SEARCH

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

Thursday, March 22, 2012

velander, sunrace, ullstrand, genentech

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Takenaka et al 10/540,606 BEST 103(a) RATNERPRESTIA EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

1732 Ex Parte Fine et al 11/279,029 SMITH 103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER VADEN, KENNETH I

1767 Ex Parte Laredo et al 11/759,551 SMITH 112(2)/102(b)/non-statutory obviousness type double patenting PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

1771 Ex Parte Niccum et al 10/711,308 PER CURIAM 103(a) KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT LLC ATTN: Christian Heausler EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY

1773 Ex Parte Miller et al 11/500,672 TIMM 103(a) DADE BEHRING INC. EXAMINER WRIGHT, PATRICIA KATHRYN

1783 Ex Parte Henry et al 10/558,753 SMITH 103(a) Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC EXAMINER MEHTA, MEGHA S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2168 Ex Parte Sasai et al 10/446,941 HOFF 103(a) McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER AHN, SANGWOO

2186 Ex Parte Lee 10/453,226 HOMERE 102/103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER PATEL, HETUL B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2474 Ex Parte CHEN et al 10/779,234 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) TKHR (Broadcom) EXAMINER RIYAMI, ABDULLAH A

2600 Communications

2618 Ex Parte Sumcad et al 10/875,001 KRIVAK 103(a) General Motors Corporation EXAMINER SAFAIPOUR, BOBBAK

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

3663 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11/372,807 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER ALGAHAIM, HELAL A

3671 Ex Parte Lauer 11/235,749 BAUMEISTER 103(a) TAYLOR IP, P.C. EXAMINER MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3731 Ex Parte Schraga 10/878,390 SCHEINER 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MILES, JONATHAN WADE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Kim 10/873,549 SMITH 103(a) 101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER LO, WEILUN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2437 Ex Parte Bryan et al 10/278,990 WINSOR 103(a) 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER PYZOCHA, MICHAEL J

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Contag et al 11/529,807 FREDMAN 103(a) Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP EXAMINER HILL, KEVIN KAI

1644 Ex Parte Fritz et al 10/399,442 FRANKLIN 103(a) nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. EXAMINER DIBRINO, MARIANNE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1711 Ex Parte Jones et al 11/151,501 GARRIS 103(a) ECOLAB USA INC. EXAMINER HECKERT, JASON MARK

1727 Ex Parte Simmons et al 11/386,612 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) HAMMER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER ARCIERO, ADAM A

1765 Ex Parte Peerlings et al 11/313,419 KRATZ 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER
SERGENT, RABON A

1767 Ex Parte McCabe et al 12/197,622 GARRIS 102(e)/103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

1777 Ex Parte Bischof 12/179,658 GARRIS 112(1)/103(a) COOK ALEX LTD. EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

1782 Ex Parte Buchanan 10/752,898 FRANKLIN 112(2)/103(a) ERIC D. JORGENSON EXAMINER LEFF, STEVEN N

We add that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge provided by both Fischer (which discloses a pet feeding product in general, wherein a dog is specifically disclosed) and Smith (a catnip ball played by a cat), would have been led to Appellant’s claimed subject matter by incorporating the teachings of Smith into Fischer as proposed by the Examiner, with a reasonable expectation of successfully making the toy product as claimed. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claimed subject matter can be shown to be obvious, and thus unpatentable, if it is shown that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the claimed invention. See, e.g., Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2162 Ex Parte West 10/890,563 FRAHM 102(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER LE, THU NGUYET T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2424 Ex Parte Okamoto et al 10/173,316 THOMAS 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER SHEPARD, JUSTIN E

2444 Ex Parte Holzmann 10/873,665 PERRY 102(e)/103(a) LARSON NEWMAN, LLP EXAMINER SERRAO, RANODHI N

2600 Communications

2624 Ex Parte Kondo 10/481,722 MacDONALD 102(b) William S Frommer Frommer Lawrence & Haug EXAMINER TORRES, JOSE

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2816 Ex Parte Afentakis et al 11/439,410 MacDONALD 102(e)/103(a) SHARP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC. C/O LAW OFFICE OF GERALD MALISZEWSKI EXAMINER O'TOOLE, COLLEEN J

The term “connected” is not a term of art and thus, should receive its ordinary and accustomed meaning. Sunrace Roots Enterprise Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The plain meaning of the word “connect” is “[t]o join or unite; to conjoin, in almost any manner, either by junction, [or] by any intervening means.” (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, http://1828.mshaffer.com/). Furthermore, the word “connected” is restricted to neither a direct nor an indirect connection, and the term is therefore applicable to an indirect connection. Ullstrand v. Coons, 147 F.2d 698, 700 (C.C.P.A. 1945). “To be joined or connected does not necessitate a direct joining or connection.” Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir.2003) . . . .2106, 2111.01

Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 2111.03, 2138.05, 2163

2834 Ex Parte Kaplan et al 10/360,111 MacDONALD 103(a) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC EXAMINER MULLINS, BURTON S

2884 Ex Parte Fan et al 11/627,061 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER MALEVIC, DJURA


REHEARING

DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

2143 Ex Parte 7287109 et al Inter Partes RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner v. NVIDIA CORP.
Requestor 95/001,166 10/966,767 EASTHOM 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b)(1) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original EXAMINER NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

No comments :