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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, July 26, 2012

best, fitzgerald, best, multiform

custom search

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Leigraf et al 10587617 - (D) SMITH 103 TAYLOR IP, P.C. TRAN, BINH X

1715 Ex Parte Sompalli et al 11374651 - (D) SMITH 103 BrooksGroup TALBOT, BRIAN K

1763 Ex Parte Ganapathiappan 11796457 - (D) SMITH 103/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LACLAIR LYNX, DARCY DANIELLE

1778 Ex Parte Wnuk 10587302 - (D) SMITH 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. ANDERSON, DENISE R

1782 Ex Parte Durrant et al 10520608 - (D) SMITH 102/103 RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP PATTERSON, MARC A

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Southam 10617002 - (D) WINSOR 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY JEAN GILLES, JUDE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Weaver et al 10361063 - (D) FREDMAN 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Carter et al 11254547 - (D) JUNG 102 102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HOEY, ALISSA L

“[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product . . . . Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same,” In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977)).

Fitzgerald, In re, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . . . . 706.02(m), 2112, 2183

Best, In re, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . 2112, 2112.01, 2112.02

3768 Ex Parte Willis 10319285 - (D) KAUFFMAN 102 102 Vista IP Law Group LLP CATTUNGAL, SANJAY

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Linares et al 10976537 - (D) SMITH 103/obviousness-type double patenting SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. KUNEMUND, ROBERT M

1715 Ex Parte Lubomirsky et al 11192993 - (D) GARRIS 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1715 Ex Parte Patel et al 10531070 - (D) SMITH 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP LIN, JAMES

1777 Ex Parte Beaudet et al 10563047 - (D) SMITH 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C XU, XIAOYUN

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Elbe et al 10461913 - (D) KOHUT 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L

2444 Ex Parte Ahn 10781865 - (D) POTHIER 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. GUPTA, MUKTESH G

2600 Communications
2621 Ex Parte Lin et al 10099710 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC. FLETCHER, JAMES A

2626 Ex Parte Guruparan 11184470 - (D) COURTENAY 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON SERROU, ABDELALI
 
Any special meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
 
Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1998).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2111.01
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Inter Partes RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO., LTD. and MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC. Requesters 95001154 - (D) 6,584,037 10/102,237 EASTHOM FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original NGUYEN, TAN

No comments :