SEARCH

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

Friday, August 18, 2017

enfish, internet patents, recognicorp

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2479 Ex Parte Siomina et al 13997735 - (D) BRANCH 102/103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC NGUYEN, HANH N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Iyengar et al 12882761 - (D) DOUGAL 101 Larson & Anderson, LLC JANG, CHRISTIAN YONGKYUN

The Federal Circuit has instructed that “[t]he ‘directed to’ inquiry . . . [does not] simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon.”  Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).  The Courts continues: “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’”  Id. (citing Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Cameron et al 13510108 - (D) STEPINA 103 103 The Linde Group LIN, KO-WEI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Lim et al 12817775 - (D) BEST 103 WHITHAM, CURTIS & COOK, P.C. REA, CHRISTINE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Kho et al 12959012 - (D) FETTING 101/102/103 Fabian Vancott IBM CORPORATION FLYNN, KEVIN H

3629 Ex Parte Beckers 12044376 - (D) FETTING 101/103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP MCCORMICK, GABRIELLE A

A payment determination is a quantitative mathematical algorithm, which by itself has long been held to be an abstract idea. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“A process that started with data, added an algorithm, and ended with a new form of data was directed to an abstract idea.”)

3685 Ex Parte IBRAHIM et al 13481082 - (D) FETTING 103 101/103 Roberts Mlotkowski Safran Cole & Calderon, P.C. MCINTYRE, CHARLES AARON

3688 Ex Parte Greenspun 13681142 - (D) FETTING 101/112(1)/112(2)/103 STOEL RIVES LLP - SLC PATEL, DIPEN M

Thursday, August 17, 2017

grasselli2, meadwestvaco, mason

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Seabaugh et al 14212310 - (D) NAGUMO 102 Greenberg Traurig, LLP TRAN, TONY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Serafin et al 13507397 - (D) WIEKER 103/double patenting CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY HOBAN, MELISSA A

3745 Ex Parte Aiello et al 13627036 - (D) SCHOPFER 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY SEABE, JUSTIN D

3761 Ex Parte VON WEYMARN-SCHÄRLI 13532523 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 ADAMS & WILKS MENSH, ANDREW J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3649 Ex Parte Pascal et al 11721716 - (D) POWELL 103 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC KRUER, KEVIN R

Furthermore, for most of the claims, we are not persuaded that Appellants’ evidence of allegedly unexpected results rebuts this prima facie case of obviousness. To support a contention of nonobviousness, evidence of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Where rebuttal evidence compared catalysts containing sodium to prior art, court held evidence insufficient to rebut prima facie case of obviousness because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with claims, which were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal.). The requirement that the evidence be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention must be applied on a claim-by-claim basis. See MeadWestVaco Corp. v. Rexam Beauty and Closures, Inc., 731 F.3d 1258, 1264—65 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (noting district court erred by failing to treat broader claims differently than narrower claims when considering objective evidence of non-obviousness).

Grasselli, In re, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 716.02(d) 2112 2145

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte van Oudenallen et al 13220383 - (D) KNIGHT 112(1)/103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC HOEY, ALISSA L

Claim 16 — This claim recites a “plurality of connections between [the] third sheet and [the] fourth sheet. . . whereby [the] third sheet is constrained to expand . . . from [the] fourth sheet.” Appellants argue that the plurality of connections are not shown in the art and that the whereby clause must be considered. App. Br. 26-27. The Examiner argues that the whereby clause is functional language that does not define any structure and thus does not distinguish over the prior art, citing to In re Mason, 244 F.2d 733 (CCPA 1957). Ans. 10. We disagree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation. Claim 16 positively recites a plurality of connections and further recites that the connections are distributed so that the third sheet expands a limited distance from the fourth sheet when the chamber is inflated. The Examiner has failed to provide an adequate showing of where this structural limitation of the plurality of connections is found in either Anderson or Clark. Accordingly, because all of the limitations are not shown to be contained in the references cited, this rejection will not be sustained.

