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

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

aller, kahn

custom search

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Yoon et al 11639050 - (D) BEST 103 MPG, LLP and Lam Research Corp. TALBOT, BRIAN K

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Madhavan et al 11370246 - (D) LORIN 103 Mauriel Kapouytian Woods LLP CONYERS, DAWAUNE A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Olliphant et al 11966841 - (D) MOHANTY 103 Haynes & Boone, LLP ZIEGLE, STEPHANIE M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Boss et al 11325492 - (D) CRAWFORD 101/103 101 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. SINGH, GURKANWALJIT

3644 Ex Parte del Pinal et al 12369164 - (D) ADAMS 103 103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC WILLIAMS, MONICA L

Examiner correctly asserts that “it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). This is, however, true “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art.” Id. On this record, Examiner failed to establish an evidentiary basis, or articulate a rationale, that supports a conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in this art would have considered that a side wall thickness of between approximately 2 mm and 5 mm would have been the optimum or workable range for the shell material suggested by the combination of Herrenbruck and Kopelle (see App. Br. 4 (“Examiner has merely concluded that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the shell as claimed”); Cf. Ans. 4). In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).

Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) 2144.05

Kahn, In re, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2143.01 2144

3686 Ex Parte Fitzgerald et al 11862775 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 112(2)/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION NAJARIAN, LENA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Caffery et al 12550011 - (D) KAISER 103 CORNING INCORPORATED KEMMERLE III, RUSSELL J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Wood 12054327 - (D) STEPHENS 102/obviousness-type double patenting PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. ALHIJA, SAIF A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2494 Ex Parte Todd 10992487 - (D) DIXON 101/103 IBM Corporation KHOSHNOODI, NADIA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Kulkarni et al 11274992 - (D) DIXON 103 Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC SABOURI, MAZDA

2645 Ex Parte Lee 11443787 - (D) FRAHM 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. TORRES, MARCOS L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Malinowski et al 12058623 - (D) ABRAMS 102 112(2)/obviousness-type double patenting Vista IP Law Group LLP HELLER, TAMMIE K


Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex parte ROUND ROCK RESEARCH LLC Ex Parte 6243838 et al 08/942,168 90012329 - (D) EVANS 102/103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC Round Rock Research, L.L.C. Third Party Requester: Dell, Inc. Baker Botts, L.L.P. YIGDALL, MICHAEL J original BADERMAN, SCOTT T

No comments :