SEARCH

PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Remias et al MILLS 103(a) Lyondell Basell Industries


When evaluating claims for obviousness, "the prior art as a whole must be considered. The teachings are to be viewed as they would have been viewed by one of ordinary skill." In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, "‘[i]t is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.’" Id. (quoting In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965)).

Hedges, In re, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ 685 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

Ex Parte Takei et al MILLS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.

Ex Parte Zheng et al LEBOVITZ 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION

Ex Parte Cherepinsky et al LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2)/102(f)/102(b)/103(a) ERIC P. MIRABEL

It is well established that working examples are not required to comply with § 112, first paragraph. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908 (CCPA 1970).

Borkowski, In re, 422 F.2d 904, 164 USPQ 642 (CCPA 1970) . . 707.07(l), 2164.02, 2174


Ex Parte Minna et al PRATS 112(1)/103(a) STEVEN L. HIGHLANDER FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Khoo et al DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Krajewski et al DIXON 102(b)/103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD

Ex Parte Matsa et al JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FLEIT GIBBONS GUTMAN BONGINI & BIANCO P.L.

Ex Parte Anonsen et al BARRETT 102(e)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)

Ex Parte Bitsch et al SIU 102(e)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)

Ex Parte Fish et al COURTENAY 102(e)/102(a)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

Ex Parte Igarashi BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Hanes HOFF 103(a) Hewlett-Packard Company

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Ortiz et al PATE III 102(b)/103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP

Ex Parte Williams et al KERINS 102(b)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./LEAR CORPORATION

Ex Parte Zhang et al LORIN 103(a)/101 37 CFR § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

The attachment of a value is an abstraction. Cf. Bilski, 545 F.3d at 943:

Purported transformations or manipulations simply of public or private legal
obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions cannot
meet the machine-ortransformation test to determine patent-eligibility of
process claims, because they are not physical objects or substances, and they
are not representative of physical objects or substances.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

Ex Parte Rioux et al O’NEILL 102(b) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP

Ex Parte Sabbagh STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) DARBY & DARBY P.C.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Harnack et al SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Hashmi et al PRATS 112(2)/103(a) ERIC P. MIRABEL

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Sumiya et al GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) 37 CFR § 41.50(b) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Haeberle et al HOMERE 102(a)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Siemens Corporation

Ex Parte Berke et al BARRETT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Bonilla COURTENAY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Brown et al JEFFERY 102(a) IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL)

Ex Parte Novaes JEFFERY 101/112(1)/103(a)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC

Ex Parte Vandersluis BLANKENSHIP 101/102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DALE B. HALLING

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Mayer et al NAPPI 103(a) THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Burkhart et al LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP

Ex Parte Das FISCHETTI 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC.

Ex Parte Lambert et al LORIN 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN

Ex Parte Menon et al LORIN 102(e) INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Favet et al PATE III 102(b)/103(a) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK

Ex Parte Ferree STAICOVICI 112(1)/102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C



No comments :