
F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Teaching point: Even though all evidence
must be considered in an obviousness analysis, evidence of
nonobviousness may be outweighed by contradictory evidence in the
record or by what is in the specification. Although a reasonable
expectation of success is needed to support a case of obviousness,
absolute predictability is not required.
The claims at issue in PharmaStem were directed to compositions
comprising hematopoietic stem cells from umbilical cord or placental
blood, and to methods of using such compositions for treatment of blood
and immune system disorders. The composition claims required that the
stem cells be present in an amount sufficient to effect hematopoietic
reconstitution when administered to a human adult. The trial court had
found that PharmaStem's patents were infringed and not invalid on
obviousness or other grounds. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed
the district court, determining that the claims were invalid for
obviousness.
The Federal Circuit discussed the evidence presented at trial. It
pointed out that the patentee, PharmaStem, had not invented an entirely
new procedure or new composition. Rather, PharmaStem's own
specification acknowledged that it was already known in the prior art
that umbilical cord and placental blood-based compositions contained
hematopoietic stem cells, and that hematopoietic stem cells were useful
for the purpose of hematopoietic reconstitution. PharmaStem's
contribution was to provide experimental proof that umbilical cord and
placental blood could be used to effect hematopoietic reconstitution in
mice. By extrapolation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
expected this reconstitution method to work in humans as well.
The court rejected PharmaStem's expert testimony that hematopoietic
stem cells had not been proved to exist in cord blood prior to the
experiments described in PharmaStem's patents. The court explained that
the expert testimony was contrary to the inventors' admissions in the
specification, as well as prior art teachings that disclosed stem cells
in cord blood. In this case, PharmaStem's evidence of nonobviousness
was outweighed by contradictory evidence.
Despite PharmaStem's useful experimental validation of
hematopoietic reconstitution using hematopoietic stem cells from
umbilical cord and placental blood, the Federal Circuit found that the
claims at issue would have been obvious. There had been ample
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 398 |
suggestion in the prior art that the claimed method would have worked.
Absolute predictability is not a necessary prerequisite to a case of
obviousness. Rather, a degree of predictability that one of ordinary
skill would have found to be reasonable is sufficient. The Federal
Circuit concluded that "[g]ood science and useful contributions do not
necessarily result in patentability." Id. at 1364.
Example 5.2. In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Teaching point: All evidence, including evidence rebutting a prima
facie case of obviousness, must be considered when properly presented.
It was found to be an error in Sullivan for the Board to fail to
consider evidence submitted to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
The claimed invention was directed to an antivenom composition
comprising F(ab) fragments used to treat venomous rattlesnake bites.
The composition was created from antibody molecules that include three
fragments, F(ab)2, F(ab) and F(c), which have separate
properties and utilities. There have been commercially available
antivenom products that consisted of whole antibodies and
F(ab)2 fragments, but researchers had not experimented with
antivenoms containing only F(ab) fragments because it was believed that
their unique properties would prevent them from decreasing the toxicity
of snake venom. The inventor, Sullivan, discovered that F(ab) fragments
are effective at neutralizing the lethality of rattlesnake venom, while
reducing the occurrence of adverse immune reactions in humans. On
appeal of the examiner's rejection, the Board held that the claim was
obvious because all the elements of the claimed composition were
accounted for in the prior art, and that the composition taught by that
prior art would have been expected by a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to neutralize the lethality of
the venom of a rattlesnake.
Rebuttal evidence had not been considered by the Board because it
considered the evidence to relate to the intended use of the claimed
composition as an antivenom, rather than the composition itself.
Appellant successfully argued that even if the Board had shown a prima
facie case of obviousness, the extensive rebuttal evidence must be
considered. The evidence included three expert declarations submitted
to show that the prior art taught away from the claimed invention, an
unexpected property or result from the use of F(ab) fragment antivenom,
and why those having ordinary skill in the art expected antivenoms
comprising F(ab) fragments to fail. The declarations related to more
than the use of the claimed composition. While a statement of intended
use may not render a known composition patentable, the claimed
composition was not known, and whether it would have been obvious
depends upon consideration of the rebuttal evidence. Appellant did not
concede that the only distinguishing factor of its composition is the
statement of intended use and extensively argued that its claimed
composition exhibits the unexpected property of neutralizing the
lethality of rattlesnake venom while reducing the occurrence of adverse
immune reactions in humans. The Federal Circuit found that such a use
and unexpected property cannot be ignored - the unexpected property is
relevant and thus the declarations describing it should have been
considered.
Nonobviousness can be shown when a person of ordinary skill in the
art would not have reasonably predicted the claimed invention based on
the prior art, and the resulting invention would not have been
expected. All evidence must be considered when properly presented.
Example 5.3. Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2010). Teaching point: Evidence that has been properly
presented in a timely manner must be considered on the record. Evidence
of commercial success is pertinent where a nexus between the success of
the product and the claimed invention has been demonstrated.
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 399 |
The case of Hearing Components involved a disposable protective
covering for the portion of a hearing aid that is inserted into the ear
canal. The covering was such that it could be readily replaced by a
user as needed.
At the district court, Shure had argued that Hearing Components'
patents were obvious over one or more of three different combinations
of prior art references. The jury disagreed, and determined that the
claims were nonobvious. The district court upheld the jury verdict,
stating that in view of the conflicting evidence presented by the
parties as to the teachings of the references, motivation to combine,
and secondary considerations, the nonobviousness verdict was
sufficiently grounded in the evidence.
Shure appealed to the Federal Circuit, but the Federal Circuit
agreed with the district court that the jury's nonobviousness verdict
had been supported by substantial evidence. Although Shure had argued
before the jury that the Carlisle reference taught an ear piece
positioned inside the ear canal, Hearing Components' credible witness
countered that only the molded duct and not the ear piece itself was
taught by Carlisle as being inside the ear canal. On the issue of
combining references, Shure's witness had given testimony described as
"rather sparse, and lacking in specific details." Id. at 1364. In
contradistinction, Hearing Components' witness "described particular
reasons why one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to
combine the references." Id. Finally, as to secondary considerations,
the Federal Circuit determined that Hearing Components had shown a
nexus between the commercial success of its product and the patent by
providing evidence that "the licensing fee for a covered product was
more than cut in half immediately upon expiration" of the patent.
Although the Hearing Components case involves substantial evidence
of nonobviousness in a jury verdict, it is nevertheless instructive for
Office personnel on the matter of weighing evidence. Office personnel
routinely must consider evidence in the form of prior art references,
statements in the specification, or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131 or
1.132. Other forms of evidence may also be presented during
prosecution. Office personnel are reminded that evidence that has been
presented in a timely manner should not be ignored, but rather should
be considered on the record. However, not all evidence need be accorded
the same weight. In determining the relative weight to accord to
rebuttal evidence, considerations such as whether a nexus exists
between the claimed invention and the proffered evidence, and whether
the evidence is commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, are
appropriate. The mere presence of some credible rebuttal evidence does
not dictate that an obviousness rejection must always be withdrawn. See
MPEP § 2145. Office personnel must consider the appropriate weight
to be accorded to each piece of evidence. An obviousness rejection
should be made or maintained only if evidence of obviousness outweighs
evidence of nonobviousness. See MPEP § 706(I) ("The standard to be
applied in all cases is the `preponderance of the evidence' test. In
other words, an examiner should reject a claim if, in view of the prior
art and evidence of record, it is more likely than not that the claim
is unpatentable."). MPEP § 716.01(d) provides further guidance on
weighing evidence in making a determination of patentability.
Example 5.4. Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d 1310
(Fed. Cir. 2008). Teaching point: Evidence of secondary considerations
of obviousness such as commercial success and long-felt need may be
insufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness if the prima
facie case is strong. An argument for nonobviousness based on
commercial success or long-felt need is undermined when there is a
failure to link the commercial success or long-felt need to a claimed
feature that distinguishes over the prior art.
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 400 |
The claims at issue in Asyst concerned a processing system for
tracking articles such as silicon wafers which move from one processing
station to the next in a manufacturing facility. The claims required
that each processing station be in communication with a central control
unit. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the only
difference between the claimed invention and the prior art to Hesser
was that the prior art had taught the use of a bus for this
communication, while the claims required a multiplexer. At trial, the
jury had concluded that Hesser was not relevant prior art, but the
district court overturned that conclusion and issued a judgment as a
matter of law (JMOL) that the claims would have been obvious in view of
Hesser. Because the evidence showed that persons of ordinary skill in
the art would have been familiar with both the bus and the multiplexer,
and that they could have readily selected and employed one or the other
based on known considerations, the Federal Circuit affirmed the
district court's conclusion that the claims were invalid for
obviousness.
