1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Bissery 10/422,823 WALSH 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MARX, IRENE
1651 Ex Parte Bissery 10/747,206 WALSH 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MARX, IRENE
Obviousness requires finding that the prior art provided a reason for carrying out a claimed process, and provided a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed beneficial result. In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The expectation of success must be founded in the prior art, not in the applicant’s disclosure.” Id.
Dow Chem. Co., In re, 837 F.2d 469, 5 USPQ2d 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1988). . . . 716.05, 2144.08
1618 Ex Parte Kanie 10/826,165 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) BURR & BROWN EXAMINER
YOUNG, MICAH PAUL
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Mishima et al 10/748,979 OWENS 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER ANGEBRANNDT, MARTIN J
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Hillier et al 10/865,250 HUGHES 103(a)Martin & Associates, LLC EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Ryan 11/156,156 TURNER 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC.
3664 Ex Parte Smartt 11/292,392 McCARTHY 102(b) RIM EXAMINER PECHE, JORGE O
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Watson 11/034,127 SONG 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES, INC. EXAMINER WEEKS, GLORIA R
3715 Ex Parte Ziv-el et al 11/102,994 McCARTHY 103(a) JONES DAY EXAMINER GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A
3721 Ex Parte Berry et al 11/095,697 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Diamond 11/489,945 BAHR 103(a) Robert H. Epstein EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN
Appellant's arguments appear to be predicated on a belief that a reference must describe a limitation in haec verba. There is no such requirement. See In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977). Further, there is no requirement that a reference must recognize all features of its invention. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985), aff'd mem., 795 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (holding that the recognition of another advantage flowing naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the difference would otherwise be obvious); see also In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1023 (CCPA 1979) (mere recognition of an inherent property in the prior art does not render patentable a known structure).
Obiaya, Ex parte, 227 USPQ 58 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) 707.07(f), 2145, 2258
Wiseman, In re, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) 2141.02, 2145, 2164.06(c)
3627 Ex Parte Hammell 10/722,231 FETTING 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER OBEID, FAHD A
3627 Ex Parte Saukkonen et al 10/178,936 LORIN 103(a) WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1724 Ex parte Kobelco Research Institute, Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/007,824 11/430,299 6,033,542 ROBERTSON 251/102(b) FOR PATENT OWNER: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Gregory S. Rosenblatt Wiggin and Dana, LLP EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
Appellant acknowledges that the Board’s recent decision in Ex parte Tanaka, 93 USPQ2d 1291 (BPAI 2009) (Precedential) is dispositive of this issue, but argues that because Tanaka is on appeal to the Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit, it is not binding on the instant case.
...
The specific wording used in §251 limits the scope of the Director's power to grant reissue patents only in situations in which the original patent is deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent. The Office's interpretation of §251 to disallow reissue applications that simply add narrower claims to the reissue patent when no assertion of inoperativeness or invalidity for the reasons set forth in §251 can be made by the patentee, is in keeping with the plain wording and scope of §251. Ex parte Tanaka, 93 USPQ2d at 1299 (emphasis in original).
[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (internal citations omitted).
“Where a product-by-process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . 706.02(m), 2113
Marosi, In re, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . 706.02(m), 2111.01, 2113, 2173.05(b)
AFFIRMED
1787 Ex Parte Aguirre 11/281,129 OWENS FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R
3672 Ex Parte Allen et al 11/419,964 McCARTHY SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER LAGMAN, FREDERICK LYNDON
1722 Ex Parte Aoshima et al 10/406,109 OWENS SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER ANGEBRANNDT, MARTIN J
1651 Ex Parte Bissery 10/747,279 WALSH FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MARX, IRENE
1651 Ex Parte Bissery 11/149,178 WALSH FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MARX, IRENE
1651 Ex Parte Bissery 10/747,372 WALSH FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MARX, IRENE
1651 Ex Parte Bissery 10/747,410 WALSH FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MARX, IRENE
1771 Ex Parte Butler 11/650,282 TIMM FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER DANG, THUAN D
1617 Ex Parte Guittard et al 11/828,028 LEBOVITZ WOODCOCK WASHBURN, LLP EXAMINER BROWN, COURTNEY A
1617 Ex Parte Haas 11/455,964 GRIMES EUGENE S. INDYK EXAMINER HAGOPIAN, CASEY SHEA
1796 Ex Parte Harasin et al 11/304,265 OWENS BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER GILLESPIE, BENJAMIN
2612 Ex Parte Miller 11/199,758 KRIVAK REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. EXAMINER LAU, HOI CHING
3717 Ex Parte Moody 10/888,598 STAICOVICI JOHN EDWARD ROETHEL EXAMINER
HYLINSKI, STEVEN J
2187 Ex Parte Rogers 10/261,460 COURTENAY III HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RUTZ, JARED IAN
1723 Ex Parte Tio 10/553,164 TIMM NAGUMO dissenting SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER HANDAL, KAITY V
1726 Ex Parte Watanabe et al 10/234,318 TIMM McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER
RHEE, JANE J
1715 Ex Parte Ye 10/547,740 TIMM MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER GAMBETTA, KELLY M
No comments :
Post a Comment