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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, February 18, 2016

chore-time, okajima, litton

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Murray et al 12979440 - (D) KERINS 102 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. OLSON, LARS A

3627 Ex Parte Casey 12909580 - (D) MOHANTY 103 LEWIS RICE LLC HAIDER, FAWAAD

3644 Ex Parte Sainct et al 12809115 - (D) JESCHKE 103 41.50 112(2) BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP O'HARA, BRIAN M

3654 Ex Parte Hodjat 12928537 - (D) BROWNE 103 GATES CORPORATION TRAN, DIEM M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Kumar et al 12727473 - (D) HOSKINS 103 BASF CORPORATION SHANSKE, JASON D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Sowden et al 10484485 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON COUGHLIN, DANIEL F

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Brusic et al 11591730 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

1746 Ex Parte Whitworth et al 13433106 - (D) HASTINGS 103 KLEMCHUK LLP LEE, JAEYUN

1772 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 13008615 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 41.50 102/103 Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC ROBINSON, RENEE E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte CARMEL et al 12788459 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise NGUYEN, LE V

2193 Ex Parte ARPANA et al 11689276 - (D) ENGELS 101/103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (CA, Inc.) LOUIE, JUE WANG

see also Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 779 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("an invention may be held to have been either obvious (or nonobvious) without a specific finding of a particular level of skill or the reception of expert testimony on the level of skill where, as here, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level"); 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)).

Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 218 USPQ 673 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2141.03

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

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte TSAI et al 12235098 - (D) KUMAR 103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP GUPTA, PARUL H

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 ANALOG DEVICES, INC. Requester v. KNOWLES ELECTRONICS LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte Minervini et al 8,018,049 11,741,881 95001850 - (D) CHEN 102/103 LATHROP & GAGE LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP ANDUJAR, LEONARDO original CHAMBLISS, ALONZO

No comments :