The Federal Circuit also discussed arguments that the district court had
failed to consider the objective evidence of nonobviousness presented by
Asyst. Asyst had offered evidence of commercial success of its invention.
However, the Federal Circuit pointed out that Asyst had not provided the
required nexus between the commercial success and the claimed invention,
emphasizing that "Asyst's failure to link that commercial success to the
features of its invention that were not disclosed in Hesser undermines the
probative force of the evidence * * *." Id. at 1316. Asyst had also
offered evidence from others in the field praising the invention as
addressing a long-felt need. Once again, the Federal Circuit found the
argument to be unavailing in view of the prior art, stating that
"[w]hile the evidence shows that the overall system drew praise as a
solution to a felt need, there was no evidence that the success * * *
was attributable to the substitution of a multiplexer for a bus, which
was the only material difference between Hesser and the patented
invention." Id. The Federal Circuit also reiterated, citing pre-KSR
decisions, that "as we have often held, evidence of secondary
considerations does not always overcome a strong prima facie showing of
obviousness." Id. (citing Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714,
719-20 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757,
768 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
When considering obviousness, Office personnel should carefully
weigh any properly presented objective evidence of nonobviousness
against the strength of the prima facie case. If the asserted evidence,
such as commercial success or satisfaction of a long-felt need, is
attributable to features already in the prior art, the probative value
of the evidence is reduced.
6. Conclusion. This 2010 KSR Guidelines Update is intended to be
used by Office personnel in conjunction with the guidance provided in
MPEP Sec. § 2141 and 2143 (which incorporates the 2007 KSR
Guidelines) to clarify the contours of obviousness after KSR. It
addresses a number of issues that arise when Office personnel consider
whether or not a claimed invention is obvious. While Office personnel
are encouraged to make use of these tools, they are reminded that every
question of obviousness must be decided on its own facts. The Office
will continue to monitor the developing law of obviousness, and will
provide additional guidance and updates as necessary.
August 20, 2010 DAVID J. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Appendix
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 401 |
The following table contains the cases set out as examples in
this 2010 KSR Guidelines Update and the teaching points of the case.
Case Teaching point
Combining Prior Art Elements
In re Omeprazole Patent Even where a general method that
Litigation, 536 F.3d 1361 could have been applied to make the
(Fed. Cir. 2008). claimed product was known and
within the level of skill of the
ordinary artisan, the claim may
nevertheless be nonobvious if the
problem which had suggested use of
the method had been previously
unknown.
Crocs, Inc. v. U.S. Int'l A claimed combination of prior art
Trade Comm'n., 598 F.3d elements may be nonobvious where
1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010). the prior art teaches away from the
claimed combination and the
combination yields more than
predictable results.
Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte A claimed invention is likely to be
Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d obvious if it is a combination of
1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008). known prior art elements that would
reasonably have been expected to
maintain their respective
properties or functions after they
have been combined.
Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., A combination of known elements
569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. would have been prima facie obvious
2009). if an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have recognized an apparent
reason to combine those elements
and would have known how to do so.
Wyers v. Master Lock Co., The scope of analogous art is to be
No. 2009-1412, -F.3d-, construed broadly and includes
2010 WL 2901839 (Fed. references that are reasonably
Cir. July 22, 2010). pertinent to the problem that the
inventor was trying to solve.
Common sense may be used to support
a legal conclusion of obviousness
so long as it is explained with
sufficient reasoning.
DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Predictability as discussed in KSR
Medtronic Sofamor Danek, encompasses the expectation that
Inc., 567 F.3d 1314 prior art elements are capable of
(Fed. Cir. 2009). being combined, as well as the
expectation that the combination
would have worked for its intended
purpose. An inference that a
claimed combination would not have
been obvious is especially strong
where the prior art's teachings
undermine the very reason being
proffered as to why a person of
ordinary skill would have combined
the known elements.
Substituting One Known Element for Another
In re ICON Health & Fitness, When determining whether a reference
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. in a different field of endeavor
Cir. 2007). may be used to support a case of
obviousness (i.e., is analogous),
it is necessary to consider the
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 402 |
problem to be solved.
Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Analogous art is not limited to
Corp., 520 F.3d 1337 (Fed. references in the field of endeavor
Cir. 2008). of the invention, but also includes
references that would have been
recognized by those of ordinary
skill in the art as useful for
applicant's purpose.
Muniauction, Inc. v. Because Internet and Web browser
Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d technologies had become commonplace
1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008). for communicating and displaying
information, it would have been
obvious to adapt existing processes
to incorporate them for those
functions.
Aventis Pharma Deutschland A chemical compound would have been
v. Lupin, Ltd., 499 F.3d obvious over a mixture containing
1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007). that compound as well as other
compounds where it was known or the
skilled artisan had reason to
believe that some desirable
property of the mixture was derived
in whole or in part from the
claimed compound, and separating
the claimed compound from the
mixture was routine in the art.
Eisai Co. Ltd. v. A claimed compound would not have
Dr. Reddy's Labs., Ltd., been obvious where there was no
533 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. reason to modify the closest prior
2008). art lead compound to obtain the
claimed compound and the prior art
taught that modifying the lead
compound would destroy its
advantageous property. Any known
compound may serve as a lead
compound when there is some reason
for starting with that lead
compound and modifying it to obtain
the claimed compound.
Procter & Gamble Co. v. It is not necessary to select a
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, single compound as a "lead
Inc., 566 F.3d 989 compound" in order to support an
(Fed. Cir. 2009). obviousness rejection. However,
where there was reason to select
and modify the lead compound to
obtain the claimed compound, but no
reasonable expectation of success,
the claimed compound would not have
been obvious.
Altana Pharma AG v. Obviousness of a chemical compound
Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., in view of its structural
566 F.3d 999 similarity to a prior art compound
(Fed. Cir. 2009). may be shown by identifying some
line of reasoning that would have
led one of ordinary skill in the
art to select and modify a prior
art lead compound in a particular
way to produce the claimed
compound. It is not necessary for
the reasoning to be explicitly
found in the prior art of record,
nor is it necessary for the prior
art to point to only a single lead
compound.
The Obvious To Try Rationale
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 403 |
In re Kubin, 561 F.3d A claimed polynucleotide would have
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009). been obvious over the known protein
that it encodes where the skilled
artisan would have had a reasonable
expectation of success in deriving
the claimed polynucleotide using
standard biochemical techniques,
and the skilled artisan would have
had a reason to try to isolate the
claimed polynucleotide. KSR applies
to all technologies, rather than
just the "predictable" arts.
Takeda Chem. Indus. v. A claimed compound would not have
Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., been obvious where it was not
492 F.3d 1350 obvious to try to obtain it from a
(Fed. Cir. 2007). broad range of compounds, any one
of which could have been selected
as the lead compound for further
investigation, and the prior art
taught away from using a particular
lead compound, and there was no
predictability or reasonable
expectation of success in making
the particular modifications
necessary to transform the lead
compound into the claimed compound.
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Where the claimed anti-convulsant
Inc. v. Mylan Labs, Inc., drug had been discovered somewhat
520 F.3d 1358 serendipitously in the course of
(Fed. Cir. 2008). research aimed at finding a new
anti-diabetic drug, it would not
have been obvious to try to obtain
a claimed compound where the prior
art did not present a finite and
easily traversed number of
potential starting compounds, and
there was no apparent reason for
selecting a particular starting
compound from among a number of
unpredictable alternatives.
Bayer Schering Pharma A.G. A claimed compound would have been
v. Barr Labs., Inc., obvious where it was obvious to try
575 F.3d 1341 to obtain it from a finite and
(Fed. Cir. 2009). easily traversed number of options
that was narrowed down from a
larger set of possibilities by the
prior art, and the outcome of
obtaining the claimed compound was
reasonably predictable.
Sanofi-Synthelabo v. A claimed isolated stereoisomer
Apotex, Inc., 550 would not have been obvious where
F.3d 1075 the claimed stereoisomer exhibits
(Fed. Cir. 2008). unexpectedly strong therapeutic
advantages over the prior art
racemic mixture without the
correspondingly expected toxicity,
and the resulting properties of the
enantiomers separated from the
racemic mixture were unpredictable.
