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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, April 24, 2015

okajima, litton, GPAC, custom accessories

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2412 Ex Parte Hsu et al 12055353 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 41.50 103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP JAVAID, JAMAL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2619 Ex Parte Posa et al 12197635 - (D) SHAW 102/103 41.50 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C HARRISON, CHANTE E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Szczypinski et al 12061812 - (D) KATZ 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP ALMO, KHAREEM E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Campbell et al 11985088 - (D) GUIJT 102 Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. SY, MARIANO ONG

3661 Ex Parte Perkins 12409657 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 DIEDERIKS & WHITELAW, PLC NELSON, SARA J

3692 Ex Parte McCoppin et al 10747612 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) BAIRD, EDWARD J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Johnson et al 11132035 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Spyros J. Lazaris HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE

3762 Ex Parte Salo 11316123 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC LAVERT, NICOLE F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1647 Ex Parte Hunter et al 10768744 - (D) JENKS 102 102 Saul Ewing LLP (Philadelphia) STANFIELD, CHERIE MICHELLE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Atanasoska et al 11231583 - (D) HULSE 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. KASSA, TIGABU

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Narendra et al 11870636 - (D) HUME 112(2)/103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS

2198 Ex Parte Fredrickson et al 11380754 - (D) MOORE 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG AGUILERA, TODD

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Roberts 12111785 - (D) JURGOVAN 102/103 Jason P. Webb MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

2451 Ex Parte Florkey et al 11769153 - (D) NAPPI 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP TIV, BACKHEAN

2452 Ex Parte Sylvain et al 12334202 - (D) MacDONALD 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. GOLABBAKHSH, EBRAHIM

An express definition of the level of ordinart skill is not required in all situations, as the level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references.  See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350,1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); In re GPAC Inc. 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed.Cir. 1995).   Beyond a bald assertion of error (reproduced above), Appellants have provided no proposal regarding an alternative level of ordinary skill and no explanation as to how an alternative level of ordinary skill changes the analysis in this case.

Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 59 USPQ2d 1795 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 2141.03

GPAC, In re, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 716.03 2145

2484 Ex Parte HARDACKER et al 12573629 - (D) THOMAS 101/103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES ZHAO, DAQUAN

2494 Ex Parte Proulx 12404023 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 Kramer & Amado, P.C. PARSONS, THEODORE C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Swenson et al 11033457 - (D) BUI 103 Clariphy Communications/Fenwick LEUNG, WAI LUN

2647 Ex Parte Rofougaran 12041723 - (D) DEJMEK 103 GARLICK & MARKISON YUN, EUGENE

2682 Ex Parte ALRABADY et al 12263029 - (D) BUI 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) OBINIYI, PAULSON IDOWU

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Ahearn 12346991 - (D) BROWN 103 BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD. HAWN, PATRICK D

3653 Ex Parte Zimmermann 12350356 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP MATTHEWS, TERRELL HOWARD

3696 Ex Parte Kochansky et al 10323133 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 Locke Lord LLP NORMAN, SAMICA L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Irving et al 11422754 - (D) STEPINA 103 BRIGGS AND MORGAN P.A. KLAYMAN, AMIR ARIE

Though the Examiner did not make a specific explicit finding regarding the level of skill in the art, Appellants do not make any specific proposal regarding what the level of ordinary skill in the art is, or that it is other than what the applied art connotes. We consider the applied prior art, i.e., Meltzer, Tsui, Vallance, and Jennings to be reflective of the level of skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to know the relevant prior art.”) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (emphasis added)). See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”’) (citation omitted).

GPAC, In re, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 716.03 2145

Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962, USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2141.03

Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 59 USPQ2d 1795 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 2141.03

3726 Ex Parte Frost et al 13018559 - (D) HOELTER 103 MILLER & MARTIN OMGBA, ESSAMA

No comments :