SEARCH

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

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Thursday April 8, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Keck et al 10/950,881 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER CHEVALIER, ALICIA ANN

Ex Parte Ott et al 11/142,786 TIMM 103(a) MCNEES, WALLACE & NURICK LLC EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Raczuk 10/752,110 BAHR 102(b) KRIEG DEVAULT LLP EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Gross 11/369,660 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) LAW OFFICE OF J. NICHOLAS GROSS
EXAMINER RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM


DENIED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Ramberg et al 10/131,881 GAUDETTE 103(a) HONEYWELL/FOGG EXAMINER PRITCHETT, JOSHUA L

In KSR, the Court indicated that there is "no necessary inconsistency between the idea underlying the TSM test and the Graham analysis" provided that the test is not applied as a "rigid and mandatory" formula. Id. at 419. The TSM test is applied in an overly rigid and formalistic manner when the "obviousness analysis" is confined "by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents." Id.

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

"Common sense has long been recognized to inform the analysis of obviousness if explained with sufficient reasoning and where there is a factual foundation from which the analysis flows." Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

No comments :