Rolls-Royce, PLC v. An obvious to try rationale may be
United Technologies Corp., proper when the possible options
603 F.3d 1325 for solving a problem were known
(Fed. Cir. 2010). and finite. However, if the
possible options were not either
known or finite, then an obvious to
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 404 |
try rationale cannot be used to
support a conclusion of obviousness.
Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. Where there were a finite number of
InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324 identified, predictable solutions
(Fed. Cir. 2009). and there is no evidence of
unexpected results, an obvious to
try inquiry may properly lead to a
legal conclusion of obviousness.
Common sense may be used to support
a legal conclusion of obviousness
so long as it is explained with
sufficient reasoning.
Consideration of Evidence
PharmaStem Therapeutics, Even though all evidence must be
Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., considered in an obviousness
491 F.3d 1342 analysis, evidence of
(Fed. Cir. 2007). nonobviousness may be outweighed by
contradictory evidence in the
record or by what is in the
specification. Although a
reasonable expectation of success
is needed to support a case of
obviousness, absolute
predictability is not required.
In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d All evidence, including evidence
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007). rebutting a prima facie case of
obviousness, must be considered
when properly presented.
Hearing Components, Inc. Evidence that has been properly
v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d presented in a timely manner must
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010). be considered on the record.
Evidence of commercial success is
pertinent where a nexus between the
success of the product and the
claimed invention has been demonstrated.
Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Evidence of secondary considerations
Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d of obviousness such as commercial
1310 (Fed. Cir. 2008). success and long-felt need may be
insufficient to overcome a prima
facie case of obviousness if the
prima facie case is strong. An
argument for nonobviousness based
on commercial success or long-felt
need is undermined when there is a
failure to link the commercial
success or long-felt need to a
claimed feature that distinguishes
over the prior art.
| Notice Regarding the Elimination of the Fee for Petitions to Make Special Filed Under the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Programs |
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No.: PTO-2010-0031]
Notice Regarding the Elimination of the
Fee for Petitions To Make Special Filed Under the
Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Programs
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is
eliminating the fee for the petition to make special under the Patent
Prosecution Highway (PPH) programs. Currently, applicants must pay a
petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(h) to have an application to enter into
the PPH program. With the elimination of the fee, applicants will no
longer have to pay the petition to make special fee in order to request
an application enter all current pilot and fully implemented PPH
programs. The elimination of the petition fee will simplify the PPH
requirements and is expected to encourage greater PPH participation.
Since 2006, the USPTO has implemented the Patent Prosecution
Highway (PPH) programs with a number of patent offices as part of
efforts to pursue work sharing to avoid duplication of work among
patent offices, and for reducing its own pendency and backlog. Notices
regarding the PPH programs are available on the USPTO Web site at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=
leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/
pph/index.jsp. Until now, the PPH notices have indicated that a request
for participation in the PPH program must be accompanied by a petition to
make special under 37 CFR 1.102(d) along with the required petition fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h).
The PPH applications have proven, on average, to take significantly
less time to prosecute than non-PPH applications. Using the PPH process
also increases the sharing and re-use of information (primarily search
and examination results) between the USPTO and its partner patent
offices. Improving the PPH framework to make it more user-friendly, and
thereby encourage greater participation by applicants, would support
the Office's goal to optimize both the quality and timeliness of
patents. Therefore, the USPTO has determined that all PPH applications
will now be advanced out of turn for examination under 37 CFR 1.102(a)
in order to expedite the business of the Office. Applications that are
advanced out of turn under 37 CFR 1.102(a) do not require the petition
fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h). Previously, applications were advanced
out of turn under 37 CFR 1.102(d).
DATES: Effective Date: May 25, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magdalen Greenlief, Office of the
Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at
571-272-8140, by facsimile transmission to 571-273-8140, or by mail
addressed to: Mail Stop Comments-Patents, Commissioner for Patents,
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PPH is a first concrete implementation of a
work-sharing framework which was jointly developed by the USPTO and the
Japan Patent Office (JPO) in 2006 as a pilot project. The objective of
the PPH is to promote work sharing while at the same time allowing
applicants to obtain patentability determinations faster in multiple
jurisdictions. The USPTO currently has PPH arrangements with ten patent
offices-those in Japan, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Korea, Canada,
Australia, the European Patent Office (EPO), Denmark, Germany, Singapore and
Finland. Notices regarding the PPH programs with these patent offices
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 406 |
are available on the USPTO Web site at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.uspto.gov/
patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp.
Under the PPH program, if an application filed in an Office of
First Filing (OFF) receives an indication that at least one claim is
patentable, a corresponding application with corresponding claims filed
in the USPTO as the Office of Second Filing (OSF) may be advanced out
of turn for examination. To have the request for participation in the
PPH accepted in the USPTO, an applicant must make available to the
USPTO the relevant work of the OFF as well as any necessary
translation. In addition, the request for participation in the PPH,
until now, had to be accompanied by a petition to make special under 37
CFR 1.102(d) along with the required petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(h).
The PPH has proven to be a useful work-sharing vehicle, as shown by
the following statistics (as of February 2010):
Over 2,500 PPH requests received by the USPTO since 2006;
First action allowance rate for PPH applications is about
25%, about double the first action allowance rate for all applications;
Overall allowance rate for PPH applications is about 93%,
about double the allowance rate for all applications; and
The average number of actions per disposal for PPH
applications is about 1.7, which is significantly less than the number
of actions per disposal for non-PPH applications.
While the PPH has been useful, it can be improved. The USPTO has
taken a number of steps, in concert with the Japan Patent Office (JPO)
and other PPH partners, to enhance the PPH framework to make it more
user friendly and thereby encourage greater participation. In January
2010, the USPTO, JPO and EPO began a test implementation of an expanded
PPH framework, to allow participation of the Patent Cooperation Treaty
(PCT) national/regional phase applications when the International
Authority has determined that one or more claims have novelty,
inventive step and industrial applicability in the international phase.
Previously, all PPH programs were confined to Paris Convention route
applications. The expectation is that by expanding the PPH to include
PCT work products, participation will increase.
The USPTO is taking additional steps to enhance the PPH framework
to make the programs more user friendly and thereby encourage more
participation. All petitions to make special filed with a PPH request
on or after May 25, 2010 will be treated as a request that the Director
order their application be advanced out of turn to expedite the
business of the Office under 37 CFR 1.102(a), and the petition fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) will not be required. If the request for
participation in the PPH and the request to the Director are granted,
the application will be advanced out of turn for examination by order
of the Director under 37 CFR 1.102(a).
Petitions to make special filed with a PPH request prior to May 25,
2010 will be treated under 37 CFR 1.102(d) and the petition fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) will be required.
May 18, 2010 DAVID J. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
| Reclassification Alert Report |
Reclassification Alert Report
This report is a summary of classification changes which became effective
by issuance of Classification Orders from July through September 2010.
Information includes:
. subclasses established or abolished
. subclass title, indent, or position changes
. changes to existing classes and subclass definitions
This Reclassification Alert Report may appear from time to time in the
Official Gazette and is intended to provide an interim notice of
classification changes pending publication of thesechanges in the online
version of U.S. Patent Classification schedules and definitions available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/.
The Classification Orders and Definitions cited in this report are also
available online at http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/.
