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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, April 2, 2012

nievelt, unique concepts, gaus, net moneyin

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Hollenhorst et al 10/978,006 PAK 103(a) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2175 Ex Parte Kowalski 09/928,599 WINSOR 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER ORR, HENRY W

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2473 Ex Parte Conradt et al 10/759,073 BAUMEISTER 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER RUTKOWSKI, JEFFREY M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3731 Ex Parte Pavcnik et al 10/662,216 BONILLA 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER LANG, AMY T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Burget et al 10/652,010 BISK 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3724 Ex Parte Morabito 11/307,939 CLARKE 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER PRONE, JASON D

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Vipperla et al 11/297,774 HANLON 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER HANDAL, KAITY V

1745 Ex Parte Mathea 11/221,044 SMITH nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) KLAUS J. BACH EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R

1763
Ex Parte Noguchi et al 11/594,933 WARREN 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER LACLAIR, DARCY D

1784 Ex Parte Mosley et al 11/475,528 KRATZ 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER LAM, CATHY FONG FONG

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2111 Ex Parte Leach 11/748,318 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER VU, TRISHA U

2171 Ex Parte Githens et al 10/660,143 BISK 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973).

Nievelt, In re, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

2445 Ex Parte Geekee et al 10/740,410 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER LIU, LIN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2448 Ex Parte Secor et al 10/756,843 WHITEHEAD, JR. 101/102(e)/103(a) IBM Corp. (AUS) c/o Ostrow Kaufman LLP EXAMINER WHIPPLE, BRIAN P

2600 Communications

2626 Ex Parte Ruetschi 10/625,960 GIANNETTI 102(e)/103(a) Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (SEN) EXAMINER RIDER, JUSTIN W

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2856 Ex Parte Beimesch 10/724,564 HAHN 103(a) LATHROP & GAGE LLP EXAMINER ROGERS, DAVID A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3751 Ex Parte Bahash 10/737,920 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TUAN N

3733 Ex Parte Wenstrom et al 10/951,107 BONILLA 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER COMSTOCK, DAVID C

3762 Ex Parte Kim et al 11/668,627 SCHEINER 102(b) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER STOKLOSA, JOSEPH A

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

2873 Ex Parte 6795605 et al INFINERA CORP. Third Party Requester, Appellant v. CHEETAH OMNI, LLC Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,240 10/644,721 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER SPECTOR, DAVID N

2873 Ex Parte 7142347 et al INFINERA CORP. Third Party Requester, Appellant v. CHEETAH OMNI, LLC Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,239 11/199,513 TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER SPECTOR, DAVID N


Where a claim provides for two separate elements, those two elements “logically cannot be one and the same.” Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.Cir.2004). See also Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1991)( there can be no literal infringement where the patent in suit claims two elements and the accused device has only one element performing both functions). It is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention. Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

No comments :