SEARCH

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

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

exxon research, jolly

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Bellamkonda 11862158 - (D) NAPPI 103 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE TRAN, ANHTAI V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Hossein-Zadeh et al 12359897 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 MILSTEIN ZHANG & WU LLC LI, SHI K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Cataline et al 11717057 - (D) LORIN 103 JPMorgan Chase/Hunton & Williams LLP KHATTAR, RAJESH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Beaton 12322644 - (D) BAER 103 103 Jeffrey Beaton ZUBERI, MOHAMMED H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Sylvain 11960317 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 RPX Clearinghouse, LLC FABBRI, ANTHONY E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Blucher 11623009 - (D) GREENHUT 103 112(2) 41.50 112(2) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. BRADEN, SHAWN M

There are no per se rules of indefiniteness. See, e.g., Exxon Research and Eng’g Co. v. U.S., 265 F.3d 1371, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (distinguishing In re Jolly, 172 F.2d 566 (CCPA 1949) (holding a claim including the same term, “substantially,” indefinite); noting the presumption of validity of the claims of an issued patent as compared to those of an application). ...

In cases involving claims that recite terms of degree, those claims are generally held definite only so long as there is something in the Specification to enable one skilled in the art to determine the degree required. Often this may be set forth in terms of achieving a particular result. See, e.g., Exxon Research and Eng’g Co. v. U.S., 265 F.3d at 1381 (“Whether there is a ‘substantial absence of slug flow’ therefore can be determined with reference to whether reactor efficiency is materially affected.”).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Lashley 10941542 - (D) ZADO 103 LIEBERMAN & BRANDSDORFER, LLC ALVESTEFFER, STEPHEN D

2427 Ex Parte Kandekar et al 12232805 - (D) KAISER 102/103 Concert Technology Corporation LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2676 Ex Parte Cunningham et al 12199602 - (D) HUME 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Mann et al 11882708 - (D) FETTING 103 JPMorgan Chase/Hunton & Williams LLP WU, RUTAO

CSDM Ex Parte Stoll 12386487 - (D) FETTING 103 Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P GOODBODY, JOAN T

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex parte HUBBELL INCORPORATED Appellant Ex Parte Shotey et al  7,119,277 11/257,888 90012087 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP (Hubbell) For Third Party Requester: O’SHEA GETZ PC WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original PATEL, DHIRUBHAI R

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 ENGINEERED PLASTICS, INC. Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. ADA SOLUTIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent Ex Parte 8028491 et al 11/822,500 95001775 - (R) SONG 103 Nields, Lemack & Frame, LLC For Third Party Requester: FOLEY HOAG, LLP original BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP DAWSON, GLENN K original NGUYEN, NINH H

No comments :