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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, January 15, 2016

gurley, ricoh, optivus, fulton

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Rose 12398748 - (D) BAHR 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. DANG, KET D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Koestner et al 13275795 - (D) WILSON 103 Brooks Kushman P.C. KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C

1791 Ex Parte Kiefer et al 11543473 - (D) DELMENDO 112(1)/103/double patenting CANTOR COLBURN LLP DEES, NIKKI H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Castellanos et al 13070056 - (D) MacDONALD 102 Hewlett Packard Enterprise FAN, SHIOW-JY

2185 Ex Parte Mei et al 13091511 - (D) FISHMAN 112(1)/112(2)/103/double patenting J.B. KRAFT ATTORNEY CLEARY, THOMAS J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Issa et al 12174935 - (D) HOWARD 103 Concert Technology Corporation GAO, JING

Appellants have not demonstrated that “a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed
Cir. 1994). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl'ns. S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). At best, the prior art here merely discloses an alternative, which is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate a teaching away. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2123 2145

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2123 2141.02 2143.01 2145

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Ghosh et al 12906739 - (D) HOELTER 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise FEENEY, BRETT A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Bangel et al 11427536 - (D) SHAH 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC JARRETT, SCOTT L

3686 Ex Parte Carter et al 12807743 - (D) KIM 103 Jeffrey D. Carter HOLCOMB, MARK

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of ZIMMER SPINE, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 6,936,050 B2 et al 10/409,805 95000451 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C. JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original REIP, DAVID OWEN

No comments :