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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

chu, catalina, rice

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Armstrong et al 11966547 - (D) BARRETT 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. BADAWI, SHERIEF

2167 Ex Parte Hirsch et al 12407779 - (D) SHIANG 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- IBM WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Beck 10447823 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1)/103 FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP OSMAN BILAL AHME, AFAF

3682 Ex Parte Brown et al 12423282 - (D) HILL 103 Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions Holdings Corp. BROWN, ALVIN L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Viavant 11154867 - (D) MacDONALD 103 KRAGULJAC LAW GROUP, LLC / ORACLE AL HASHEMI, SANA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2415 Ex Parte Drevon et al 10766843 - (D) NEW 103 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (ALU) RUTKOWSKI, JEFFREY M

Our reviewing court has held that the patentability of an apparatus claim "depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure." Catalina Marketing Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). ("It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.")

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02

2424 Ex Parte James et al 11841531 - (D) SHIANG 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. BAIG, SAHAR A

2456 Ex Parte Kilian et al 11321326 - (D) HORVATH 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN SAP/BSTZ NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

2487 Ex Parte Cornett et al 12487405 - (D) MacDONALD 103 HONEYWELL/SLW DIEP, NHON THANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Wyse 12971805 - (D) JESCHKE 102/103 MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EBNER, KATY MEYER

3655 Ex Parte Schever 11656153 - (D) HOELTER 102 103 THE GATES CORPORATION CHAU, TERRY C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Suciu et al 13364798 - (D) JESCHKE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M

In the context of a rejection based on design choice, the relevant issue is not necessarily whether the invention solves a stated problem or problems (nor whether the problems are known or unknown), but rather whether the alleged differences between the invention and the prior art "result in a difference in function or give unexpected results" or whether they are "no more than obvious variations consistent with the principles known in the art." See In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965). ...

Further, Appellants have not set forth any evidence showing unexpected results as compared to the prior art regarding, for example, reduced weight or avoiding discontinuities. Cf. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (reversing an obviousness rejection based on evidence of unexpected results and distinguishing cases affirming rejections in which the parties failed to provide any evidence).

Chu, In re, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 211.05 716.02(f) 1504.20 2145 ,

No comments :