RECLASSIFICATION ALERT REPORT
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2010
FIRST LAST ORDER
CLASS SUBCLASS SUBCLASS ACTION NUMBER
106 DEFN CHANGE 1896
178 DEFN CHANGE 1900
205 DEFN CHANGE 1900
235 DEFN CHANGE 1900
307 DEFN CHANGE 1900
315 DEFN CHANGE 1900
329 DEFN CHANGE 1900
332 DEFN CHANGE 1900
340 DEFN CHANGE 1895
342 357.01 357.09 ABOLISH 1895
342 357.1 ABOLISH 1895
342 357.11 357.17 ABOLISH 1895
342 357.2 ESTABLISH 1895
342 357.21 357.29 ESTABLISH 1895
342 357.3 ESTABLISH 1895
342 357.31 357.39 ESTABLISH 1895
342 357.395 ESTABLISH 1895
342 357.4 ESTABLISH 1895
342 357.41 357.49 ESTABLISH 1895
342 357.51 357.59 ESTABLISH 1895
342 357.61 357.69 ESTABLISH 1895
342 357.71 357.78 ESTABLISH 1895
346 DEFN CHANGE 1900
347 DEFN CHANGE 1900
348 DEFN CHANGE 1900
355 DEFN CHANGE 1900
358 DEFN CHANGE 1900
360 DEFN CHANGE 1900
361 DEFN CHANGE 1900
365 DEFN CHANGE 1900
369 DEFN CHANGE 1900
380 DEFN CHANGE 1895
386 1 131 ABOLISH 1900
386 200 361 ESTABLISH 1900
386 Class title TITLE CHANGE 1900
396 DEFN CHANGE 1900
398 DEFN CHANGE 1900
399 DEFN CHANGE 1900
424 DEFN CHANGE 1896
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 408 |
430 DEFN CHANGE 1900
435 DEFN CHANGE 1896
436 DEFN CHANGE 1896
455 DEFN CHANGE 1900
514 1.1 1.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 2 21 ABOLISH 1896
514 2.1 2.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 3.1 3.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 4.1 4.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 5.1 5.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 6.1 6.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 7.1 7.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 8.1 8.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 9.1 9.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 10.1 10.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 11.1 11.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 12.1 12.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 13.1 13.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 14.1 14.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 15.1 15.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 16.1 16.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 17.1 17.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 18.1 18.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 19.1 19.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 20.1 20.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 21.1 21.9 ESTABLISH 1896
514 21.91 ESTABLISH 1896
514 21.92 ESTABLISH 1896
530 DEFN CHANGE 1896
709 DEFN CHANGE 1900
714 DEFN CHANGE 1900
720 DEFN CHANGE 1900
725 DEFN CHANGE 1900
902 DEFN CHANGE 1900
930 DEFN CHANGE 1896
Errata
"All reference to Reexamination Certificate No. C1 6,797,286 to Bobrowski
of Scottsdale, AZ for METHODS AND PREPARATIONS OF EXTRACTS OF UNCARIA SPECIES
WITH REDUCED ALKALOID CONTENT appearing in the Official of January 06, 2009
should be Deleted, since the reexamination certificate has been vacated."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,784,299 to Dean A. Martin, et al of Solon,
IA for REFRIGERATOR ICE COMPARTMENT LATCH AND COVER appearing in the Official
Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,784,473 to Kimberly Nieves of Atlanta, GA
for NON-BURNING ROLLER AND CURL CLIPS appearing in the Official Gazette of
August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,784,523 to Jason Dondlinger, et al of
Bellevue, IA for TRACK AND GUIDE SYSTEM FOR A DOOR appearing in the Official
Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,785,157 to Charles Dudley Copper of
Hummelstown, PA for POWER UTILITY CONNECTOR WITH A PLURALITY OF CONDUCTOR
RECEIVING CHANNELS appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,785,362 to David Loew, et al of Menlo Park,
CA for ENDOPROSTHESIS HAVING FOOT EXTENSIONS appearing in the Official Gazette
of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,785,651 to Aiden Flanagan, et al of Galway,
Ireland for ENDOPROTHESES HAVING POROUS CLADDING PREPARED USING METAL
HYDRIDES appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,785,707 to Akiko Takahashi, et al of
Ibaraki-Shi, Japan for PRESSURE-SENSITIVE ADHESIVE SHEET appearing in the
Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,785,739 to Sun_Hee Bang of Busan-si Korea,
Republic of for SECONDARY BATTERY appearing in the Official Gazette of
August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,785,800 to Makoto Sawada of Aichi, Japan
for POLYPEPTIDES HAVING BRAIN-LOCALIZING ACTIVITY AND USES THEREOF appearing
in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,785,968 to Han Nae Kim of Seoul Korea,
Republic of for FORMING A BURIED BIT LINE IN A BULB-SHAPED TRENCH appearing
in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,786,018 to Kengo Akimoto, et al of Atsugi,
Japan for SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF appearing in
the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,786,087 to Larry R. Brown, et al of Newton,
MA for DELIVERY OF AS-OLIGONUCLEOTIDE MICROSPHERES TO INDUCE DENDRITIC
CELL TOLERANCE FOR THE TREATMENT OF AUTOIMMUNE TYPE 1 DIABETES appearing in
the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,786,218 to Casey D. Stokes of Novato, CA
for METHOD FOR PREPARING POLYOLEFINS CONTAINING VINYLIDINE END GROUPS USING
POLYMERIC NITROGEN COMPOUNDS appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31,
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 410 |
2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,786,473 to Keun Kyu Song, et al of
Gyeonggi-Do Korea, Republic of for ORGANIC THIN FILM TRANSISTOR SUBSTRATE AND
METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME appearing in the Official Gazette of
August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,786,483 to Satoshi Murakami, et al of
Atsugi, Japan for SEMICONDUCTOR ELEMENT AND DISPLAY DEVICE USING THE SAME
appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since
no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,786,672 to Eui Jeong Hwang of Youngin-si
Korea, Republic of for SEALED OPPOSED DISCHARGE PLASMA DISPLAY PANEL appearing
in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,787,124 to Martinus Joseph Kok of Eindhoven,
Netherlands for APPARATUS FOR ANGULAR-RESOLVED SPECTROSCOPIC LITHOGRAPHY
CHARACTERIZATION appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should
be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,787,139 to Hideaki Sugimoto of Saitama,
Japan for PRINTING SYSTEM, IMAGE READING APPARATUS AND CONTROLLING METHOD OF
THE SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,787,181 to Damian Fiolka, et al of
Oberkochen, Germany for POLARIZATION-MODULATING OPTICAL ELEMENT appearing in
the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,787,236 to Neil Rasmussen, et al of Concord,
MA for TOOLLESS MOUNTING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AN ADJUSTABLE SCALABLE
RACK POWER SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of Auguts 31, 2010 should
be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,787,392 to James J. Morikuni, et al of
Itasca, IL for UNIVERSAL PLUG-AND-PLAY LATENCY AND DELAY COMPENSATION
appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since
no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,787,604 to Tracy A. Bathhurst, et al of
South Jordan, UT for SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING THE GATING OF
MICROPHONES IN A MULTI-POD CONFERENCE SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette
of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,787,738 to Ikuo Konishi, et al of Kawasaki,
Japan for MOUNTING MEMBER FOR FIXEDLY HOLDING CYLINDRICAL MOUNTED PART ON
PRINTED WIRING BOARD appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,787,758 to Takumi Kawahara, et al of Tokyo,
Japan for ELECTRONIC CAMERA appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31,
2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,787,925 to Moshe Refael of Nofit, Israel
for ENCAPSULATED MEDICAL IMAGING DEVICE AND METHOD appearing in the Official
Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to patent No. 7,787,940 to Kohei Iketani, et al of Saitama,
Japan for IMAGE DATA PROCESSOR, COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT, AND ELECTRONIC
ENDOSCOPE SYSTEM appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should
be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,787,944 to Johnathon E. Giftakis, et al of
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 411 |
Maple Grove, MN for SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REGULATING CARDIAC TRIGGERED
THERAPY TO THE BRAIN appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,788,072 to Shilin Chen of The Woodlands, TX
for METHODS AND SYSTEMS TO PREDICT ROTARY DRILL BIT WALK AND TO DESIGN
ROTARY DRILL BITS AND OTHER DOWNHOLE TOOLS appearing in the Official Gazette
of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,788,190 to Stuart Crawford, et al of
Piedmont, CA for ARTICLE AND METHOD FOR FINDING A COMPACT REPRESENTATION TO
VISUALIZE COMPLEX DECISION TREES appearing in the Official Gazette of
August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,788,342 to John M. Payne, et al of Newport
Beach, CA for SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRANSMISSION OF DATA appearing in the
Official Gazette of August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,788,512 to Johnathan F. Lee, et al of
Dublin, CA for OPERATING MODE FOR EXTREME POWER SAVINGS WHEN NO NETWORK
PRESENCE IS DETECTED appearing in the Official Gazette of August 31, 2010
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,788,621 to Eiichi Konno, et al of Kawasaki,
Japan for METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CREATING LAYOUT MODEL, COMPUTER PRODUCT,
AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING DEVICE appearing in the Official Gazette of
August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,788,666 to Ernest J. Burger, et al of
Highland, NY for CONNECTION MANAGER, METHOD, SYSTEM AND PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR
CENTRALLY MANAGING COMPUTER APPLICATIONS appearing in the Official Gazette of
August 31, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
Erratum
In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in July 13, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,281,645, issue of
June 22, 2010. The information included in the certificate of correction
does not correspond to the text in the printed patent. No certificate of
correction should have issued to change the patent term adjustment.
