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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

miyazaki, packard

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Bousseton et al 12206098 - (D) HOFFMANN 112(2)/102/103 41.50 112(1)/112(2) Cantor Colburn LLP - IBM Endicott NGUYEN, CHI Q

In determining whether a claim is indefinite, "we employ a lower threshhold of ambiguity when reviewing a pending claim for indefiniteness than those used by post-issuance reviewing courts."  Ex Parte Kenichi Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precendential). Our precedential Miyazaki decision "hold[s] that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, as indefinite." Id. See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. CIr. 2014). We employ this standard because of our "duty to guard the public against patents of ambiguous and vague scope" and "because the applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend the claims during prosecution to more clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and to more clearly and precisely put the public on notice of the scope of the patent." Id. at 1211-12.

Miyazaki, Ex parte, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (BPAI 2008) 2173.05(b) >

3682 Ex Parte Nakamura 11455371 - (D) KIM 102/103 Perman & Green, LLP ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

3696 Ex Parte Starmanns et al 11591133 - (D) KIM 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP NIQUETTE, ROBERT R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2673 Ex Parte Hoarau et al 12358649 - (D) POLLACK 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WALLACE, JOHN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Ari et al 12418484 - (D) KIM 103 101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SWARTZ, STEPHEN S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Binette et al 12951205 - (D) ADAMS 103 Mintz Levin/Boston Office SINGH, SATYENDRA K

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Bahnmuller et al 12171513 - (D) Per Curiam 103 NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA TALBOT, BRIAN K

1742 Ex Parte Brodkin et al 12607718 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Ivoclar Vivadent Inc. TENTONI, LEO B

1771 Ex Parte Fehr et al 12865613 - (D) DELMENDO 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. HINES, LATOSHA D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Lindwer et al 10570966 - (D) KUMAR 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Sorgard et al 11633647 - (D) KUMAR 101 101/103 41.50 112(2) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC AMINI, JAVID A

2681 Ex Parte Grewe 11998057 - (D) KUMAR 103 IP Legal Services LLC MA, KAM WAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Sasaki et al 12306709 - (D) HOELTER 103 STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T

3663 Ex Parte Ishihara et al 12821591 - (D) JESCHKE 103 HONEYWELL/IFL MYHRE, KEVIN C

3689 Ex Parte Wechsel 10787205 - (D) KUMAR 103 Dilworth IP - SAP NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI

REEXAMINATION

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.Third Party Requester, Appellant and Respondent v.GRAYWIRE LLC Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent Ex Parte 6415082 et al 09/526,091 95001175 - (D) TURNER 112(1) Ascenda Law Group, PC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP MENEFEE, JAMES A original LEE, JOHN D

No comments :