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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, March 25, 2013

hogan, angstadt, deckler

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte McCarthy et al 11205638 - (D) SMITH 102/103 ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company BOYER, RANDY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Brusca 10136961 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 VERIZON PAPPAS, PETER

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Cardon et al 12120451 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP ANDREWS, MICHAEL

2859 Ex Parte Mack 11685913 - (D) STEPHENS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL OMAR, AHMED H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Perini 12366149 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC TAWFIK, SAMEH

3778 Ex Parte Gumaste et al 11064201 - (D) GRIMES 103 HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE

3779 Ex Parte Menn 11746284 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. NIA, ALIREZA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Schultz et al 11265793 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 102/103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP PANDYA, SUNIT

3766 Ex Parte Costa Ribalta et al 11575505 - (D) WALSH 112(1)/102 112(2) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS HELLER, TAMMIE K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Detrick et al 12008588 - (D) SMITH 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION BARR, MICHAEL E

1712 Ex Parte Frechem et al 11359833 - (D) HASTINGS 103 The Dow Chemical Company ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY VETERE, ROBERT A

1715 Ex Parte Crouse et al 11657833 - (D) OBERMANN 103 CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1732 Ex Parte Mao et al 11257221 - (D) CRUMBLEY 103 Phillips 66 Company SLIFKA, COLIN W

1761 Ex Parte Kwon et al 11339976 - (D) OBERMANN 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC FEELY, MICHAEL J

1762 Ex Parte Han-Adebekun et al 12029909 - (D) McKELVEY 112(1) 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

The Examiner’s finding, even if correct, does not necessarily support a legal conclusion of lack of enablement. In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 605-607 (CCPA 1977) (see: Part II. Employment of a Later State of the Art in Testing for Compliance With 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph). In our view, the Examiner’s “yet undiscovered” rationale is not consistent with Hogan and therefore does not support 1 a § 112 rejection based on a lack of enablement commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claims.

Cf. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498 (CCPA 1976) (fact that claim may include inoperative embodiments does not per se render claim unpatentable under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112).

Hogan, In re, 559 F.2d 595, 194 USPQ 527 (CCPA 1977) 2124, 2164.05(a)

Angstadt, In re, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976) 2164.01, 2164.06, 2164.08(b)

1774 Ex Parte Ketchum 11807315 - (D) OBERMANN 103 LyondellBasell Industries SORKIN, DAVID L

1791 Ex Parte Trudsoe 11767617 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1)/103/obviousness-type double patenting CP Kelco US, INC c/o Pete Pappas, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan LLP BEKKER, KELLY JO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Rawat et al 11278000 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 102/103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. BURKE, JEFF A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Zur et al 11341113 - (D) DESHPANDE 102 THOMAS
HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) KATSIKIS, KOSTAS J

2452 Ex Parte Blaukopf et al 10303805 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP CHANG, JULIAN

2456 Ex Parte Dolbec et al 10522201 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 Xtera Communications, Inc. CHANG, TOM Y

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Wakumoto et al 11084310 - (D) EVANS 101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

2645 Ex Parte Atkins et al 10878297 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 IBM CORPORATION - RSW (JVL) MANOHARAN, MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY

2645 Ex Parte Haumont 10500874 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 Squire Sanders (US) LLP BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Coglitore et al 10678006 - (D) POTHIER 103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP / SGIC LEA EDMONDS, LISA S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Caveney et al 12035490 - (D) HILL 102 PANDUIT CORP. HOGE, GARY CHAPMAN

3653 Ex Parte Zeller 11963394 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 Zeman-Mullen & Ford, LLP KUMAR, KALYANAVENKA K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Pynson et al 11025406 - (D) O’HEARN 103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated BLATT, ERIC D

3766 Ex Parte Herbert et al 11414515 - (D) SAINDON 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. KIMBALL, JEREMIAH T

3769 Ex Parte Heinonen et al 10825575 - (D) WALSH 102/103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. YAO, SAMCHUAN CUA

3772 Ex Parte Bonadio et al 10600812 - (D) BONILLA Concurring ADAMS 112(1) 102 Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC BIANCO, PATRICIA  

Appellants argue that “In re Deckler, 977 F.2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1992), does not support the withholding of the priority date of the '649 application from Appellant” (id. at 25, 32-33).   Regarding Appellants‟ position that Leahy does not qualify as prior art against the pending claims, Deckler is relevant. As stated by the Federal Circuit in this case:

The Board‟s decision that the interference judgment bars Deckler from obtaining a patent for claims that are patentably indistinguishable from the claim on which Deckler lost the interference constituted a permissible application of settled principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Under those principles, a judgment in an action precludes relitigation of claims or issues that were or could have been raised in that proceeding. Similarly, this court has applied interference estoppel to bar the assertion of claims for inventions that are patentably indistinct from those in an interference that the applicant had lost.

In re Deckler, 977 F.2d at 1452 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).  

Deckler, In re, 977 F.2d 1449, 24 USPQ2d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 715, 2308.03

No comments :