Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

belkin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1785 Ex Parte Shkedi et al 12121025 - (D) KIMLIN 103 Zvi Shkedi RUMMEL, IAN A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Gunther 11995056 - (D) BROWNE 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP KOTTER, KIP T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Hunnicutt et al 12265428 - (D) KIMLIN 103 CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE GRAY, LINDA LAMEY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Derrenberger et al 11047180 - (D) MORGAN 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC DUBASKY, GIGI L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Stanford 11847775 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Nuance Communications, Inc. c/o Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. GODBOLD, DOUGLAS

2667 Ex Parte Golden et al 10841926 - (D) SMITH 103 COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC ROSARIO, DENNIS

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte YAO et al 11867948 - (D) SHIANG 103 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. ANWARI, MACEEH

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE INC. Requester v. PRAGMATUS AV LLC Patent Owner 95001648 7,730,132 11/737,723 DILLON 103 103 37 C.F.R. 41.77(b) 103 Reed Smith LLP Third Party Requester: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. WORJLOH, JALATEE original STRANGE, AARON N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 AVERY DENNISON CORP. Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. CONTINENTAL DATALABEL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001720 6364198 09/550,345 SONG 102/103 102/103/SNQ PAULEY PETERSEN & ERICKSON Third Party Requester: NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC DOERRLER, WILLIAM CHARLES original PASCUA, JES F

In particular, in Belkin Int’l Inc. v. Kappos, the court stated:

The statutory framework thus requires that an issue must raise a 'substantial new' question of patentability, as determined by the Director, with respect to cited prior art before it can be considered during inter partes reexamination. . . . Inter partes reexamination is not totally limited to those issues suggested by the requester that present a substantial new question of patentability. Indeed, the PTO may make any new rejection, as long as that rejection also meets the substantial new question of patentability requirement. … Thus, the scope
of reexamination may encompass those issues that raise a substantial new question of patentability, whether proposed by the requester or the Director, but, unless it is raised by the Director on his own initiative, it only includes issues of patentability raised in the request under § 311 that the Director has determined raise such an issue.

Belkin, 696 F.3d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2012).