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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, May 29, 2014

american calcar, ashland oil

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Charriere et al 10987944 - (D) DIXON 103 WILLIAMS MORGAN, P.C. LEE, JUSTIN YE

2687 Ex Parte Marks et al 11548462 - (D) DILLON 103 MITCHELL J. MARKS WILSON, BRIAN P

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Veenstra 12187751 - (D) WILSON 102/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL JAGAN, MIRELLYS

2857 Ex Parte Filipovic 11965852 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, LLP SCHECHTER, ANDREW M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Wang et al 11321779 - (D) SAADAT 103 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Blocksome 11829339 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 101 IBM (ROC-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP PARK, JEONG S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2883 Ex Parte Anderson et al 12818586 - (D) KAISER 103 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC LEPISTO, RYAN A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Price et al 12776235 - (D) SMITH 103 MPG LLP / Brooks MOORE, KARLA A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Hoskinson 11540628 - (D) DIXON 103 ARENT FOX LLP KOO, GARY J

2169 Ex Parte Enns 11581305 - (D) LORIN 103 Straub & Pokotylo HU, JENSEN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte KRISHNAMURTHY 11612175 - (D) DIXON 103 KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC. HARRIS, DOROTHY H

2648 Ex Parte van Rooyen 12268917 - (D) FRAHM 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. SHARMA, SUJATHA R

2691 Ex Parte Skaug 10501676 - (D) DIXON 103 NOKIA CORPORATION c/o Ware, Fressola, Maguire & Barber LLP KARIMI, PEGEMAN

2697 Ex Parte Grothe 11760915 - (D) DANG 103 HONEYWELL/IFL MARINELLI, PATRICK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Adam et al 11923003 - (D) PETRAVICK 112(2)/101/102 CRGO LAW THOMPSON, MICHAEL M

3657 Ex Parte Junig et al 11645151 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 102 ALFRED J MANGELS BOWES, STEPHEN M

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2825 Ex parte AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 6689629 et al 10/068,500 90009697 - (D) DIXON 102/103 WPAT, PC For Third Party Requester: MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE, LLP NGUYEN, TUAN H original EVERHART, CARIDAD

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant v. A10 NETWORKS, INC., Requester Ex Parte JOSHI et al 7,584,301 10/839,919 95001812 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 2nd Reexam Group - Novak Druce + Quigg LLP For Third Party Requester: FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT AND DUNNER, LLP DESAI,RACHNA SINGH original WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex parte INTERVAL LICENSING Ex Parte 6,263,507 et al 08/761,030 90012074 - (D) NAPPI 102/103 EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC BANANKHAH, MAJID A original MILLER, JOHN W

Finally, we are not persuaded of error by Owner’s argument based upon American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 651 F.3d 1318, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011), to show that “in response to” requires an automatic action without user interaction. Appeal Brief 25. The Federal Circuit’s decision in American
Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. involves a district court’s claim construction which is not based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and is based upon the disclosure in particular to that case. As such, the holding does not have direct bearing on the case currently before us. Thus, we concur with the Examiner’s interpretation of the limitation “generating . . . in response to the display of [the] first segment” to be such that there is a causal relationship between the first and second segments, but not limited to the generation being automatic and without user interaction.

2736 Ex parte MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC. Ex Parte Schofield et al 6,222,447 09/313,139 90011478 - (D) KOHUT 103 VAN DYKE GARDNER LINN & BURKHART LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: SUGHRUE MION, PLLC BANANKHAH, MAJID A original LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC

In assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, we must consider three factors: 1) the interest of
the expert in the outcome of the case, 2) the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion, and 3) the strength of any opposing evidence. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 227 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.01(b) 716.01(c) 2145

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 SILERGY TECHNOLOGY, INC., Third Party Requester and Appellant v. MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7714558 et al 11/216,276 95001625 - (D) MARTIN 112(1) Perkins Coie LLP - Monolithic Power Systems TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original ZHANG, JUE

No comments :