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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

griver, bowles, papst-motoren

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Pamarthy et al 11381523 - (D) COLAIANNI 103/obviousness-type double patenting PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX CHANDRA, SATISH

1716 Ex Parte Benzing et al 12121047 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE CROWELL, ANNA M

1756 Ex Parte Charton et al 10597625 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1779 Ex Parte Roger et al 11422267 - (D) OWENS 103 K&L Gates LLP BASS, DIRK R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Clow et al 10436232 - (D) KRIVAK 102/103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. PHAM, LINH K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2861 Ex Parte Kubo 11028897 - (D) POTHIER 103 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LEGESSE, HENOK D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Karst et al 11541302 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Covidien LP MEDWAY, SCOTT J

3767 Ex Parte Akiyama et al 11508732 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte KAMPSCHREUR et al 12506065 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 103 TESSERA LERNER DAVID et al. SAAD, ERIN BARRY

It is well settled that it is not necessary for a finding of obviousness under § 103 that all the elements or teachings of one reference be fully combined with those of another reference. In Re Griver 354 F.2d 377, 381 (CCPA 1966)

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 Ex Parte Hiipakka et al 11321796 - (D) ARPIN 103 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP LEE, CHUN KUAN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Chaudry 10657550 - (D) FREDMAN 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY

1648 Ex Parte Fehre et al 12203268 - (D) FRANKLIN 102 SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP LI, BAO Q

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Beckers et al 10961271 - (D) DELMENDO 103/obviousness-type double patenting SHELL OIL COMPANY COONEY, JOHN M

1789 Ex Parte Aseere 11475309 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 JOHNS MANVILLE JUSKA, CHERYL ANN

1791 Ex Parte Qvyjt 10996713 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY SAYALA, CHHAYA D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Wroblewski 11505207 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC KUMAR, ANIL N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Hochmuth et al 09941254 - (D) THOMAS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TIV, BACKHEAN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Nishiguchi 10769865 - (D) HOFF 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO MARTIN, LAURA E

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2601 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P., Appellant and Patent Owner 90008325 5128984 07/425,779 TURNER 102/103 COOLEY LLP KIELIN, ERIK J original WOO, STELLA L

The Board held:

[I]n reexamination proceedings in which the PTO is considering the patentability of claims of an expired patent which are not subject to amendment, a policy of liberal claim construction may properly and should be applied. Such a policy favors a construction of a patent claim that will render it valid, i.e., a narrow construction, over a broad construction that would render it invalid. Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d at 1656; Ex parte Bowles, 23 USPQ2d 1015, 1017 (BPAI 1991) (both nonprecedential 4). The Board also held in both Papst-Motoren and Bowles that it would be error to read “inferential limitations” into the claims. Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d at 1657; Bowles, 23 USPQ2d at 1017.

Papst-Motoren’s holding that “claims should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity” is another way of saying that the USPTO does not apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation” in construing the claims of an expired patent in a reexamination proceeding.

4 Although Papst-Motoren is not designated as precedential, it was decided by an expanded panel of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, including the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, the Chairman of the Board, and an Examiner-in-Chief.

from patents post-grant:

CAFC Applies The Wrong Claim Interpretation Standard in Patent Reexamination

2643 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P., Appellant and Patent Owner 90008051 6434223 09/313,120 TURNER 103 COOLEY LLP KIELIN, ERIK J original WOO, STELLA L

2743 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P., Appellant and Patent Owner 90008155 5828734 08/132,062 TURNER 103 COOLEY LLP KIELIN, ERIK J original WOO, STELLA L

2782 Ex parte APPLE, INC. 90011311 5,915,131 08/435,677 LEBOVITZ 102 APPLE INC./BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP CHOI, WOO H original PERVEEN, REHANA

No comments :