Erratum
In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in August 3, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,606,267, issue of
July 13, 2010. The certificate of correction is a duplicate of certificate
of correction issued on July 6, 2010.
Erratum
In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in August 3, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,588,771, issue of
July 13, 2010. The certificate of correction is a duplicate of certificate
of correction issued on June 22, 2010.
Erratum
In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in August 17, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,597,907, issue of
July 27, 2010. The certificate of correction is a duplicate of certificate
of correction issued on May 18, 2010.
Erratum
In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in August 31, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,575,589, issue of
August 10, 2010. The certificate of correction is a duplicate of
certificate of correction issued on July 27, 2010.
Erratum
In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in August 31, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,637,969, issue of
August 10, 2010. The certificate of correction is a duplicate of
certificate of correction issued on August 3, 2010.
Erratum
In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in August 11, 2009
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,527,868, issue of
July 21, 2009. The certificate of correction is a duplicate of certificate
of correction issued on June 16, 2009.
Erratum
In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in August 31, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,527,868, issue of
August 10, 2010. The certificate of correction is a duplicate of
certificate of correction issued on June 16, 2009.
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 413 |
Erratum
In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in July 6, 2010
Official Gazette, delete all reference to Patent No. 7,718,573, issue of
June 15, 2010. The information included in the certificate of correction
does not correspond to the text in the printed patent. No certificate of
correction should have issued to change the patent term adjustment.
Erratum
In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in March 30, 2010,
delete all reference to Patent No. 7,146,309, issue of March 9, 2010.
Petition under 37 CFR 178(a)(2) was not granted by the Office of Patent
Legal Administration (OPLA). The certificate of correction should have been
issued for patent.
| Certificates of Correction |
Certificates of Correction
for September 7, 2010
5,341,371 7,571,661 7,575,192 7,578,205
5,379,431 7,571,664 7,575,200 7,578,211
5,523,259 7,571,665 7,575,202 7,578,222
5,598,374 7,571,721 7,575,235 7,578,236
5,793,379 7,571,725 7,575,240 7,578,243
5,841,402 7,571,726 7,575,249 7,578,245
6,016,695 7,571,732 7,575,261 7,578,295
6,156,501 7,571,738 7,575,280 7,578,303
6,248,933 7,571,750 7,575,285 7,578,317
6,274,186 7,571,751 7,575,291 7,578,321
6,287,756 7,571,772 7,575,304 7,578,337
6,363,164 7,571,791 7,575,324 7,578,341
6,403,645 7,571,797 7,575,329 7,578,360
6,405,123 7,571,810 7,575,384 7,578,378
6,541,625 7,571,827 7,575,388 7,578,410
6,573,340 7,571,829 7,575,405 7,578,412
6,600,428 7,571,831 7,575,412 7,578,419
6,636,534 7,571,846 7,575,414 7,578,426
6,758,722 7,571,878 7,575,419 7,578,434
6,770,789 7,571,880 7,575,421 7,578,437
6,819,330 7,571,907 7,575,450 7,578,452
6,823,032 7,572,060 7,575,536 7,578,455
6,845,432 7,572,062 7,575,547 7,578,460
7,013,896 7,572,073 7,575,557 7,578,466
7,027,094 7,572,082 7,575,569 7,578,468
7,032,508 7,572,097 7,575,571 7,578,472
7,094,581 7,572,099 7,575,587 7,578,473
7,129,304 7,572,101 7,575,589 7,578,474
7,156,859 7,572,166 7,575,599 7,578,481
7,192,927 7,572,189 7,575,600 7,578,482
7,200,376 7,572,206 7,575,608 7,578,484
7,303,867 7,572,217 7,575,612 7,578,529
7,304,126 7,572,223 7,575,617 7,578,534
7,312,242 7,572,226 7,575,618 7,578,579
7,346,090 7,572,232 7,575,629 7,578,595
7,374,487 7,572,234 7,575,655 7,578,628
7,396,849 7,572,237 7,575,659 7,578,636
7,408,989 7,572,247 7,575,662 7,578,642
7,411,986 7,572,254 7,575,668 7,578,645
7,413,157 7,572,271 7,575,670 7,578,656
7,415,734 7,572,272 7,575,687 7,578,657
7,422,034 7,572,273 7,575,697 7,578,659
7,425,077 7,572,286 7,575,702 7,578,674
7,432,271 7,572,289 7,575,706 7,578,721
7,437,078 7,572,292 7,575,707 7,578,735
7,443,960 7,572,293 7,575,717 7,578,740
7,446,211 7,572,302 7,575,721 7,578,741
7,460,431 7,572,305 7,575,736 7,578,759
7,461,609 7,572,315 7,575,739 7,578,762
7,465,707 7,572,336 7,575,744 7,578,782
7,473,236 7,572,347 7,575,749 7,578,788
7,474,307 7,572,348 7,575,769 7,578,790
7,477,510 7,572,357 7,575,771 7,578,802
7,478,193 7,572,359 7,575,781 7,578,806
7,480,258 7,572,360 7,575,784 7,578,812
7,482,355 7,572,374 7,575,789 7,578,814
7,482,729 7,572,385 7,575,797 7,578,820
7,488,735 7,572,393 7,575,799 7,578,822
7,490,134 7,572,394 7,575,803 7,578,823
7,490,435 7,572,395 7,575,809 7,578,830
7,492,185 7,572,396 7,575,813 7,578,836
7,495,415 7,572,399 7,575,815 7,578,838
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 415 |
7,496,370 7,572,427 7,575,816 7,578,840
7,497,936 7,572,433 7,575,836 7,578,858
7,499,456 7,572,436 7,575,844 7,578,869
7,502,825 7,572,441 7,575,848 7,578,870
7,503,220 7,572,445 7,575,852 7,578,873
7,504,415 7,572,459 7,575,857 7,578,881
7,506,106 7,572,471 7,575,861 7,580,589
7,507,803 7,572,476 7,575,866 7,581,108
7,508,576 7,572,477 7,575,872 7,581,191
7,509,647 7,572,478 7,575,881 7,583,722
7,514,130 7,572,489 7,575,886 7,586,391
7,516,692 7,572,493 7,575,887 7,593,904
7,517,903 7,572,530 7,575,901 7,594,644
7,519,010 7,572,537 7,575,912 7,596,660
7,519,011 7,572,539 7,575,913 7,599,676
7,520,881 7,572,557 7,575,922 7,599,795
7,521,418 7,572,589 7,575,923 7,599,885
7,521,549 7,572,591 7,575,931 7,602,250
7,524,466 7,572,599 7,575,933 7,602,781
7,525,996 7,572,600 7,575,939 7,603,339
7,527,336 7,572,603 7,575,950 7,603,842
7,528,426 7,572,605 7,575,959 7,604,796
7,529,810 7,572,607 7,575,965 7,605,969
7,530,191 7,572,620 7,575,969 7,606,241
7,531,087 7,572,622 7,576,002 7,607,121
7,531,554 7,572,627 7,576,012 7,608,451
7,531,960 7,572,632 7,576,017 7,608,625
7,532,926 7,572,634 7,576,039 7,609,196
7,532,954 7,572,638 7,576,042 7,610,181
7,534,837 7,572,639 7,576,045 7,611,338
7,544,512 7,572,641 7,576,050 7,611,339
7,546,270 7,572,660 7,576,053 7,611,613
