SEARCH

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

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

leshin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Hayardeny 12806275 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP IVANOVA, SVETLANA M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte AMBROSINO et al 13092401 - (D) TIMM 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. AMPONSAH, OSEI K

1787 Ex Parte TROUVE 13850859 - (D) HEANEY 103 MMWV IP, LLC ENGLISH, PATRICK NOLAND

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2482 Ex Parte Cunningham 13311093 - (D) HAGY 103 ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST, P.A. SENFI, BEHROOZ M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Bauchot et al 12336594 - (D) SHIANG 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS YANG, JAMES J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Kooken et al 11102429 - (D) CAPP 103 Lincoln Electric Company/Perkins COIE LLP DANG, KET D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte YAMADA et al 13239598 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. AKHAVANNIK, MOHAMMAD H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Kabir et al 13674932 - (D) JESCHKE 103 103 FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION) PILKINGTON, JAMES

Claims 21—24 each require that certain structures comprise ceramic material. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). For these claims, the Examiner acknowledged that the relied-upon prior art does not disclose ceramic material but concluded that it would have been obvious to modify the reliedupon prior art to use ceramic material in the manners recited in each of these claims "since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice." Final Act. 6—7, 8, 12 (each citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960)).

For each of these claims, Appellants contend that nothing in the relied-upon prior art "suggests that ceramic materials are suitable for use" in the structures required to comprise ceramic material. Appeal Br. 8 (claims 21 and 22), 13—14 (claim 23), 17 (claim 24). We agree with Appellants that this issue undermines the rejections of these claims.

Here, the Examiner has not made sufficient findings to present a prima facie case of obviousness as to claims 21—24. The facts here are distinguishable from those in In re Leshin. In that case, the court addressed dependent claims requiring that the "container-dispenser for cosmetics" recited in the parent claim be made from molded plastic materials. Leshin, 277 F.2d at 198—99. Before the court was a secondary reference (Anderson) teaching the use of molded plastic in a "similar container." Id. at 199. On those facts, the court held that "[m]ere selection of known plastics to make a container-dispenser of a type made of plastics prior to the invention, the selection of the plastics being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious." Id.

In contrast, here, the Examiner has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that "ceramic material(s)" could be used for the same or similar applications at issue in claims 21—24— comprising certain materials in a reciprocating machine. Even assuming that the Examiner is correct that, at the time of the invention, ceramics were "known lightweight composite materials" (Ans. 4), this does not show that ceramic material was known to be suitable for the intended uses here. See Leshin, 277 F.2d at 199. The lack of record support on this issue distinguishes this record from that in In re Leshin, and undermines the rejections here. Thus, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 21—24.

Leshin, In re, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) 2144.07

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte FAULK 12270110 - (D) TOWNSEND 102 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. YAO, LEI

1673 Ex Parte MacCarter et al 11118613 - (D) PER CURIAM 103/double patenting MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. LAU, JONATHAN S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Hines et al 13847781 - (D) RANGE 103 Georgia-Pacific LLC KURTZ, BENJAMIN M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Tarnowski 13149054 - (D) KUMAR 103 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP / Vestas KARIM, ZIAUL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Davidson 09760242 - (D) THOMAS 103 Hall Estill Attorneys at Law (Seagate Technology LLC) SHELEHEDA, JAMES R

2492 Ex Parte Robinton et al 12716845 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 Sheridan Ross PC SHEPPERD, ERIC W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte MIYAZAKI 12783311 - (D) MOORE 103 Paratus Law Group, PLLC MOORAD, WASEEM

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Yang et al 12572087 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Minimed JANG, CHRISTIAN YONGKYUN

3762 Ex Parte MOON et al 12762751 - (D) CHERRY 103 Acuity Law Group, P,C, FLORY, CHRISTOPHER A

3788 Ex Parte Macinnes et al 13374509 - (D) SHAH 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC POON, ROBERT

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2697 Ex Parte Dai et al 13320544 - (R) SMITH 103 WANG & HO YANG, NAN-YING

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 HOLOGIC, INC. Requester, Respondent v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8061359 et al 11/780,759 95002058 - (D) SONG 112(1)/103 WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. Third Party Requester: Arnold & Porter LLP WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original BUI, VY Q

No comments :