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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

vitronics, best, crown operations, Jung, hyatt, schreiber

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Davidai 11454720 - (D) GREEN 103 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA CORPORATION CHONG, YONG SOO

1648 Ex Parte Doranz et al 10901399 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 Pepper/Integral Molecular, Inc. LUCAS, ZACHARIAH

1651 Ex Parte Morozov et al 11419593 - (D) FREDMAN 103 GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DAVIS, RUTH A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Fryer et al 11441767 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. CHU, JOHN S Y

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Atkins 11536556 - (D) DILLON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RIES, LAURIE ANNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Barnett 11516600 - (D) FLOYD 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA LLP (PWC) EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT

3764 Ex Parte Grind 12317586 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 Precor Incorporated Amer Sports North America THANH, LOAN H

3767 Ex Parte McFerran 10667056 - (D) GREEN 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC GRAY, PHILLIP A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Chu 10933702 - (D) POTHIER 103 103 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) TABOR, AMARE F

2444 Ex Parte Jennings et al 11049808 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 103 SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P.C. RICHARDSON, THOMAS W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Norin et al 11593711 - (D) McKONE 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. SOROWAR, GOLAM

2677 Ex Parte Laksono 11285643 - (D) McKONE 103 103 VIXS Systems, Inc. c/o Davidson Sheehan LLP MCDOWELL, JR, MAURICE L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Xu 12039913 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 102/103 103 Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP ENAD, CHRISTINE A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Cieslik et al 11628727 - (D) SPAHN 103 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION WALBERG, TERESA J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Yadav et al 10898849 - (D) GARRIS 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P

1741 Ex Parte Pinkham et al 11805373 - (D) METZ 103 Johns Manville LAZORCIK, JASON L

1782 Ex Parte Lovett et al 10588710 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Monro 11255090 - (D) HUGHES 102 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. JACOB, AJITH

2171 Ex Parte Torres et al 11304947 - (D) DILLON 102/103 IBM END IPLAW (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC NUNEZ, JORDANY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2446 Ex Parte Vellanki et al 10818227 - (D) NAPPI 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP NGUYEN, DUSTIN

2448 Ex Parte Gonen et al 10941790 - (D) BENOIT 103 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. BUI, JONATHAN A

2456 Ex Parte Mamas 10492095 - (D) BOUCHER 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP BARQADLE, YASIN M

Although technical treatises and dictionaries fall within the category of extrinsic evidence, as they do not form a part of an integrated patent document, they are worthy of special note. Judges are free to consult such resources at any time in order to better understand the underlying technology and may also rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2111.01

HARMON 6: 52, 53, 91, 94, 128, 195
DONNER 2: 364, 378, 395, 399, 438; 9: 143; 15: 154, 155, 158, 160

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Holtschneider 10929829 - (D) WINSOR 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON CASCA, FRED A

2675 Ex Parte Walmsley et al 11176372 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Memjet c/o Cooley LLP HON, MING Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Miyaji et al 11772537 - (D) COURTENAY 102 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC KIM, JOHN K

The Examiner has the burden of providing reasonable proof that a claim limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (C.C.P.A. 1977); see also Crown Operations Int'l, LTD v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Examiner meets this "burden of production by `adequately explaining the shortcomings it perceives so that the applicant is properly notified and able to respond.'" In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Hyatt v. Dudas,492 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). The burden of proof then shifts to the applicant "to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on." Best, 562 F.2d at 1254-55; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency).

In re MOUSA, 479 Fed. Appx. 348, 352 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (unpublished) 

Best, In re, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) 2112, 2112.01, 2112.02, 2114
DONNER 8: 634, 635

Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2163.04
HARMON 18: 13; 19: 233

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02, 2112, 2114
DONNER 7: 736, 758, 938-40
HARMON 3: 21, 87, 98; 4: 229; 19: 419

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte White 11213603 - (D) McCARTHY 103 CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE DONDERO, WILLIAM E  

FEDERAL CIRCUIT  

AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1614 NOVO NORDISK INC. AND NOVO NORDISK A/S, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PADDOCK LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1031 6,677,358 09/459,526 PROST inequitable conduct 103 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Latham & Watkins LLP SPIVACK, PHYLLIS G

1614 NOVO NORDISK A/S AND NOVO NORDISK INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES, LTD. AND SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendants-Appellees. 2011-1223 6,677,358 09/459,526 PROST inequitable conduct 103 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Winston & Strawn LLP SPIVACK, PHYLLIS G

No comments :