7,547,167 7,572,661 7,576,062 7,611,702
7,548,791 7,572,668 7,576,065 7,613,710
7,550,141 7,572,670 7,576,067 7,614,927
7,550,279 7,572,675 7,576,069 7,616,985
7,550,497 7,572,678 7,576,070 7,617,057
7,553,313 7,572,693 7,576,073 7,617,289
7,554,012 7,572,698 7,576,086 7,619,100
7,556,789 7,572,709 7,576,090 7,622,270
7,557,115 7,572,731 7,576,132 7,622,678
7,557,194 7,572,732 7,576,136 7,628,226
7,558,294 7,572,738 7,576,140 7,628,737
7,560,112 7,572,741 7,576,146 7,629,603
7,560,242 7,572,758 7,576,155 7,632,463
7,560,471 7,572,761 7,576,165 7,632,919
7,560,611 7,572,763 7,576,169 7,638,555
7,561,312 7,572,793 7,576,174 7,638,868
7,562,032 7,572,796 7,576,175 7,642,218
7,563,203 7,572,798 7,576,187 7,642,328
7,563,273 7,572,812 7,576,216 7,642,341
7,563,805 7,572,818 7,576,217 7,642,370
7,563,943 7,572,828 7,576,219 7,642,533
7,565,370 7,572,846 7,576,222 7,647,008
7,565,914 7,572,857 7,576,233 7,647,116
7,567,412 7,572,878 7,576,234 7,650,659
7,568,242 7,572,884 7,576,242 7,651,645
7,568,255 7,572,885 7,576,244 7,651,981
7,568,260 7,572,889 7,576,251 7,652,033
7,568,263 7,572,890 7,576,258 7,652,054
7,568,265 7,572,902 7,576,264 7,652,736
7,568,279 7,572,913 7,576,296 7,652,946
7,568,282 7,572,915 7,576,320 7,653,371
7,568,286 7,572,918 7,576,361 7,655,943
7,568,299 7,572,919 7,576,382 7,657,118
7,568,314 7,572,923 7,576,429 7,657,997
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 416 |
7,568,320 7,572,926 7,576,441 7,658,753
7,568,344 7,572,953 7,576,451 7,658,874
7,568,347 7,572,989 7,576,458 7,659,125
7,568,411 7,573,000 7,576,469 7,660,293
7,568,445 7,573,002 7,576,481 7,660,485
7,568,468 7,573,006 7,576,482 7,662,960
7,568,478 7,573,059 7,576,492 7,667,884
7,568,484 7,573,108 7,576,508 7,671,780
7,568,503 7,573,111 7,576,534 7,672,186
7,568,552 7,573,125 7,576,535 7,672,213
7,568,579 7,573,137 7,576,594 7,673,331
7,568,619 7,573,157 7,576,631 7,674,479
7,568,630 7,573,161 7,576,635 7,674,605
7,568,635 7,573,165 7,576,636 7,674,850
7,568,677 7,573,171 7,576,648 7,676,610
7,568,685 7,573,196 7,576,696 7,677,684
7,568,713 7,573,217 7,576,705 7,677,977
7,568,729 7,573,231 7,576,706 7,679,079
7,568,853 7,573,238 7,576,717 7,679,633
7,568,899 7,573,286 7,576,723 7,679,725
7,568,916 7,573,326 7,576,727 7,679,788
7,568,966 7,573,362 7,576,737 7,680,546
7,569,008 7,573,398 7,576,758 7,680,601
7,569,035 7,573,439 7,576,759 7,682,098
7,569,045 7,573,440 7,576,765 7,682,238
7,569,049 7,573,452 7,576,766 7,682,675
7,569,056 7,573,458 7,576,768 7,682,939
7,569,058 7,573,470 7,576,783 7,683,407
7,569,069 7,573,475 7,576,785 7,683,834
7,569,082 7,573,487 7,576,797 7,683,859
7,569,098 7,573,489 7,576,798 7,683,934
7,569,099 7,573,516 7,576,800 7,684,725
7,569,130 7,573,525 7,576,804 7,686,173
7,569,132 7,573,536 7,576,814 7,687,383
7,569,137 7,573,547 7,576,815 7,687,550
7,569,172 7,573,567 7,576,844 7,687,872
7,569,215 7,573,597 7,576,848 7,689,503
7,569,233 7,573,616 7,576,864 7,690,009
7,569,239 7,573,622 7,576,882 7,690,854
7,569,245 7,573,674 7,576,944 7,693,015
7,569,259 7,573,682 7,576,945 7,693,318
7,569,265 7,573,705 7,576,946 7,694,094
7,569,293 7,573,713 7,576,948 7,694,305
7,569,309 7,573,723 7,576,956 7,694,751
7,569,337 7,573,727 7,576,958 7,696,737
7,569,346 7,573,789 7,576,966 7,696,891
7,569,348 7,573,803 7,576,968 7,698,051
7,569,353 7,573,811 7,576,972 7,698,743
7,569,355 7,573,815 7,577,062 7,699,668
7,569,383 7,573,820 7,577,065 7,699,864
7,569,385 7,573,830 7,577,070 7,700,276
7,569,387 7,573,833 7,577,076 7,700,748
7,569,392 7,573,834 7,577,086 7,700,788
7,569,395 7,573,837 7,577,090 7,701,942
7,569,403 7,573,847 7,577,100 7,702,306
7,569,412 7,573,856 7,577,101 7,702,954
7,569,414 7,573,857 7,577,113 7,702,983
7,569,468 7,573,863 7,577,115 7,703,179
7,569,499 7,573,864 7,577,118 7,703,668
7,569,508 7,573,867 7,577,120 7,703,705
7,569,533 7,573,869 7,577,121 7,703,859
7,569,536 7,573,875 7,577,122 7,704,611
7,569,544 7,573,876 7,577,134 7,704,879
7,569,545 7,573,877 7,577,138 7,705,361
7,569,547 7,573,878 7,577,140 7,706,039
7,569,564 7,573,879 7,577,147 7,706,396
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 417 |
7,569,565 7,573,883 7,577,156 7,706,630
7,569,575 7,573,887 7,577,159 7,708,478
7,569,580 7,573,913 7,577,161 7,708,995
7,569,585 7,573,942 7,577,164 7,709,962
7,569,594 7,573,945 7,577,166 7,710,640
7,569,596 7,573,960 7,577,181 7,711,029
7,569,665 7,573,973 7,577,196 7,711,427
7,569,668 7,573,986 7,577,198 7,711,653
7,569,679 7,573,988 7,577,200 7,712,308
7,569,712 7,573,989 7,577,203 7,713,330
7,569,729 7,573,990 7,577,209 7,713,449
7,569,746 7,574,014 7,577,212 7,713,524
7,569,747 7,574,016 7,577,221 7,714,012
7,569,748 7,574,018 7,577,222 7,714,681
7,569,758 7,574,027 7,577,227 7,715,437
7,569,805 7,574,029 7,577,228 7,715,464
7,569,839 7,574,030 7,577,239 7,716,735
7,569,843 7,574,031 7,577,241 7,717,996
7,569,854 7,574,032 7,577,248 7,718,160
7,569,873 7,574,038 7,577,260 7,718,286
7,569,882 7,574,039 7,577,264 7,718,385
7,569,888 7,574,057 7,577,280 7,718,803
7,569,907 7,574,066 7,577,291 7,719,201
7,569,966 7,574,090 7,577,293 7,720,378
7,570,030 7,574,120 7,577,296 7,720,538
7,570,076 7,574,129 7,577,339 7,720,549
7,570,151 7,574,130 7,577,363 7,721,027
7,570,293 7,574,138 7,577,366 7,722,083
7,570,390 7,574,143 7,577,398 7,722,491
7,570,428 7,574,147 7,577,410 7,722,920
7,570,454 7,574,169 7,577,412 7,722,990
7,570,461 7,574,170 7,577,438 7,723,252
7,570,469 7,574,176 7,577,451 7,723,958
7,570,475 7,574,183 7,577,454 7,724,611
7,570,491 7,574,185 7,577,466 7,724,616
7,570,504 7,574,190 7,577,472 7,724,845
7,570,527 7,574,214 7,577,477 7,725,582
7,570,556 7,574,220 7,577,480 7,725,866
7,570,563 7,574,224 7,577,481 7,726,298
7,570,570 7,574,230 7,577,485 7,726,357
7,570,577 7,574,237 7,577,497 7,726,554
7,570,584 7,574,244 7,577,500 7,726,675
7,570,586 7,574,248 7,577,501 7,727,474
7,570,595 7,574,249 7,577,504 7,727,519
7,570,599 7,574,282 7,577,506 7,727,866
7,570,604 7,574,293 7,577,516 7,729,046
7,570,605 7,574,307 7,577,526 7,730,121
7,570,611 7,574,308 7,577,530 7,730,160
7,570,628 7,574,335 7,577,553 7,730,193
7,570,641 7,574,340 7,577,573 7,730,665
7,570,644 7,574,351 7,577,584 7,730,697
7,570,646 7,574,352 7,577,587 7,731,947
7,570,650 7,574,365 7,577,598 7,732,156
7,570,655 7,574,366 7,577,599 7,732,199
7,570,662 7,574,381 7,577,600 7,732,405
7,570,663 7,574,382 7,577,602 7,732,490
7,570,666 7,574,385 7,577,603 7,732,667
7,570,672 7,574,388 7,577,604 7,733,872
7,570,685 7,574,391 7,577,608 7,734,011
7,570,689 7,574,393 7,577,618 7,734,272
