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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, February 17, 2014

carella, dailey, KSR

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Wong 10786941 - (D) GLENN J. PERRY 102/103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE PHAM, MICHAEL

2184 Ex Parte Moertl et al 11550191 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. TSENG, CHENG YUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Hudson et al 11982081 - (D) FETTING 102 SONYNJ Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Stanley et al 11698303 - (D) IPPOLITO 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP ALGAHAIM, HELAL A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte KHOURY 11425872 - (D) JENKS 103 Blue Filament Law STEWART, ALVIN J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Pearson et al 11830541 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WALDRON, SCOTT A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Saridakis 11158710 - (D) FETTING 103 103 Winstead PC HENRY, MARIEGEORGES A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Pop et al 11713144 - (D) JUNG 103 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC GREGORY, BERNARRE

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Bleck et al 10759315 - (D) ADAMS 103 Casimir Jones, S.C. POPA, ILEANA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 Ex Parte Chen et al 11399924 - (D) DELMENDO 103 JAY BROWN LAW FIRM CHU,CHRIS H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Hyde et al 11605933 - (D) JUNG 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE GREGORY, BERNARRE

3685 Ex Parte Demartini et al 11528680 - (D) FETTING 112(1)/112(2)/102 Reed Smith LLP KIM, STEVEN S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Hord et al 11982696 - (D) KERINS 103 William M. Hobby, III NEWHOUSE, NATHAN JEFFREY

In arguing that the citation of the references is improper, Appellants contend that citable “prior art must contain some teaching, suggestion or incentive to combine the individually known elements or features in such a manner as to result in the claimed invention.” App. Br. 9 (citing Carella v. Starlight Archery and Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also id. at 7. The Examiner responds that the rejection utilizes both the suggestion that the alternate mating structure of Christoff is a known arrangement and thus substitutable, and also points to case law standing for the proposition that a change in shape or form may well be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 13 (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966)).

The decision of the Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), (decided after Carella) recognized that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion and motivation . . . .” “What matters [in determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious] is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” Id. at 419. Thus, the question before us is not whether the cited art contains a teaching or suggestion to combine, but rather whether the Examiner provided a reason with a rationale underpinning for the proposed combination. Here, as discussed above, the Examiner did just that.

Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 231 USPQ 644 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 21282132
HARMON 1: 185; 3: 11, 104, 172, 286, 288; 4: 332; 12: 282; 15: 53, 64, 101; 20: 45, 243
DONNER 5: 19; 7: 66, 152, 198, 218, 441, 731; 8: 197

Dailey, In re, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) 2144.04

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, ,  2145,   2216,   2242,   2286,   2616,   26422686.04
DONNER 8
HARMON 4

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 XILINX, INC. Requester and Respondent v. TAICHI HOLDINGS, LLC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001551 6,747,350 10/455,525 LEBOVITZ 103 112(1) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester: SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. KIELIN, ERIK J original CLARK, SHEILA V

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 NVIDIA CORPORATION Requester v. RAMBUS INC. Patent Owner 95001472 6,715,020 10/037,171 SIU Paul M. Anderson, PLLC Third Party Requester HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 THE TORO COMPANY Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. WRIGHT MANUFACTURING, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95001741 6,438,931 09/714,824 SONG NIXON & VANDERHYE PC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: James W. Miller JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original FABIAN-KOVACS, ARPAD

3671 THE TORO COMPANY Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. WRIGHT MANUFACTURING, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 95001742 6,935,093 10/186,680 SONG NIXON & VANDERHYE PC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: James W. Miller JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original FABIAN-KOVACS, ARPAD

No comments :