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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

woodruff, perricone, bristol-myers

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Homer et al 11551940 - (D) KRIVAK 102(b)/103 DOCKET CLERK MCMAHON, DANIEL F

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Woerlein et al 11747466 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP MEHTA, PARIKHA SOLANKI

3773 Ex Parte Ho 11781924 - (D) ADAMS 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI TYSON, MELANIERUANO

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Dow et al 11408105 - (D) GREEN 103 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. KANTAMNENI, SHOBHA

See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“It is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the process again patentable.”); see also Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that the realization of a new benefit of an old process does not render that process patentable); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating in the context of a claimed process that was drawn to the same use comprising the same steps of the prior art, “[n]ewly discovered results of known processes directed to the same purpose are not patentable because such results are inherent.”).

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2144.05
DONNER 8: 1047, 1069, 1285, 1672, 1676, 1691, 1710, 1713
HARMON 2: 80; 4:312, 374; 20: 73

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 
DONNER 1: 415; 7:748, 911; 8: 1641; 10: 891
HARMON 3: 4, 23, 44, 53, 59, 71, 89; 6: 339

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Ravi et al 12961333 - (D) KIMLIN 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. HIJJI, KARAM Y

1732 Ex Parte Yin et al 12362533 - (D) SMITH 103/obviousness-type double patenting GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY SAHA, BIJAY S

1762 Ex Parte Qian et al 12936372 - (D) GARRIS 103 POLYONE CORPORATION NERANGIS, VICKEY M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Hunt et al 11342769 - (D) HULSE 101/102(b)/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP SMITH, TIONNA M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte Walton et al 11261188 - (D) FRANKLIN 102(e)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TRAN, DUNG D

2677 Ex Parte Cooley 10747422 - (D) MILLS 112(1) 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LETT, THOMAS J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Ante et al 11632080 - (D) BUI 103 Cozen O'Connor PATIDAR, JAY M

2866 Ex Parte Pischl 11563349 - (D) NEW 103 BGL/Broadcom BALDRIDGE,BENJAMIN M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Hanin et al 11552411 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 ALLERGAN, INC. MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2115 XILINX, INC. Requester v. INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC Patent Owner 95001571 6,993,669 09/837,651 SIU 112(1)/112(2) 112(1)/102(b)/103 Novak Druce + Quigg LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: HAYNES BOONES, LLP CHOI, WOO H original BUTLER, DENNIS

No comments :