SEARCH

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

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

kao, kollman, cree

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Preisler et al 13762956 - (D) DENNETT 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DANIELS, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2482 Ex Parte AUGST 12725153 - (D) CRAIG 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Wepfer et al 13272524 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC LIN, KO-WEI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Leininger et al 12304535 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) PALENIK, JEFFREY T

1617 Ex Parte Woeller et al 13499861 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 41.50 103 Abel Law Group, LLP ZHANG, YANZHI

“An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut that case.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011). When unexpected results are proffered by Appellants, Appellants must “provide [] an adequate basis to support the conclusion that other embodiments falling within the claim will behave in the same manner” in order to “establish that the evidence is commensurate with [the] scope of the claims.” Id. at 1068. One data point is insufficient to “to ascertain a trend in the exemplified data which would allow [one having ordinary skill in the art] to reasonably extend the probative value thereof.” In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (Fed. Cir. 1979).

Kao, In re, 639 F.3d 1057, 98 USPQ2d 1799 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2111.05 2112.01 2153.02

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(d) 

1621 Ex Parte Huang et al 13989016 - (D) ADAMS 103 Parker Highlander PLLC MATOS NEGRON, TAINA DEL MAR

1653 Ex Parte Wang et al 13320585 - (D) FREDMAN 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP MARTIN, PAUL C

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Noar 12865765 - (D) DENNETT 103 Acuity Law Group, P.C. PENNY, TABATHA L

1756 Ex Parte Berke et al 11734118 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 BOWDITCH & DEWEY, LLP DINH, BACH T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Kuether et al 11931450 - (D) FISHMAN 103 AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP] ALAM, MUSHFIKH I

2492 Ex Parte Zhang 14494844 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 HAMILTON DESANCTIS & CHA LLP KORSAK, OLEG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Kristensson et al 13514440 - (D) CAPP 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LOUIS, LATOYA M

We think the Examiner has articulated adequate non-hindsight reasoning to sustain the rejection. Id. See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

No comments :