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Ferguson et al 13871132 - (D) ROSS 103 Kwan & Olynick LLP, Boeing TUROCY, DAVID P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2412 Ex Parte Kalhan et al 14358339 - (D) BUI 103 KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC. ATKINS JR., GEORGE CALVIN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2676 Ex Parte Liguori et al 14720915 - (D) KUMAR 103/double patenting William Propp, Esq. CHEN, HUO LONG

3625 Ex Parte Gu et al 12061448 - (D) THOMAS 101 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY PALAVECINO, KATHLEEN GAGE

3649 Ex Parte Boeckl et al 10609132 - (D) HORNER 103 NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATI HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

3657 Ex Parte Hanna et al 12793525 - (D) THOMAS 103 BrooksGroup SICONOLFI, ROBERT

3671 Ex Parte Cain et al 13785142 - (D) HORNER 102 Chamberlain, Hrdicka, White, Williams & Aughtry, P.C. MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3747 Ex Parte Martin 14068014 - (D) CAPP 102 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL PICON-FELICIANO, RUBEN

3748 Ex Parte Schneeberger 12564877 - (D) GUIJT 102/103 41.50 102/103 IDEPA INC. DAVIS, MARY ALICE

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Dickson et al 13285427 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. ALLADIN, AMBREEN A

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

seid

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte Chen 13422533 - (D) ASTORINO 103 PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./ALCATEL-LUCENT ABRAHAM, SAMANTHA K

3655 Ex Parte Grosskopf et al 13457002 - (D) HUME 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - Hamilton Sundstrand HANSEN, COLBY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Gehret et al 12541364 - (D) WIEDER 112(1)/112(2)/102 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION PATEL, BHARAT C

3741 Ex Parte Cowan et al 13173903 - (D) GUIJT 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY AMAR, MARC J

3744 Ex Parte Masani et al 12550098 - (D) WIEDER 103 ConocoPhillips Company ZEC, FILIP

3762 Ex Parte Goetz 13750832 - (D) GRIMES 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A LEVICKY, WILLIAM J

3763 Ex Parte Reid 13966315 - (D) CAPP 102 DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DITRKEE, LLP MEDWAY, SCOTT J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Thompson et al 13660121 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 103 Cantor Colburn LLP CHU, KATHERINE J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Petri 13054817 - (D) HASTINGS 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC BLADES, JOHN A

Ornamental effects cannot be relied upon as a patentable difference.  See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 231 (CCPA 1947) (matters relating to ornamentation only, which have no mechanical function, cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art)

Seid, In re, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) 2112.01 2144.04

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2153 Ex Parte Kunath et al 14022856 - (D) CHEN 103 Artegis Law Group, LLP - Harman CHOI, YUK TING

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2848 Ex Parte NOMMER et al 12808310 - (D) CUTITTA 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC TRAN, BINH BACH THANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Lu et al 13192576 - (D) MURPHY 101 WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. HAQ, NAEEM U

3631 Ex Parte Kaps et al 13165819 - (D) WIEDER 103 BSH Home Appliances Corporation KRYCINSKI, STANTON L

3646 Ex Parte Gautier et al 12531605 - (D) JESCHKE 103 41.50 101 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP DAVIS, SHARON M

3676 Ex Parte Patel 12986637 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 SCHLUMBERGER ROSHARON CAMPUS GRAY, GEORGE STERLING

3685 Ex Parte Fisher 13650437 - (D) KAISER 103 Michelle Fisher AGWUMEZIE, CHINEDU CHARLES

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Keeley et al 12911562 - (D) HOELTER 103 K&L Gates LLP-Orange County YABUT, DIANE D

3745 Ex Parte Ahmad et al 13002986 - (D) HORNER 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION WOLCOTT, BRIAN P

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Ehrt et al 13817526 - (D) McGEE dissenting NAGUMO 103 Abel Law Group, LLP BOWMAN, ANDREW J

