Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, August 22, 2014

applied materials, aller, cybersettle

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Fry 12554563 - (D) ROESEL 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102/103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP ASDJODI, MOHAMMADREZA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Mckinney et al 11993301 - (D) Per Curiam 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BULLOCK, JOSHUA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Heitmeyer et al 11234422 - (D) HOELTER 112(2)/102 102/103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP MCCARRY JR, ROBERT J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Viola et al 12427796 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 102 Covidien LP LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN

3721 Ex Parte Beardsley et al 12427794 - (D) ASTORINO 103 103 Covidien LP LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Ji 12562355 - (D) ROESEL 103 Becton, Dickinson and Company (Servilla Whitney, LLC) TISCHLER, FRANCES

In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming obviousness rejection where “there was no indication that obtaining the claimed dimensions was beyond the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art or produced any unexpectedly beneficial properties”); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).

Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) 2144.05

1765 Ex Parte Schadt et al 11392714 - (D) OWENS 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC LISTVOYB, GREGORY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Lehner et al 11172002 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. MISIURA, BRIAN THOMAS

2189 Ex Parte Park 12016702 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC RUIZ, ARACELIS

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Guo et al 11744531 - (D) THOMAS 101/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. HOPKINS, MATTHEW A

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Boss et al 11170441 - (D) CRAWFORD 102/103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC DICKERSON, TIPHANY B

We also stated that this use of the broadest reasonable construction in construing conditional steps in a method claim was in accord with the view of our reviewing court in Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat’l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed.Appx. 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished), which though designated as unpublished, can be found on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit website.