Thursday June 24, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Lindner et al 10/079,479 WALSH 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

Ex Parte Sundberg et al 11/088,146 OWENS 102(a/e)/103(a) WYETH LLC EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Albornoz et al 11/023,676 BARRETT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE

Ex Parte Cluff et al 11/497,698 BLANKENSHIP obviousness type double patenting/112(1)/102(e)/103(a) FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) EXAMINER CHU, GABRIEL L

Ex Parte Hintikka et al 10/609,781 SIU 102(b) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER GEBRESILASSIE, KIBROM K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Svendsen et al 10/346,298 KRIVAK 103(a) FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova EXAMINER SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Bell et al 10/894,992 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP EXAMINER VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

Ex Parte Tremaglio 11/105,808 SILVERBERG 103(a) GANZ LAW, P.C. EXAMINER BOUCHELLE, LAURA A

Ex Parte Zemlok et al 11/122,311 KERINS 102(b) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHOI, STEPHEN

REEXAMINATION

inter partes

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
OMNI-THERM, INC. Requester, Respondent v. DUPACO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,046 6,490,737 SONG 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Edward W. Callan, Third Party Requester: Grace J. Fishel EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R

In Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) the court held that despite the absence of explicit antecedent basis, '[i]f the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.'" Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Antecedent basis can be present by implication. See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also In re Moore, 58 C.C.P.A. 1042, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971) ("[T]he definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed-not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.").

Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 61 USPQ2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . 2173.05

Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(e)

Moore, In re, 439 F.2d 1232, 169 USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . .1504.04, 2164.08, 2172