Friday, August 11, 2017

himpp, zurko

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Reynolds 13434463 - (D) CURCURI 103 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - Synaptics SCHNIREL, ANDREW B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Amano 13634354 - (D) MacDONALD 103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP HARE, DAVID R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Iaizzo et al 10876301 - (D) ADAMS 103 41.50 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BERHANU, ETSUB D

Although this

Board has subject matter expertise, [] the Board cannot accept general conclusions about what is “basic knowledge” or “common sense” as a replacement for documentary evidence for core factual findings in a determination of patentability. . . . To hold otherwise would be to embark down a slippery slope which would permit the examining process to deviate from the well-established and time-honored requirement that rejections be supported by evidence. It would also ultimately “render the process of appellate review for substantial evidence on the record a meaningless exercise.”

K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Technologies LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1385—86 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); see generally, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2144.03(C) (“If applicant adequately traverses the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained”).

Zurko, In re, 258 F.3d 1379, 59 USPQ2d 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 2144.03


3779 Ex Parte BANIK et al 14092505 - (D) CAPP 102/103 Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN

3779 Ex Parte Zappia et al 13599929 - (D) CHANG 102 Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC TORRES DIAZ, ARNALDO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Quintard et al 13386342 - (D) SNAY 102/103 112(2) American Air Liquide, Inc. MARKOFF, ALEXANDER

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Manning 13184168 - (D) SNAY 112(2) 102/103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/MICRON NGUYEN, VAN THU T

2865 Ex Parte Schmidt 13132861 - (D) GARRIS 112(2)/101/103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP ISHIZUKA, YOSHIHISA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3649 Ex Parte Wright et al 12765362 - (D) TIMM 112(2) KRATON POLYMERS U.S. LLC KRUER, KEVIN R

3662 Ex Parte Sautron et al 13529204 - (D) LENTIVECH 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. NGUYEN, NGA X

3673 Ex Parte Rensink 13666253 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP KURILLA, ERIC J

3682 Ex Parte Skowronek et al 12052962 - (D) KIM 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP BROWN, ALVIN L

3682 Ex Parte Urban et al 13211079 - (D) KIM 103 101/103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Chi) BOVEJA, NAMRATA

3691 Ex Parte Baldrick et al 13599739 - (D) FINAMORE 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP/VISA CAMPEN, KELLY SCAGGS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Mittermeyer et al 12048647 - (D) BROWNE 103 Tucker Ellis LLP CARPENTER, WILLIAM R

3765 Ex Parte Kaufman 13234624 - (D) REIMERS 112(1) 103 BELZER PC KINSAUL, ANNA KATHRYN

3775 Ex Parte Kubiak et al 12577688 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke) SEVILLA, CHRISTIAN ANTHONY

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte WHITEHOUSE 12976289 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 41.50 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP TRAN, ELLEN C

Thursday, August 10, 2017

bayer4, o'farrell, ksr

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Deighton et al 13054593 - (D) SMITH 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP ALONZO MILLER, RHADAMES J

2859 Ex Parte Brandt et al 12785285 - (D) DENNETT 102/103 Toler Law Group Boeing (TLG) OMAR, AHMED H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Rubens et al 13431312 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

3726 Ex Parte Lambert 13946133 - (D) DOUGAL 102/103 Scott P. Zimmerman, PLLC - Others AVERICK, LAWRENCE

3727 Ex Parte Samuels et al 13608640 - (D) OSINSKI 103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP BERRY, STEPHANIE R

3744 Ex Parte Chamorro et al 12694447 - (D) GUIJT 102/103 Hubbard Johnston, PLLC Lennox International Inc. COMINGS, DANIEL C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Orr et al 13455925 - (D) CASHION 102/103 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY UTT, ETHAN A

1791 Ex Parte Scholz et al 12937536 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 double patenting Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, LLP DICUS, TAMRA

1791 Ex Parte Schwaier et al 13577373 - (D) INGLESE 103 103/double patenting Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) BEKKER, KELLY JO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Buehrle et al 13451576 - (D) CAPP 103 112(2) BSH Home Appliances Corporation ARANT, HARRY E

[A]n invention is not obvious to try where vague prior art does not guide an inventor toward a particular solution. A finding of obviousness would not obtain where “what was ‘obvious to try’ was to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.” [cit. omitted]. This expresses the same idea as the KSR requirement that the identified solutions be “predictable.”

Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 575 F.3d 1341, 1347 (2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988), and KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)).

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 2143.01 2143.02 2144.08 2145

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)  2141 ,   2144.05 ,   2145 ,   2216 ,   2242 ,   2286 ,   2616 ,   2642 ,   2686.04

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte DEURA et al 12345100 - (D) HEANEY 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. POLYANSKY, ALEXANDER

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Hamilton et al 13893129 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 Novel IP FILIPCZYK, MARCIN R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Ratica et al 13298811 - (D) HUME 103 FAY SHARPE LLP TRAN, TONGOC

2449 Ex Parte Newton et al 12773086 - (D) SAADAT 101 103 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC CELANI, NICHOLAS P

2476 Ex Parte KIM et al 14587487 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. GHAFOERKHAN, FAIYAZKHAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Agin 10504082 - (D) HUME 112(1)/103 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (ALU) CAI, WAYNE HUU

2685 Ex Parte Kildal 13090382 - (D) DEJMEK 103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation YU, ROYIT

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte TAKEMURA 14552556 - (D) CASHION 103/double patenting FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) ALROBAIE, KHAMDAN N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Ito 11401950 - (D) YAP 102 101 Foley & Lardner LLP VAN BRAMER, JOHN W

3629 Ex Parte Karabulut et al 11872330 - (D) SILVERMAN 102 101/double patenting FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP) OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

3651 Ex Parte Benedetti et al 13379716 - (D) MELVIN 103 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC SCA Hygiene Products AB RANDALL, JR., KELVIN L

3656 Ex Parte Perry et al 13469656 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 BrooksGroup YABUT, DANIEL D

3662 Ex Parte Barker et al 13852097 - (D) WINSOR 103 HONEYWELL/ADDITON WILLIAMS, KELLY D

3673 Ex Parte Lee 12927654 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. Concurring-In-Part Dissenting-In-Part BAUMEISTER 102 103 IMPERIUM PATENT WORKS ADEBOYEJO, IFEOLU A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte BLUM et al 12969902 - (D) MURPHY 103 112(2)/103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN

3731 Ex Parte Slazas et al 13076474 - (D) FLAX 103/double patenting JOHNSON & JOHNSON YABUT, DIANE D

3732 Ex Parte Walanski et al 12434785 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY NELSON, MATTHEW M

3779 Ex Parte GAVRIELY 13902888 - (D) SCHNEIDER 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP LEUBECKER, JOHN P

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 INPHI CORPORATION Requester v. NETLIST, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7636274 et al 12408652 95001337 - (R) JEFFERY 103 MASCHOFF BRENNAN Third Party Requester: PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP PEIKARI, BEHZAD original SOFOCLEOUS, ALEXANDER

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

KSR, kahn, nuvasive

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Aruga 12811339 - (D) HEANEY 103/double patenting OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. WALKER, KEITH D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Kesling et al 12167295 - (D) LEE 103 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP DEAN, RAYMOND S

As part of the obviousness analysis, particularly when combining teachings from multiple references, we must consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)); In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Kahn, In re, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2143.01 2144

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)  2141 ,   2144.05 ,   2145 ,   2216 ,   2242 ,   2286 ,   2616 ,   2642 ,   2686.04

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Duppert 13428406 - (D) SHAH 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. WAN, DEMING

