SEARCH

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

Monday, September 13, 2010

Monday September 13, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Gulla et al 10/830,182 KRATZ 103(a) CHARLES MUSERLAIN Examiner Name HAILEY, PATRICIA L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Blake 10/909,827 O’NEILL 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Falahee 10/805,856 PATE III 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C Examiner Name: BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

Ex Parte Moody 11/368,091 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) JOHN EDWARD ROETHEL Examiner Name: LAYNO, BENJAMIN

Ex Parte Yu 11/169,193 McCARTHY 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C Examiner Name: NGUYEN, KIEN T

The portion of the Appellant’s Specification which describes the Appellant’s claimed subject matter is not prior art against that subject matter. In re Pleuddemann, 910 F.2d 823 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Pleuddemann, In re, 910 F.2d 823, 15 USPQ2d 1738 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . 2116.01

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Foster et al 10/373,990 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Examiner Name: GERGISO, TECHANE

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED REQUEST FOR REHEARING GRANTED-IN-PART – 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1724
BORIS M. KHUDENKO, Requester and Respondent v. Patent of ADVANCED TREATMENT SCIENCES, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,237 7,105,091 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BORIS M. KHUDENKO, Ph.D., P.E. KHUDENKO ENGINEERING, INC. Examiner Name: DIAMOND, ALAN D

Our reviewing court in In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) provided guidance on “teaching away” as follows:

Gurley’s position appears to be that a reference that “teaches away” can not serve to create a prima facie case of obviousness. We agree that this is a useful general rule. However, such a rule can not be adopted in the abstract, for it may not be applicable in all factual circumstances. Although a reference that teaches away is a significant factor to be considered in determining unobviousness, the nature of the teaching is highly relevant, and must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145

EXAMINER REVERSED REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3644
HARRY SHANNON Requester and Respondent v. Patent of ENPAT, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,005 and 90/006,330 6,328,260 LEBOVITZ 103(a) PATENT OWNER BOHAN MATHERS & ASSOCIATED, LLC FIRST THIRD PARTY REQUESTER for 95/000,005 JIM H. SALTER BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR AND ZAFMAN SECOND THIRD PARTY REQUESTER FOR 90/006,330 CLEMENTS BERNARD Examiner Name: ENGLISH, PETER C

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2635
Ex parte UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 90/007,876 6,587,067 BOALICK 102(b) For Patent Owner: Greenberg Traurig, LLP For Third Party Requester: LEWIS AND ROCA LLP Examiner Name: CHOI, WOO H

However, it is improper to “import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments appearing only in a patent's written description, even when a specification describes very specific embodiments of the invention or even describes only a single embodiment, unless the specification makes clear that ‘the patentee . . . intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive.’” JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323). It is also improper to confine the claims to the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

NEW

REVERSED


Ex Parte Dutton et al
Ex Parte Falahee
Ex Parte Gulla et al
Ex Parte O'HAGAN et al
Ex Parte Plummer
Ex Parte Wertenbruch et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Foster et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Chaudhry et al
Ex Parte Ensel et al
Ex Parte Hehli et al
Ex Parte Martin et al
Ex Parte Klepsch
Ex Parte Koeller
Ex Parte Nguyen
Ex Parte Ogg et al
Ex Parte ROTTWINKEL et al
Ex Parte Xu et al

No comments :