7,570,690 7,574,413 7,577,626 7,734,578
7,570,695 7,574,415 7,577,631 7,734,595
7,570,696 7,574,419 7,577,634 7,736,560
7,570,698 7,574,431 7,577,637 7,736,820
7,570,748 7,574,438 7,577,649 7,737,789
7,570,760 7,574,445 7,577,650 7,739,450
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 418 |
7,570,762 7,574,452 7,577,663 7,739,486
7,570,786 7,574,458 7,577,665 7,740,017
7,570,791 7,574,459 7,577,667 7,740,153
7,570,802 7,574,466 7,577,671 7,740,428
7,570,832 7,574,471 7,577,675 7,740,566
7,570,851 7,574,479 7,577,682 7,740,717
7,570,863 7,574,486 7,577,695 7,740,718
7,570,878 7,574,500 7,577,700 7,740,892
7,570,913 7,574,508 7,577,707 7,741,081
7,570,914 7,574,509 7,577,712 7,741,107
7,570,921 7,574,510 7,577,718 7,741,168
7,570,953 7,574,523 7,577,722 7,741,278
7,570,962 7,574,530 7,577,726 7,741,502
7,570,980 7,574,553 7,577,729 7,741,531
7,570,994 7,574,568 7,577,735 7,741,602
7,570,999 7,574,569 7,577,740 7,741,713
7,571,010 7,574,583 7,577,747 7,742,955
7,571,022 7,574,584 7,577,749 7,742,984
7,571,055 7,574,589 7,577,790 7,743,223
7,571,058 7,574,592 7,577,792 7,743,588
7,571,078 7,574,594 7,577,798 7,744,132
7,571,090 7,574,595 7,577,813 7,745,259
7,571,092 7,574,597 7,577,824 7,747,081
7,571,094 7,574,607 7,577,828 7,747,137
7,571,102 7,574,611 7,577,829 7,748,144
7,571,104 7,574,621 7,577,830 7,748,172
7,571,108 7,574,634 7,577,831 7,748,248
7,571,111 7,574,637 7,577,834 7,748,255
7,571,118 7,574,659 7,577,835 7,748,619
7,571,121 7,574,668 7,577,847 7,748,824
7,571,128 7,574,670 7,577,857 7,749,992
7,571,129 7,574,672 7,577,861 7,750,250
7,571,130 7,574,674 7,577,865 7,750,294
7,571,132 7,574,676 7,577,866 7,750,610
7,571,140 7,574,683 7,577,869 7,750,622
7,571,160 7,574,690 7,577,876 7,751,096
7,571,162 7,574,700 7,577,896 7,751,272
7,571,164 7,574,710 7,577,897 7,752,622
7,571,195 7,574,712 7,577,912 7,752,704
7,571,204 7,574,735 7,577,929 7,752,876
7,571,205 7,574,736 7,577,935 7,753,327
7,571,215 7,574,742 7,577,957 7,753,766
7,571,217 7,574,760 7,577,961 7,753,791
7,571,219 7,574,779 7,577,962 7,753,831
7,571,227 7,574,783 7,577,978 7,754,156
7,571,228 7,574,789 7,577,981 7,754,502
7,571,236 7,574,803 7,577,982 7,754,505
7,571,251 7,574,831 7,577,984 7,754,510
7,571,257 7,574,835 7,577,987 7,754,745
7,571,275 7,574,847 7,577,990 7,754,986
7,571,287 7,574,854 7,577,991 7,755,301
7,571,296 7,574,869 7,578,019 7,755,702
7,571,314 7,574,873 7,578,025 7,756,656
7,571,354 7,574,895 7,578,026 7,756,928
7,571,356 7,574,913 7,578,033 7,756,953
7,571,360 7,574,916 7,578,034 7,757,576
7,571,366 7,574,933 7,578,035 7,758,582
7,571,369 7,574,939 7,578,040 7,758,651
7,571,372 7,574,947 7,578,044 7,760,352
7,571,391 7,574,963 7,578,052 7,762,095
7,571,392 7,575,014 7,578,054 7,762,621
7,571,402 7,575,021 7,578,061 7,763,371
7,571,403 7,575,034 7,578,062 7,764,515
7,571,417 7,575,039 7,578,097 7,764,868
7,571,423 7,575,055 7,578,102 7,765,608
7,571,426 7,575,061 7,578,106 7,765,835
| September 28, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1358 OG 419 |
7,571,445 7,575,083 7,578,131 7,768,099
7,571,468 7,575,084 7,578,133 7,772,515
7,571,469 7,575,085 7,578,134 D.570,978
7,571,523 7,575,089 7,578,141 D.594,727
7,571,537 7,575,099 7,578,143 D.614,584
7,571,554 7,575,118 7,578,150 D.614,657
7,571,568 7,575,124 7,578,164 D.616,872
7,571,589 7,575,126 7,578,165 D.619,184
7,571,596 7,575,131 7,578,167 PP.20,227
7,571,611 7,575,159 7,578,185 RE.39,501
7,571,621 7,575,185 7,578,189
7,571,622 7,575,189 7,578,199
| Summary of Final Decisions Issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board |
SUMMARY OF FINAL DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
August 23 – August 27, 2010
Date Issued
|
Type of Case(1) |
Proceeding or Appn. No. |
Party or Parties |
Issue |
TTAB Decision |
Opposer's or Petitioner's Mark and Goods or Services |
Applicant's or Respondent's Mark and Goods or Services |
Mark and Goods Cited by Examining Attorney |
Issued as Precedent of TTAB |
| 8-26 |
EX |
77357895 |
Brouwerij Bosteels |
1, 2 and 45, fails to function as a mark; 2(f), acquired distinctiveness |
Refusal Affirmed; not inherently distinctive and no acquired distinctiveness |
|
"Design of a beer glass and stand with wording and scrollwork"
[beer] |
|
Yes |
| 8-26 |
CANC |
92049453 |
Augustine’s Spiritual Goods, Inc. v. Augustine’s Eternal Gifts, LLC |
2(d) [based on petitioner’s claim of having purchased respondent’s mark] |
Petition to Cancel Dismissed |
|
"AUGUSTINE’S" [novelty items having a religious theme, namely, incense, perfume oils and scented oils used to produce aromas when heated] |
|
No |
| 8-27 |
EX |
78705685 |
Corporate Fuel Partners, Inc. |
6(a) Disclaimer Requirement (2(e)(1) descriptiveness) |
Refusal Reversed |
|
"CORPORATE FUEL" [business management and advisory services; consultation services in the fields of business succession planning, sales of businesses, and acquisitions and mergers of businesses] |
|
No |
| 8-27 |
EX |
78544020 |
Wenger S.A. |
6(a) Disclaimer Requirement (2(e)(1) descriptiveness) |
Refusal Affirmed in absence of disclaimer |
|
"WENGER SWISS MILITARY" [watches of Swiss origin] |
|
No |
(1) EX=Ex Parte Appeal; OPP=Opposition; CANC=Cancellation; CU=Concurrent Use; (SJ)=Summary Judgment; (MD)=Motion to Dismiss; (MR)=Motion to Reopen; (R)=Request for Reconsideration (2) *=Opinion Writer; (D)=Dissenting Panel Member
| 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 Libraries (951) 827-3316
Sacramento: California State
Library (916) 654-0069
San Diego Public Library (619) 236-5813
San Francisco Public Library (415) 557-4500
Sunnyvale Public Library (408) 730-7300
Colorado Denver Public Library (720) 865-1711
Connecticut Fairfield: Ryan-Matura Library
Sacred Heart University (203) 371-7726
Delaware Newark: University of Delaware
Library (302) 831-2965
Dist. of Columbia Washington: Howard University
Libraries (202) 806-7252
Florida Fort Lauderdale: Broward County
Main Library (954) 357-7444
Miami-Dade Public Library (305) 375-2665
Orlando: University of Central
Florida Libraries (407) 823-2562
Georgia Atlanta: Library and Information
Center, Georgia Institute of
Technology (404) 385-7185
Hawaii Honolulu: Hawaii State Public
Library System (808) 586-3477
Illinois Chicago Public Library (312) 747-4450
Indiana Indianapolis-Marion County Public
Library (317) 269-1741
West Lafayette Siegesmund
Engineering Library,
Purdue University (765) 494-2872
Kansas Wichita: Ablah Library, Wichita
State University 1 (800) 572-8368