3762 Ex Parte STEWART et al 13084853 - (D) PRATS 103 Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. D ABREU, MICHAEL JOSEPH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Cafferty et al 13275368 - (D) WIEKER 112(2)/103 103 BSH Home Appliances Corporation CHOU, JIMMY

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte OLEARY 13113785 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103/double patenting Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP COONEY, JOHN M

1767 Ex Parte Inamdar 13612083 - (D) PRAISS 103 Baker & Hostetler LLP HEINCER, LIAM J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3649 Ex Parte Lin et al 11834164 - (D) MURPHY 112(2) 103 FULWIDER PATTON, LLP (ABBOTT) KRUER, KEVIN R

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Requester, v. ACQIS LLC, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7376779 et al 11/166,656 95001475 - (S) SIU 103 COOLEY LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: HAYNES AND BOONE LLP, IP Section BANANKHAH, MAJID A original PHAN, RAYMOND NGAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2624 Ex parte MYPORT IP, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7778440 et al 90013255 - (D) JEFFERY 112(2) 112(1)/112(2)/103 HOWISON & ARNOTT, L.L.P WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original SHERALI, ISHRAT I

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

lahoui, cutsforth

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Wurster et al 14284317 - (D) HUME 102/103 The Marbury Law Group/Qualcomm MEJIA, FELICIANO S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Ackermann et al 13390867 - (D) DROESCH 103 41.50 112(2) HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC FANTU, YALKEW

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Corlett et al 13994263 - (D) BENNETT 103 QUARLES & BRADY LLP NICHOLSON III, LESLIE AUGUST

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Mao et al 12194508 - (D) NEW 103 103 41.50 103 AKA CHAN LLP EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s conclusion because the Examiner has failed to articulate a  reason as to why such a difference in thicknesses would be an obvious design choice to a person of ordinary skill. See, e.g., Ex Parte Nizar Lahoui, Appeal 2016-006912, 2017 WL 818785, at *2 (PTAB, February 27, 2017) (stating that a particular placement of an element is a design choice does not make it obvious; a reason must be offered as to why a skilled artisan would have made the specific design choice). 

However, merely asserting that the change is an obvious design choice is insufficient. See Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., 636 Fed. Appx. 575, 578 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (stating that a particular placement of an element is a design choice does not make it obvious; a reason must be offered as to why a skilled artisan would have made the specific design choice).

3732 Ex Parte Dacremont 12865810 - (D) ADAMS 103 112(2)/103 LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2488 Ex Parte Jain 14476585 - (D) HUME 102/103 International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C. AYNALEM, NATHNAEL B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Baumgarten et al 12449321 - (D) WIEDER 103 HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC CRAWLEY, TALIA F

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2136 Ex Parte Gissel et al 13159119 - (D) JEFFERY 103 PATENT PORTFOLIO BUILDERS, PLLC TSAI, SHENG JEN

Monday, August 7, 2017

buszard

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Volk et al 14020438 - (D) GARRIS 103 Walter Ottesen, P.A. FISCHER, JUSTIN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Boes et al 13826022 - (D) HOFFMANN 102 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL ANWARI, MACEEH

3678 Ex Parte Ward 13696835 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102/103 SHELL OIL COMPANY LEMBO, AARON LLOYD

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Krikorian et al 13742907 - (D) FREDMAN 112(2)/103 Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP (Sybron) MORAN, EDWARD JOHN

 We therefore agree with Appellants that it is not a reasonable interpretation to equate “tubular” with “trough-like” and therefore it is unreasonable to equate the “tubular” structure of claim 20 with the trough shown by Weissman (FF 4). See, e.g., In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[I]t is not a reasonable claim interpretation to equate “flexible” with “rigid”).


AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Bui et al 13171831 - (D) PRATS 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. CAO, PING

Friday, August 4, 2017

kalm

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte SATO et al 14138602 - (D) BEST 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. AUER, LAURA A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Cui et al 12485160 - (D) WARNER 103 SERVILLA WHITNEY LLC/AMT PAIK, SANG YEOP

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1776 Ex Parte Alexander et al 12565592 - (D) INGLESE 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. MCKENZIE, THOMAS B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte KAMODA 13655647 - (D) DELMENDO 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP OLAMIT, JUSTIN N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Adams et al 11621852 - (D) KIM 101 Rolnik Law Firm, P.C. IBM Corp. (END/RCR) NGUYEN, TAN D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Beyar et al 11194411 - (D) NEW 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP PREBILIC, PAUL B

See In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness). 

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 MEDTRONIC, INC. Requester and Cross-appellant v. Patent of ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC. Patent Owner and Cross-Appellant Ex Parte 8,015,025 B2 et al 11/560,011 95002172 - (D) HOFF 103 41.77 103 Robert Bosch LLC For THIRD PARTY REQUESTER Merchant & Gould PC WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original FRENEL, VANEL

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 OLDCASTLE LAWN & GARDEN, INC., Requester v. ENCAP, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,874,101 B2 et al 12/660,804 95001964 - (D) GUEST 102 WEISS & WEISS THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP FETSUGA, ROBERT M original PALO, FRANCIS T

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

leo, wright, iron grip, nike

custom search

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex parte Dane Technologies, Inc. Ex Parte 7493979 et al 12/125,138 90013576 - (D) MARTIN 112(1)/112(2) Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. ENGLISH, PETER C original SWENSON, BRIAN L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH OF THE COMMOMWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION (Patent Owner and Appellant) v. CELLERIX (Requester and Cross-Appellant) Ex Parte 6,777,231 et al 09/936,665 95001592 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(2)/102 112(1)/101/103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original KETTER, JAMES S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex parte Dane Technologies, Inc. Ex Parte 7389836 et al 10/947,831 90013575 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. ENGLISH, PETER C original SWENSON, BRIAN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION Requester, Respondent v. FELLOWES, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7631822 et al 11/444,491 95001736 - (D) SONG 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP SPAHN, GAY original MILLER, BENA B

Moreover, while noting that “Leo Pharmaceutical discusses the number of years that passed from the time the prior art was invented until the filing of the patent at issue,” the Federal Circuit recently explained in Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG:

our reversal of the Patent Board’s obviousness determination [in Leo Pharmaceutical] hinged on the fact that nothing in the cited prior art appreciated the problem the invention recognized and then solved. Id. at 1353 . . . . Because there was no prior recognition of the problem solved by the subject invention, there was no reason in the record why one of skill in the art would attempt to combine the cited prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.  Id. at 1354 . . . ; see also id. at 1356–57 . . . .

In this way, our decision in Leo Pharmaceutical is entirely consistent with established precedent that “[t]he mere age of the references is not persuasive of the unobviousness of the combination of their teachings, absent evidence that, notwithstanding knowledge of the references, the art tried and failed to solve the problem.”  In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977); see also Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2004) . . . . Leo Pharmaceutical recognizes the natural consequence of this idea: Persons of skill in the art cannot have tried and failed to solve the problem if they were never aware of that problem to begin with. Thus, the number of years that passed between the prior art and the claimed invention may be a relevant factor to underscore that skilled artisans had long failed to appreciate the problem solved by that invention. Here, there is no question that skilled artisans knew of the desire to reduce waste when producing wearable, knitted shoe uppers because that problem is expressly recognized in Nishida. Thus, Leo Pharmaceutical does not control the present case.

Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

3766 Ex parte KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 5,607,454 et al 08/227,553 90013483 - (D) SONG 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: COOLEY LLP ATTN: PATENT GROUP DAWSON, GLENN K original SCHAETZLE, KENNEDY

3788 Ex parte John T. Ziemba Ex Parte 8418852 et al 12/798,764 90013486 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 ERNEST D. BUFF AND ASSOCIATES, LLC. FETSUGA, ROBERT M original CHU, KING M