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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, February 13, 2014

clay, antor media, datamize, seattle box

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Dao et al 11347404 - (D) BUI 102 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC TRAN, BAO G

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Erceg et al 12264472 - (D) COURTENAY 103 GARLICK & MARKISON BAIG, ADNAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Cruz-Hernandez et al 10926644 - (D) STRAUSS 103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP ZHOU, HONG

To be considered in an obviousness analysis the art must be analogous “prior art” which means the prior art must be in either the same field of Appellants’ endeavor or reasonably pertinent to Appellants’ problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Whether a prior art reference is “analogous” is a question of fact. Id. at 658. The Examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Parmater’s exercise device providing adjustable head resistance as being in the same field of endeavor as Appellants’ apparatus.

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08
DONNER 8: 262, 267, 275, 283
HARMON 4: 162; 20: 163

2659 Ex Parte Wu 11558145 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) GUERRA-ERAZO, EDGAR X

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Kouvetakis et al 11969689 - (D) GARRIS 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP GUPTA, RAJ R

The Examiner is correct that the prior art printed publications Roucka and Jorgenson are presumptively enabling. In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, when an applicant challenges enablement of a reference, applicant's evidence and argument must be thoroughly reviewed to determine if the reference is enabling. Id., 689 F.3d at 1292.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Schwan 10518369 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. PAINTER, BRANON C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Ingram et al 11860994 - (D) ABRAMS 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) EDWARD S. WRIGHT LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN

The term “enhanced” is a word of degree, and “when a word of degree is used [a court] must determine
whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). ... Thus, an unrestrained, subjective construction of “strands having enhanced gripping properties” “would not notify the public of the
patentee’s right to exclude since the meaning of the claim language would depend on the unpredictable vagaries of any one person’s opinion . . . . While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a claim term, to be definite, requires an objective anchor.” Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1350.

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)
Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2173.05(b)
DONNER 10: 290, 292, 566; 14: 31, 53, 54, 442
HARMON 5: 272, 274; 13: 235; 18: 289, 307, 314

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Schmidl et al 11360654 - (D) SHIANG 103 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED HSIUNG, HAI-CHANG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Huck 11717701 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC TSVEY, GENNADIY

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Wan et al 10906513 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC CHOI, YUK TING

2193 Ex Parte Harvey et al 11674893 - (D) KUMAR 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller, PLLC VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte CHOI et al 12133946 - (D) KRIVAK 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC LEWIS, JONATHAN V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Amizic et al 12427387 - (D) FISHMAN 102/obviousness-type double patenting Zenith Electronics LLC PUENTE, EVA YI ZHENG

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Daneshvar 11731945 - (R) ADAMS 103 Yousef Daneshvar, MD FACC. SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 SOLVAY S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1660 6,730,817 09/051,746 DYK dissenting NEWMAN 102(g)(2) Williams & Connolly LLP; Kirkland & Ellis LLP original NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP PRICE, ELVIS O

No comments :