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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, March 15, 2013

bicon, zumbiel, cortright, case, eaton, richdel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Braun et al 11721077 - (D) KRATZ 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. SAHA, BIJAY S

1745 Ex Parte Schonbeck 11152425 - (D) DELMENDO 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2699 Ex Parte Branton et al 11192619 - (D) KRIVAK 103 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP SHAPIRO, LEONID

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte CELESTINI 11463918 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Lutz 11354781 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Cozen O'Connor TAOUSAKIS, ALEXANDER P

Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Prior art references may be ‘indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means ... [and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.’ ... Accordingly, the PTO’s interpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from analogous art.

Id. (internal citations omitted).

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111, 2164.04

As the Appellant chose to use both the preamble and the body of the claim to define the subject matter of the claimed invention, the preamble is limiting. See e.g., C.W. Zumbiel Co., Inc. v. Kappos 702 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952-53 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“when the limitations in the body of the claim ‘rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention’” (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Sonderkaer 10513672 - (D) SAINDON 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC CHAPMAN, JEANETTE E

3634 Ex Parte Ashmus 11207409 - (D) OSINSKI 112(2) 103 JANSSON SHUPE & MUNGER LTD. CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3689 Ex Parte Harris 10531246 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(1)/112(2)/101/103 112(2)/101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Nederegger et al 11605228 - (D) KILE 103 102/103 Manelli Selter PLLC TIETJEN, MARINA ANNETTE

3769 Ex Parte Rogers 11448296 - (D) PRATS 103 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP SHAY, DAVID M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Feng et al 12187049 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 Hartman Global IP Law TAKEUCHI, YOSHITOSHI

1756 Ex Parte Clipstone et al 11375693 - (D) BEST 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1791 Ex Parte Mayville et al 11106082 - (D) NAGUMO 103/obviousness-type double patenting BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DICUS, TAMRA

As our reviewing court has explained, “[p]recedent cannot establish facts.” Case v. CPC Int’l, Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Case v. CPC Int’l Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 221 USPQ 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2301.03

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Videtich 10135300 - (D) DIXON 112(2)/102 General Motors Corporation ANTHONY LUKE SIMON NGUYEN, THUONG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Dick 11619642 - (D) TARTAL 103 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP BOEHLER, ANNE MARIE M

Moreover, asserting that what makes an invention commercially successful is a claimed feature that is well known in the art fails to establish a nexus because “the asserted commercial success of the product must be due to the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.” J.T. Eaton & Co., Inc. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) citing to Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 714 F.2d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (claims held obvious despite purported showing of commercial success when patentee failed to show that “such commercial success as its marketed system enjoyed was due to anything disclosed in the patent in suit which was not readily available in the prior art.”)

3611 Ex Parte Parenti et al 12015337 - (D) CAPP 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C KIM, SHIN H

3626 Ex Parte Graves et al 10813230 - (D) KIM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 DOWELL & DOWELL P.C. COUPE, ANITA YVONNE

3689 Ex Parte Cole et al 10408175 - (D) FETTING 102/103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Porter et al 11031421 - (D) DANIELS 103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP MANAHAN, TODD E

No comments :