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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

fout, mayne

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Bolli et al 10579357 - (D) PRATS 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP KIM, YUNSOO

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2667 Ex Parte Shen 11188366 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Siemens Corporation BROOKS, JULIAN D

2671 Ex Parte Severens 10445049 - (D) FREDMAN 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP VO, QUANG N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Segato 11577754 - (D) SPAHN 102(b)/103 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL

3665 Ex Parte Noguchi 11065069 - (D) GREENHUT 103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC MAWARI,REDHWAN K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Tehrani 11841806 - (D) ADAMS 103 One LLP LOUIS, LATOYA M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte May et al 12253259 - (D) SCHEINER 103 103 Harness Dickey & Pierce (Biomet) STEWART, JASON-DENNIS NEILKEN

3766 Ex Parte Gerber 11116932 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/102(e) 102(e)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BERTRAM, ERIC D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte ODONNELL 12230413 - (D) BEST 103 BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC - LAM RESEARCH CORP GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN

1727 Ex Parte Gibbons et al 11387010 - (D) PRAISS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY HAN, KWANG S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Shaper 10433914 - (D) PETRAVICK 112(2)/103 101/103 Sue Z. Shaper LOFTUS, ANN E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Hill et al 12012911 - (D) ADAMS 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. ORKIN, ALEXANDER J

“Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious.” In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, (CCPA 1982); see also In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Because the applicants merely substituted one element known in the art for a known equivalent, this court affirms [the rejection for obviousness].”).

Fout, In re, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982) 21292143.012144.06

DONNER 8: 126,156,162

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) 2144.092145

HARMON 4: 373; 20: 167
DONNER 2: 310; 8: 1047, 1069, 1370

No comments :