SEARCH

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

Friday, August 5, 2011

comaper, clay, wyers, PPG, borkowski, hammack, zurko

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Saigusa et al 11/581,000 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CROWELL, ANNA M

1735 Ex Parte FOODY, Sr. 11/769,850 GAUDETTE 103(a) FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER SAAD, ERIN BARRY

1776 Ex Parte KEE et al 11/834,803 GAUDETTE 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER STELLING, LUCAS A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Caruba et al 11/165,937 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a)
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3731 Ex Parte 6428542 et al 95/000,446 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Whether a reference in the prior art is “analogous” is a fact question. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 658. Wyers et al. v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

3731 Ex Parte 6,936,050 B2 et al 95/000,451 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C.EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

The definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, “is essentially a requirement for precision and definiteness of claim language.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1562, (Fed. Cir. 1996) (quoting In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909 (CCPA 1970). The “purpose is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance.” In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382 (CCPA 1970).

PPG Ind. v. Guardian Ind., 75 F.3d 1558, 37 USPQ2d 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . 2164.06(b)

Borkowski, In re, 422 F.2d 904, 164 USPQ 642 (CCPA 1970) . . 707.07(l), 2164.02, 2174

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Ho et al 10/757,775 FREDMAN 103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI

1655 Ex Parte Bortlik et al 10/568,704 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER MI, QIUWEN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Mazur et al 11/104,120 GAUDETTE 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Burdick et al 10/385,897 BARRY 101/obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN M

The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).

Zurko, In re, 258 F.3d 1379, 59 USPQ2d 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.03

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11/057,815 KIM 103(a) BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A. EXAMINER OBEID, FAHD A

DISMISSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Eisert et al 10/572,655 VIGNONE RCE Thomas Langer Cohen Pontani Lieberman & Pavane EXAMINER LAM, CATHY N

No comments :