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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

NTP

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Litton et al 11834001 - (D) KIMLIN 112(1) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global MCNEIL, JENNIFER C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2652 Ex Parte VADLAKONDA et al 11620943 - (D) GRIMES 103 102/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Patent Capital Group - Cisco SHAH, ANTIM G

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Teo et al 11333399 - (D) HOUSEL 103 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. PARENDO, KEVIN A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2896 Ex Parte Zhao et al 11362943 - (D) GARRIS 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CLARK, SHEILA V

2872 Ex Parte Zahniser et al 12695103 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP FINEMAN, LEE A

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex parte HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD. 90012250 6908316 10/685,836 WINSOR 103 JONES DAY THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP KIELIN, ERIK J original TA, THO DAC

[W]hen a patentee argues that its claims are entitled to the priority date of an earlier filed application, the examiner must undertake a priority analysis to determine if the patentee meets the requirements of § 120. There is no statutory limitation during a reexamination proceeding prohibiting the examiner from conducting a priority analysis. Otherwise, the examiner would be stripped of a critical legal tool needed in performing a proper reexamination. Nothing in §§ 301 et seq. prohibits an examiner from determining whether or not a priority date was properly claimed during the original examination of the application.
In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed Cir. 2011).

[T]here is no presumption that the examiner considered whether the written description of the Parent Application supports the claims . . . simply because the MPEP requires it. Whether the examiner actually considered this issue can only be determined by reviewing the prosecution history. . . . Deciding whether a patent application satisfies § 112 requires a distinct and separate analysis from deciding whether that application satisfies § 120. When an examiner decides whether an application satisfies § 112, the examiner reviews only the application. Deciding whether that same application is entitled to an earlier priority date requires the examiner to determine whether pending claims are supported by the written description of the parent application. 35 U.S.C. § 120.
Id. at 1278.


No comments :