Kentucky Louisville Free Public Library (502) 574-1611
Louisiana Baton Rouge: Troy H. Middleton
Library, Louisiana State University (225) 388-8875
Maine Orono: Raymond H. Fogler Library,
University of Maine (207) 581-1678
Maryland Baltimore: University of Baltimore
Law Library (410) 837-4554
College Park: Engineering and
Physical Sciences Library,
University of Maryland (301) 405-9157
Massachusetts Amherst: Physical Sciences Library,
University of Massachusetts (413) 545-2765
Boston Public Library (617) 536-5400
Ext. 4256
Michigan Ann Arbor: Art, Architecture &
Engineering Library,
University of Michigan (734) 647-5735
Big Rapids: Ferris Library for
Information, Technology &
Education, Ferris State
University (231) 592-3602
Detroit: Public Library (313) 481-1391
Minnesota Hennepin County Library
Minneapolis Central Library (952) 847-8000
Mississippi Jackson: Mississippi Library
Commission (601) 961-4111
Missouri Kansas City: Linda Hall Library (816) 363-4600
Ext. 724
St. Louis Public Library (314) 352-2900
Montana Butte: Montana College of Mineral
Science and Technology Library (406) 496-4281
Nebraska Lincoln: Engineering Library,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (402) 472-3411
Nevada Las Vegas--Clark County Library
District (702) 507-3421
Reno: University of Nevada, Reno
Library (775) 784-6500
Ext. 257
New Jersey Newark Public Library (973) 733-7779
Piscataway: Library of Science and
Medicine, Rutgers University (732) 445-2895
New Mexico Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico General Library (505) 277-4412
New York Albany: New York State Library (518) 474-5355
Buffalo and Erie County Public
Library (716) 858-7101
Rochester Public Library (716) 428-8110
New York Library
(The Research Libraries) (212) 592-7000
Stony Brook: Engineering Library,
State University of New York (631) 632-7148
North Carolina Charlotte: J. Murrey Atkins
Library, (704) 687-2241
University of North Carolina at
Charlotte (919) 515-2935
North Dakota Grand Forks: Chester Fritz Library,
University of North Dakota (701) 777-4888
Ohio Akron - Summit County Public (330) 643-9075
Library
Cincinnati and Hamilton County,
Public Library of (513) 369-6932
Cleveland Public Library (216) 623-2870
Dayton: Paul Laurence Dunbar
Library, Wright State
University (937) 775-3521
Toledo/Lucas County Public Library (419) 259-5209
Oklahoma Stillwater: Oklahoma State
University
Edmon Low Library (405) 744-6546
Oregon Portland: Paul L. Boley Law Library,
Lewis & Clark College (503) 768-6786
Pennsylvania Philadelphia, The Free Library of (215) 686-5394
Pittsburgh, Carnegie Library of (412) 622-3138
University Park: Pattee Library,
Pennsylvania State University (814) 865-7617
Puerto Rico Mayaquez General Library,
University of Puerto Rico (787) 993-0000
Ext. 3244
Bayamon, Learning Resources Center,
University of Puerto Rico (787) 786-5225
Rhode Island Providence Public Library (401) 455-8027
South Carolina Clemson University Libraries (864) 656-3024
South Dakota Rapid City: Devereaux Library,
South Dakota School of Mines and
Technology (605) 394-1275
Tennessee Nashville: Stevenson Science
Library, Vanderbilt University (615) 322-2717
Texas Austin: McKinney Engineering
Library, University of Texas at
Austin (512) 495-4511
College Station: West Campus
Library, Texas A & M University (979) 845-2111
Dallas Public Library (214) 670-1468
Houston: The Fondren Library, Rice
University (713) 348-5483
Lubbock: Texas Tech University (806) 742-2282
San Antonio Public Library (210) 207-2500
Utah Salt Lake City: Marriott Library,
University of Utah (801) 581-8394
Vermont Burlington: Bailey/Howe Library,
University of Vermont (802) 656-2542
Washington Seattle: Engineering Library,
University of Washington (206) 543-0740
West Virginia Morgantown: Evansdale Library,
West Virginia University (304) 293-4695
Wisconsin Madison: Kurt F. Wendt Library,
University of Wisconsin Madison (608) 262-6845
Milwaukee Public Library (414) 286-3051
Wyoming Cheyenne: Wyoming State Library (307) 777-7281
Top of Notices
| Patent Technology Centers |
| PATENT TECHNOLOGY CENTERS |
| AVERAGE FILING DATE OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVING A FIRST OFFICE ACTION IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS |
Technology
Center |
GAU |
Avg Filing Date1 |
| 1600 |
BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND ORGANIC CHEMISTRY |
| |
1610 |
7/1/2007 |
| |
1620 |
1/18/2008 |
| |
1630 |
12/19/2007 |
| |
1640 |
4/5/2008 |
| |
1650 |
1/3/2008 |
| |
1660 |
10/26/2008 |
| |
TOTAL |
12/22/2007 |
| |
|
|
| 1700/2900 |
CHEMICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND DESIGNS |
| |
1790 |
9/5/2007 |
| |
TOTAL |
9/5/2007 |
| |
|
|
| |
2910 |
1/30/2009 |
| |
TOTAL |
1/30/2009 |
| |
|
|
| 2100 |
COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE AND SOFTWARE |
| |
2110 |
8/27/2007 |
| |
2120 |
6/16/2007 |
| |
2150 |
8/30/2007 |
| |
2160 |
8/30/2007 |
| |
2170 |
2/22/2007 |
| |
2180 |
9/23/2007 |
| |
2190 |
3/29/2006 |
| |
TOTAL |
5/14/2007 |
| |
|
|
| 2400 |
NETWORKING, MULTIPLEXING, CABLE AND SECURITY |
| |
2420 |
5/29/2007 |
| |
2430 |
1/20/2007 |
| |
2440 |
8/3/2007 |
| |
2450 |
9/5/2007 |
| |
2460 |
10/11/2007 |
| |
2470 |
11/10/2007 |
| |
TOTAL |
6/10/2007 |
| |
|
|
| 2600 |
COMMUNICATIONS |
| |
2610 |
2/28/2007 |
| |
2620 |
2/4/2007 |
| |
TOTAL |
2/16/2007 |
| |
|
|
| 2800
|
SEMICONDUCTORS/MEMORY, CIRCUITS/MEASURING AND TESTING, OPTICS/PHOTOCOPYING |
| |
2810 |
3/21/2008 |
| |
2820 |
2/26/2008 |
| |
2830 |
3/21/2008 |
| |
2840 |
11/28/2007 |
| |
2850 |
11/7/2007 |
| |
2860 |
12/10/2007 |
| |
2870 |
1/12/2008 |
| |
2880 |
1/18/2008 |
| |
2890 |
3/24/2008 |
| |
TOTAL |
2/8/2008 |
| |
|
|
| 3600
|
TRANSPORTATION, CONSTRUCTION, ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND LICENSE AND REVIEW |
| |
3610 |
2/5/2008 |
| |
3620 |
12/18/2006 |
| |
3630 |
12/19/2007 |
| |
3640 |
1/9/2008 |
| |
3650 |
10/14/2007 |
| |
3660 |
9/23/2007 |
| |
3670 |
4/2/2008 |
| |
3680 |
12/27/2006 |
| |
3690 |
11/4/2007 |
| |
TOTAL |
10/14/2007 |
| |
|
|
| 3700
|
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTS |
| |
3710 |
8/12/2007 |
| |
3720 |
12/19/2007 |
| |
3730 |
6/4/2007 |
| |
3740 |
7/28/2007 |
| |
3750 |
7/16/2007 |
| |
3760 |
10/23/2007 |
| |
3770 |
5/20/2007 |
| |
3780 |
6/4/2007 |
| |
TOTAL |
8/21/2007 |
| |
|
|
| |
1 Average Filing date of applications receiving a First Office action in the last 3 months. |
Top of Notices
| 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 September 28, 2010