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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

eiselstein, festo, lockwood

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1747 Ex Parte Paul 11887719 - (D) NAGUMO 103 WOLFF & SAMSON, P.C. NGUYEN, THUKHANH T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2199 Ex Parte Hyttinen 10775545 - (D) BOUCHER 103 NOKIA CORPORATION c/o Ware, Fressola, Maguire & Barber LLP WU, QING YUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Islam et al 10798824 - (D) ZECHER 103 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.a.r.l. c/o WARE, FRESSOLA, MAGUIRE & BARBER LLP DANG, HUNG Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Rekimoto 11155487 - (D) DIXON 103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC BLAIR, KILE O

2677 Ex Parte Panesar et al 11025126 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 Intel Corporation Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC RICHER, JONI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Dresden 11877639 - (D) FETTING 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP OSMAN BILAL AHMED, AFAF

3685 Ex Parte Furlong et al 11107957 - (D) LORIN 112(1)/103 KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. RAVETTI, DANTE

We do not see in these passages any mention of “periodic access.” While the absence of these terms do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is inadequate written descriptive support (see “[T]he prior application need not describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims . .
. . ” Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038 . . . (Fed.Cir.1995)), nevertheless, “[w]hat is claimed by the patent application must be the same as what is disclosed in the specification; otherwise the patent should not issue.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 736 (2002).

Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 34 USPQ2d 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 1302.01
HARMON 5: 153, 171, 172, 280; 6: 114; 18: 39
DONNER 9: 608-11; 10: 538, 542, 543, 552-55

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 62 USPQ2d 1705 (2002) 1302.142173.02
HARMON 7: 37; 8: 4, 20, 40, 168, 170, 197, 224, 229, 234-36, 239, 240, 241, 249, 257, 258, 260-62, 266-75
DONNER 3: 64, 66-91, 93-107, 109-14, 116-19, 191, 285, 289; 7: 405; 9: 216, 380, 426; 10: 289; 14: 342; 15: 1, 171-87
...
It may be obvious to provide “periodic access to the license-protected broadcast channel,” given a disclosure of repeated attempts by the ST to access license-protected content, but “[o]ne shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious. ” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (Emphasis original).

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997)  2133.03(a),  2163,  2163.02
HARMON 4: 152, 158, 194; 5: 163, 171, 173; 6: 289; 18: 48, 50
DONNER 2: 573; 7: 234, 462; 8: 1847, 1848; 9: 380, 432, 444, 614-17

No comments :