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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Rimpler et al 10344884 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C BASQUILL, SEAN M

1655 Ex Parte Morazzoni et al 10587468 - (D) GRIMES 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON MI, QIUWEN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1729 Ex Parte Cartwright et al 11562645 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER

1774 Ex Parte Freeman et al 11893230 - (D) OWENS 103 SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP CLEVELAND, TIMOTHY C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Kashi 11224160 - (D) PRATS 103 Cohen, Pontani, Lieberman & Pavane STORK, KYLER

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte BOUCHAT et al 11943395 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Ogren 10857299 - (D) FETTING 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Dryja Patents SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Raab 11587410 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ALI, MOHAMMAD M

3769 Ex Parte Dai et al 11332824 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 AMO / Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP SHAY, DAVID M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1732 Ex Parte Martin 12260162 - (D) PAK 103 obviousnesstype double patenting MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP BRUNSMAN, DAVID M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Bauman et al 11386280 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. BURCH, MELODY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Albrecht et al 11276042 - (D) McCARTHY 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) JENNISON,BRIAN W

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1765 Ex Parte Ziegler et al 12053822 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC BUTTNER, DAVID J

1765 Ex Parte Gallucci 11744354 - (D) McKELVEY 103 SABIC Innovative Plastics BUTTNER, DAVID J

1767 Ex Parte DAI-ICHI F R Co., LTD. 11398585 McKELVEY 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

1776 Ex Parte Kolesinski et al 11895209 - (D) TIMM 103 Gaetano D. Maccarone THERKORN, ERNEST G

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Brown et al 11751284 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC GOODCHILD, WILLIAM J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2667 Ex Parte Gaukroger 10561495 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP RUSH, ERIC

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Bhan et al 10734811 - (D) FETTING 112(2) 103 WILMERHALE/BOSTON OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

3684 Ex Parte Graff 10885569 - (D) FETTING 112(2) 103/obviousness-type double patenting PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M

In a recent non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969) and In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) decisions.

We have held that patent applicants cannot rely on printed matter to distinguish a claim unless “there exists [a] new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed.Cir.1983). . . .
. . . .
. . . [T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.” . . . ; see In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1994) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, . . . 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).

In re Xiao, 2011-1195 WL 4821929, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Non precedential).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2112.01
DONNER 6: 280, 281, 340-44, 355-57; 7: 763-65
HARMON 2: 15, 46; 3: 21; 4: 199; 6: 74

Bernhart, In re, 417 F.2d 1395, 163 USPQ 611 (CCPA 1969) 2173.05(j)
DONNER 13: 162

Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.05
DONNER 6: 282, 283, 345-48, 687, 695, 696, 698-700, 708, 771
HARMON 2: 15, 61; 4: 205

3684 Ex Parte Zellner et al 10750695 - (D) SMEGAL 103 AT&T Legal Department - CC NGUYEN, NGA B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Di Serio 10180878 - (D) TARTAL 103 HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI PC OMGBA, ESSAMA

No comments :