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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

leapfrog, KSR

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Ede 10732063 BARRY 103 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC STIGLIC, RYAN M

2175 Ex Parte Mackinlay et al 10687486 COURTENAY 102/103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC. LONG, ANDREA NATAE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Covell et al 11149719 CALDWELL 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WAQAS, SAAD A

2495 Ex Parte Hyppönnen 10398753 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 Squire Sanders (US) LLP HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Becker et al 11028158 BARRY 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Ohno et al 11936846 HOFF 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD TRAN, TRANG Q

2833 Ex Parte Too et al 11687529 KRIVAK 102/103 DITTHAVONG MORI & STEINER, P.C. GIRARDI, VANESSA MARY

2856 Ex Parte Klosterman et al 11503334 KRIVAK 103 ABBOTT LABORATORIES ROGERS, DAVID A

2894 Ex Parte Luk et al 10751714 SAADAT 102 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP MONDT, JOHANNES P

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Nouis 10652680 McCARTHY 102/103 McLaughlin & McLaughlin CHARLES, MARCUS

3671 Ex Parte Kormann et al 11072890 McCARTHY 103 DEERE & COMPANY TORRES, ALICIA M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Do et al 11171560 GRIMES 103 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP SEVERSON, RYAN J

3761 Ex Parte Morman et al 10301664 MILLS 102 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

3763 Ex Parte Woehr et al 11592595 FRANKLIN 103 KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP MEDWAY, SCOTT J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Williams et al 10103080 ADAMS 102 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP FUBARA, BLESSING M

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Oskorep 10209760 HOFF 103 103 JOHN J. OSKOREP, ESQ. LLC LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC

2612 Ex Parte Moran 11376613 KRIVAK 103 103 EVERGREEN POINT CAPITAL GROUP INC. LAU, HOI CHING

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Bhan 10943756 HANLON 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY SMITH, JENNIFER A

1762 Ex Parte Sigworth et al 12077765 PRAISS 102 CHEMTURA CORPORATION CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Zondervan et al 10989565 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP SMITH, GARRETT A

2191 Ex Parte Brown et al 10454424 PERRY 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHEN, QING

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Adamczyk et al 11297721 HOFF 103 AT&T Legal Department - CC SWARTHOUT, BRENT

The Federal Circuit concluded that it would have been obvious to combine (1) a mechanical device for actuating a phonograph to play back sounds associated with a letter in a word on a puzzle piece with (2) an electronic, processor-driven device capable of playing the sound associated with a first letter of a word in a book. Leapfrog Ent., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[a]ccommodating a prior art mechanical device that accomplishes [a desired] goal to modern electronics would have been reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in designing children’s learning devices”). In reaching that conclusion, the Federal Circuit recognized that “[a]n obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not.” Id. at 1161 (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). The Federal Circuit relied in part on the fact that Leapfrog had presented no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in the combined device was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Id. (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740-41).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

2612 Ex Parte Yoshimura 11186880 HOFF 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. SYED, NABIL H

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte CHIANG 12254461 MANTIS MERCADER 103 Hershkovitz & Associates, LLC NGUYEN, PHUONGCHI T

2833 Ex Parte Johannes 11725938 KRIVAK 102 Harrington & Smith HAMMOND, BRIGGITTE R

2833 Ex Parte Patterson et al 11582100 KRIVAK 102/103 Armstrong World Industries, inc. PATEL, HARSHAD C

2858 Ex Parte Nam et al 11285281 KRIVAK 103 Hall Estill Attorneys at Law (Seagate Technology LLC) VELEZ, ROBERTO

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Bolduc et al 09928598 SAADAT 102 GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 WAHL CLIPPER CORPORATION Requester and Respondent v. KIM LAUBE Patent Owner and Appellant 95000523 6473973 COCKS 112(1)/102/103 LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS W. BEECH FOSTER, JIMMY G original WATTS, DOUGLAS D

3761 Ex Parte Lais 11449100 BONILLA 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3763 Ex Parte Bierman 11355048 BONILLA 103/obviousness-type double patenting KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

3765 Ex Parte Kronenberger 11189324 KAUFFMAN 103 WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER MORAN, KATHERINE M
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Chiang et al 11155288 ADAMS 112(1) Davis Wright Tremaine LLP/MannKind Corporation HALVORSON, MARK

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Garcia-Alonso et al 11815353 GAUDETTE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

3763 Ex Parte Weber et al 11280120 BONILLA 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

No comments :