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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, April 10, 2015

innovention toys

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Milner 10754886 - (D) FREDMAN 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP PACKARD, BENJAMIN J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Walkling et al 12161666 - (D) KAHN 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 KENYON & KENYON LLP BOCCIO, VINCENT F

2175 Ex Parte BOEZEMAN et al 12467555 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 LAW OFFICE OF JIM BOICE NABI, REZA U

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Adler et al 11542822 - (D) EVANS 103 OKAMOTO & BENEDICTO LLP LE, BRIAN Q

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Course 10562314 - (D) KIM 102 McDermott Will & Emery HEWITT II, CALVIN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Drost et al 12110917 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 JANSSON MUNGER MCKINLEY & SHAPE LTD. TRUONG, THANH K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Hurwitz et al 11850300 - (D) OSINSKI 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY YOUNGER, SEAN JERRARD

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Ruhge et al 12234763 - (D) BEST 112(1)/112(2)/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION MARKOFF, ALEXANDER

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Wibbeler et al 11931885 - (D) JENKS 103 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Adobe Systems Incorporated) TRAN, QUOC A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Chathukutty et al 12060657 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH NGUYEN, STEVEN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Abouchakra et al 12484300 - (D) HUDALLA 103 Jordan IP Law (IBM-RSW) URBAN, EDWARD F

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Wiryana et al 11967161 - (D) BEST 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Armstrong Teasdale LLP (16463) GANDHI, JAYPRAKASH N

We begin by noting that Appellants do not point to any requirement that the prior art references used in a rejection must be analogous art to each other, and we are not aware of any such requirement.  Neither Innovation Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011), nor any of the other cases cited by Appellants establish such a requirement.  Each of these cases discusses the proper test and considerations used to determine whether a reference is analogous to the claimed invention.

If Appellants believe that references are from such disparate fields that an obviousness rejection is erroneous, the proper argument is that a person of ordinary skill in the art to wihich the invention pertains would not have had a resonable expectation of successfully combining the references to arrive at the claimed invention.  Appellants have not made such an argument. 

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Spectrum Brands, Inc. Requester v. Patent of Eveready Battery Company, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6,849,360 B2 et al 10/164,239 95001683 - (D) ROBERTSON 102/103 Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C. Eveready Battery Company, Inc. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC DIAMOND, ALAN D original KALAFUT, STEPHEN J

No comments :