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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, March 30, 2012

3M, hazani, garnero, seattle box, kao

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/096,820 HOUSEL 102(b)/103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY

1742 Ex Parte Lawton et al 11/931,205 KRATZ 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER THROWER, LARRY W

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2172 Ex Parte Bocionek et al 09/994,184 NAPPI 103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP EXAMINER ENGLAND, SARA M

2600 Communications

2626 Ex Parte Kiuchi et al 10/730,767 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) ALPINE/BHGL EXAMINER WOZNIAK, JAMES S

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2837 Ex Parte Feeney et al 11/738,433 JEFFERY 103(a) JOSEPH SWAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION EXAMINER CHAN, KAWING

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

3643 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11/930,837 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) David Klein DEKEL PATENT LTD. EXAMINER NGUYEN, SON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3731 Ex Parte Igaki 10/220,472 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) Rader Fishman & Grauer EXAMINER NGUYEN, TUAN VAN

3734 Ex Parte Scheller et al 10/820,330 GRIMES 103(a) Evans & Dixon, LLC EXAMINER DOWE, KATHERINE MARIE

3736 Ex Parte Wollin 10/902,263 SCHEINER 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T

3761 Ex Parte Lam et al 11/155,981 SCHEINER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3761 Ex Parte Wariar 11/345,702 GRIMES 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

3656 Ex Parte 7757582 et al Ex parte SHIMANO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 90/011,360 11/641,905 SONG 102(b)/103(a) GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER JOHNSON, VICKY A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Pawlak et al 11/432,692 FRANKLIN concurring NAGUMO 103(a) 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY

2600 Communications

2617 Ex Parte Adams et al 11/158,104 KRIVAK 103(a) 103(a) Borden Ladner Gervais LLP EXAMINER SHEDRICK, CHARLES TERRELL

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

3643 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11/293,178 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) DEKEL PATENT LTD., DAVID KLEIN BEIT HAROF'IM EXAMINER NGUYEN, SON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3736 Ex Parte Kilcoyne et al 10/896,553 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, HUONG Q

3765 Ex Parte Olofsson 10/761,401 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) 112(2) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER SELF, SHELLEY M

If the words of limitation can connote with equal force a structural characteristic of the product or a process used to obtain it, then the limitation is commonly interpreted in its structural sense. See, e.g., 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[E]ven words of limitation that can connote with equal force a structural characteristic of the product or a process of manufacture are commonly and by default interpreted in their structural sense….”); Hazani v. U.S. Int’l. Trade Com’n., 126 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that claims to a plate having a “chemically engraved” surface are best characterized as pure product claims, since the “chemically engraved” limitation, read in context, describes the product more by its structure than by the process used to obtain it); see also In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 278-79 (CCPA 1969) (noting that past-tense verbs such as “ ‘intermixed,’ ‘ground in place,’ ‘press fitted,’ ‘etched,’ and ‘welded,’ all . . . at one time or another have been separately held capable of construction as structural, rather than process, limitations.”).

Garnero, In re, 412 F.2d 276, 162 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113


AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Addington et al 11/089,977 PAK 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ABOAGYE, MICHAEL

1774 Ex Parte Farrell 11/046,468 GARRIS 102(b) WALTER A. HACKLER, Ph.D. EXAMINER
COOLEY, CHARLES E

1774 Ex Parte Harms et al 10/539,139 FRANKLIN dissenting NAGUMO 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

2600 Communications

2617 Ex Parte Jagadeesan et al 11/003,201 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER FARAGALLA, MICHAEL A

2628 Ex Parte Witter et al 11/251,599 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER MARTELLO, EDWARD

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

3643 Ex Parte Rice et al 10/282,897 PER CURIAM 102(e)/103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

When the term “substantially” is recited by a claim, its meaning is determined from the specification. See Seattle Box Co., v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .2173.05(b)

3674 Ex Parte Merideth et al 11/163,306 PER CURIAM 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER LUGO, CARLOS

3687 Ex Parte Mazzara 10/736,491 FISCHETTI 103(a) Julia Church Dierker Dierker & Associates, P.C. EXAMINER IWARERE, OLUSEYE

3693 Ex Parte Mathews et al 10/453,396 CRAWFORD 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD, LLP EXAMINER KHATTAR, RAJESH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3763 Ex Parte Weber et al 11/280,120 BONILLA 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

“An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut that case.” Id. If the applicant presents rebuttal evidence, such as unexpected results or that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention, the Examiner “must consider the totality of the evidence to determine whether the obviousness rejection should stand.” Id.

3775 Ex Parte Hazebrouck et al 11/241,461 LEE 112(1)/102/103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER RAMANA, ANURADHA

No comments :