SEARCH

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

Friday, April 30, 2010

Friday April 30, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Conrad et al 10/344,246 GRIMES 112(2)/103(a) ELI LILLY & COMPANY

Ex Parte Schultz et al 10/022,138 GRIMES 103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Balan et al 10/881,407 WARREN 102(e) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

Ex Parte Bries et al 09/809,805 SMITH 103(a) 3M Innovative Properties Company

Ex Parte Roba et al 09/986,622 COLAIANNI 112(2)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Collet et al 10/639,373 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Chang et al 10/228,165 HOFF 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD

Ex Parte Lockridge et al 10/223,844 HOFF 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Choi et al 10/874,011 RUGGIERO 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Broach et al 10/751,349 FISCHETTI 112(2)/103(a) Westinghouse Electric Company LLC

Ex Parte Rusman et al 11/315,046 CRAWFORD 102(b) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Toyoshima 09/972,781 HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Park 11/327,681 HAIRSTON 102(b) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Mascavage et al 09/991,379 CRAWFORD 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP

It is well-established that an invention may be held to have been obvious without a specific finding of a particular level of skill where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level. See Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 218 USPQ 673 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . 2141.03

Ex Parte Rosenberg 11/024,620 LEE, Dissenting SCHAFER 103(a) FRANK ROSENBERG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Janzig et al 10/731,699 PATE III obviousness-type double patenting/102(b) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A.

No comments :