SEARCH

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

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

trintec, robertson, oelrich dailey, gal

custom search

REVERSED

Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Bayer et al 12001556 - (D) POLLOCK 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 Francis C. Hand, Esq., c/o Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein ARIANI, KADE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Hamilton et al 12488158 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Rang et al 11616512 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(d) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK REYES, MARIELA D

2166 Ex Parte Acharya et al 12725381 - (D) CHUNG 102(e)/103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP / GOOGLE YEN, SYLING

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Wen et al 10937986 - (D) DIXON 103 Riverbed Technology Inc. - PVF c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP AFOLABI, MARK O

2453 Ex Parte Malaby et al 12469294 - (D) HOELTER 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Bejerano 12101333 - (D) DIXON 103 Ryan, Mason & Leiws, LLP PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Tajbakhsh 12177448 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 103 Jafari Law Group, Inc. TRAN, HANH VAN

3681 Ex Parte Koli 11428001 - (D) LORIN 102/103 102 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. HENRY, RODNEY M

“Inherent anticipation requires that the missing descriptive material [be] ‘necessarily present,’ not merely probably or possibly present, in the prior art.” Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted)). “The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient [to establish inherency.]” In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). (emphasis added).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2112 2114 2163 2163.07(a)

Oelrich, In re, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) 2112

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Drillet et al 12669188 - (D) SMITH 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC LEE, REBECCA Y

1741 Ex Parte Lee et al 11548584 - (D) DELMENDO 112(1)/112(2)/103 Georgia-Pacific LLC CALANDRA, ANTHONY J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte Ishida et al 11213319 - (D) STRAUSS 112(2)/103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP DILLON, SAMUEL A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Sieracki et al 12269581 - (D) HUME 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A NGUYEN, PHU K

2644 Ex Parte van Diggelen et al 11773062 - (D) CHEN 112(1)/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. LEE, JUSTIN YE

2648 Ex Parte Petersson et al 11722993 - (D) COURTENAY 103 ERICSSON INC. BILODEAU, DAVID

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2865 Ex Parte Rathbone et al 11490019 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PARK, HYUN D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Juetten et al 11235864 - (D) MURPHY 102(e)/103 KOLISCH HARTWELL, P.C. HAMILTON, MATTHEW L

3682 Ex Parte Juetten et al 11236281 - (D) MURPHY 103 KOLISCH HARTWELL, P.C. HAMILTON, MATTHEW L

3683 Ex Parte Chen et al 11780362 - (D) MEDLOCK 102(e) CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG NGUYEN, NGA B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Boyd et al 11512653 - (D) MAYBERRY 112(2)/103 ALCON RESEARCH LTD. NICHOLS II, ROBERT K

The Examiner concludes that “[a] change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.” Id. (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (C.C.P.A. 1966)).

See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d at 672–73.Cf. In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719  (Fed. Cir. 1992) (finding that the claimed structure and prior art structure “achieve different purposes” and, as a result, the claimed structure was not a matter of design choice).

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

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Requester and Cross Appellant v. VOLTSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7960648 et al 12/251,882 95002378 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102(e)/102/103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(a) 112(1)/112(2) Schneider Rothman IP Law Group for THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: SNELL & WILMER LLP (OC) MENEFEE, JAMES A original MAYO III, WILLIAM H

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 AUGME TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of YAHOO! INC.Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7,640,320 et al 10/466,132 95001794 - (D) KOHUT 103 YAHOO! INC. C/O GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Third Party Requester: Goodwin Procter, LLP CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original HU, JINSONG

No comments :