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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

braat, berg, eli lilly, basell, emert, goodman, fallaux


custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Dal 10554644 - (D) OWENS 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON CHAWLA, JYOTI

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Klein 11442966 - (D) HILL 103 Daniel J. Swirsky NGUYEN, THAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Uysal et al 11498344 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RAHMAN, SABANA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Kiryati et al 10930254 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP WERNER, DAVID N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Brunner et al 11073069 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. MCDONALD, SHANTESE L

3764 Ex Parte Axelrod 11338213 - (D) SPAHN 103 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) PASTEL LAW FIRM THANH, LOAN H

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1675 Ex Parte Pohl et al 11869693 - (D) FREDMAN obviousness-type double patenting Pabst Patent Group LLP BRADLEY,CHRISTINA

“Obviousness-type double patenting is a judicially created doctrine intended to prevent improper timewise extension of the patent right by prohibiting the issuance of claims in a second patent which are not ‘patentably distinct’ from the claims of a first patent.” In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 592 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “It requires rejection of an application claim when the claimed subject matter is not patentably distinct from the subject matter claimed in a commonly owned patent.” In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Two different tests have been set forth to determine whether the claims of an application are obvious over the claims of a commonly-owned patent. The “one-way” test asks whether the application claims under examination are obvious in view of the patent claims. Berg, 140 F.3d at 1432. The one-way test is the test usually applied in obvious-type double patenting rejections. In unusual circumstances, a “two-way” test is applied in which a second question (the second “way”) is asked: whether the patent claims are obvious in view of the application claims. Id.

“The two-way test is only appropriate in the unusual circumstance where, inter alia, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is ‘solely responsible for the delay in causing the second-filed application to issue prior to the first.”’ Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 n.7 (Fed.Cir.2001) (quoting Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437); see also Basell, 547 F.3d at 1376; Emert, 124 F.3d at 1461 (applying the one-way test because the applicant “had significant control over the rate of prosecution of the application,” “was responsible for the delays in prosecution,” and “orchestrated the rate of prosecution”); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (applying the one-way test because “PTO actions did not dictate the rate of prosecution”); . . . . In short, the applicant is entitled to the narrow exception of the two-way test when the PTO is at fault for the delay that causes the improvement patent to issue prior to the basic patent.

In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Braat, In re, 937 F.2d 589, 19 USPQ2d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 804
Berg, In re, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 804
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 2144.08 2165 2165.01
Emert, In re, 124 F.3d 1458, 44 USPQ2d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 804
Goodman, In re, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 804 806.04(i) 1504.06 2164.06(b) 2164.08

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Benevides et al 11573314 - (D) SMITH 103 Waters Technologies Corporation ZALASKY, KATHERINE M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte Holley et al 11402648 - (D) SHIANG 103 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP TSENG, CHENG YUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Vagnati 11828490 - (D) SAADAT 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. VU, NGOC K

2426 Ex Parte Allport 10250150 - (D) STRAUSS 102 PIONEER NORTH AMERICA, INC. PENG, HSIUNGFEI POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original MEI, XU

2456 Ex Parte Ahmed et al 11804463 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. MCKENZIE, MARCUS A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Zikria et al 11280104 - (D) SCHEINER 103 EVELYN M. SOMMER FRONDA, CHRISTIAN L

2622 Ex Parte Chen et al 11228824 - (D) EVANS 102/103 LIU & LIU HICKS, CHARLES V

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Soyano 12232839 - (D) GARRIS 103 KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP GUPTA, RAJ R

2875 Ex Parte Karman et al 12091592 - (D) GARRIS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DZIERZYNSKI, EVAN P

2885 Ex Parte North 11925674 - (D) HASTINGS 101 obviousness-type double patenting GREG L. MARTINEZ MACCHIAROLO, LEAH SIMONE

2891 Ex Parte Bedell et al 12472943 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP SLUTSKER, JULIA

2893 Ex Parte Berman et al 11012838 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP RODELA, EDUARDO A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Haggard et al 11355813 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. POON, ROBERT

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Wei 10394137 - (D) EVANS 103 GARRETT IP, LLC C/O CPA Global NEGIN, RUSSELL SCOTT

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 APPLE COMPUTER INC. Requester v. MPMAN.COM, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000278 7065417 10/059,777 BLANKENSHIP 103 "LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY Third Party Requester: Novak, Druce & Quigg, LLP

No comments :