SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label clay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clay. Show all posts

Thursday, July 19, 2018

bigio, clay

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte ITO 14548727 - (D) KRIVAK 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte KIM et al 14329539 - (D) KRIVAK 101/102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. CHANG, TOM Y

2465 Ex Parte Centonza et al 14385784 - (D) KHAN 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson WILLIAMS, ELTON S

2483 Ex Parte Chen et al 13812187 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL

2493 Ex Parte GROCUTT et al 13735350 - (D) BUSCH 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. LAYELLE, GARY E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Kohn et al 13991520 - (D) BARRY 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP YANG, JAMES J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Cases et al 12628245 - (D) HANLON 103 LENOVO COMPANY (LENOVO-KLS) c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP MAYO III, WILLIAM H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Vallone 13730075 - (D) BUI 101 Anthony J. Vallone WINSTON III, EDWARD B

3634 Ex Parte Teichert 13001119 - (D) CAPP 102 MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP BRADFORD, CANDACE L

3674 Ex Parte Santa et al 13914061 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) SKAIST, AVI T.

At the outset, we note that: 

[ t ]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. 

In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). As for the first test, "[ t ]h[ e field of endeavor] test for analogous art requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention's subject matter in the patent application,  including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention." Bigio at 1325-26 (emphasis added). As for the second test, "a reference is reasonably pertinent if, ... it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). 

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a) 2173.01

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Högnason et al 13266287 - (D) PESLAK 102/103 Workman Nydegger STAPLETON, ERIC S

3745 Ex Parte Houston 13660455 - (D) PESLAK 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY FLORES, JUAN G

3747 Ex Parte Jade et al 13621433 - (D) STEPINA 102 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch) VILAKAZI, SIZO BINDA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Horiuchi et al 13304290 - (D) BUSCH 103 103 GRASSO PLLC WU, TSUNG YIN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2684 Ex Parte Peterson et al 14585224 - (D) WINSOR 103 103 41.50 103 Morris & Kamlay LLP / 030120 FOXX, CHICO A

2697 Ex Parte Osborn et al 12906025 - (D) PINKERTON 103 112(1) APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA MANDEVILLE, JASON M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte INABA 14228834 - (D) OSINSKI 102/103 103 HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP MILLS JR., JOE E

3762 Ex Parte Stobrawa et al 13145759 - (D) McCARTHY 101/103 101 PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. JENNESS, NATHAN JAY

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Aberg et al 13744807 - (D) McGEE 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP STRONG, TORI

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Cremer et al 14095217 - (D) RANGE 103 CORNING INCORPORATED EMPIE, NATHAN H

1727 Ex Parte Jeoung et al 14024545 - (D) ROSS 103 Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP MCCONNELL, WYATTP

1733 Ex Parte Larsson 13132974 - (D) OWENS 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC WU, JENNY R

1742 Ex Parte Hada et al 14130222 - (D) HANLON 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP VARGOT, MATHIEU D

1789 Ex Parte Sadato 12441024 - (D) McMANUS 103 W. L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. JOHNSON, JENNA LEIGH

1797 Ex Parte Kanai et al 14088226 - (D) INGLESE Dissenting OWENS 103 Cheng Law Group, PLLC HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Chen et al 13381555 - (D) BUI 101 Howard L. Speight CRAIG, DWIN M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte JEONG et al 14449617 - (D) CHUNG 103 Jefferson IP Law, LLP REDDIVALAM, SRINIVASA R

2484 Ex Parte Murphy 10522146 - (D) MacDONALD 112(1) 103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP SHIBRU, HELEN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Huque et al 13583166 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 112(2)/103 Seed IP Law Group LLP/ST (EP ORIGINATING) DU, HUNG K

2666 Ex Parte Misra et al 15040718 - (D) MORGAN 102/OTDP FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (Dolby) LIU, LI

2666 Ex Parte Misra et al 14305787 - (D) MORGAN 102/OTDP FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (Dolby) LIU, LI

2692 Ex Parte Gates et al 15349668 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 Greenberg Traurig, LLP DINH, DUC Q

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Krapf et al 13819048 - (D) PRAISS 102/103 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP MCANDREW, CHRISTOPHER P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte GU et al 13667084 - (D) BEAMER 103 101 PITNEY BOWES INC. TSUI, ALFRED H

3624 Ex Parte David et al 11971668 - (D) MORGAN 112(2)/101/103 TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP YESILDAG, MEHMET

3625 Ex Parte Novak et al 13828481 - (D) CHEN 101/103 Mahamedi IP Law LLP (Uber) RAMPHAL, LATASHA DEVI

3628 Ex Parte Irby et al 11226653 - (D) LORIN 103 101 Zilka-Kotab, PC - AMDC CAMPBELL, SHANNON S

3628 Ex Parte LeCompte et al 13531669 - (D) McCARTNEY 101 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. VETTER, DANIEL

3629 Ex Parte Bhasin et al 13931471 - (D) DEJMEK 112(1)/103 101/OTDP Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner I Linkedln/Microsoft WHITAKER, ANDREW B

3682 Ex Parte Spooner et al 13090997 - (D) WIEDER 101/103 103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Fox STOLTENBERG, DAVID J

3683 Ex Parte Wu et al 14549329 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 101 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC) PADOT, TIMOTHY

3688 Ex Parte GLASER 13275108 - (D) BAUMEISTER 101 Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt/SFC-FC RETTA, YEHDEGA

3689 Ex Parte Bhagat et al 11081898 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 101 IBM CORPORATION C/O: Fabian Vancott NGUYEN, TAND

3696 Ex Parte Driscoll 13613446 - (D) THOMAS 101 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. BOVEJA, NAMRATA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Patterson 12945946 - (D) STEPINA 101 The Law Office of Robert E. Purcell, PLLC GARNER, WERNER G

3715 Ex Parte Lynam 11623379 - (D) MARSCHALL 103 101 Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP/TAF BULLINGTON, ROBERT P

3737 Ex Parte Zhu et al 13904940 - (D) PRATS 103 Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. c/o Lowe Graham Jones CWERN, JONATHAN

Monday, November 2, 2015

clay, circuitcheck

custom search

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 UNO & COMPANY, LTD., JINNY BEAUTY SUPPLY CO., INC and JBS HAIR, INC. Requesters and Cross-Appellants v. KANEKA CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,759,430 B2 et al 11/345,952 95001653 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP Third Party Requester FENWICK & WEST LLP KUNZ, GARY L oroginal DOLLINGER, MICHAEL M

“[A] reference is reasonably pertinent if… it is one which because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). However, not “all systems and methods within the common knowledge [can be transformed] into analogous prior art simply by stating that anyone would have known of such a system or method.” CircuitCheck Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The court in Circuit Check stated: “The question is not whether simple concepts such as rock carvings, engraved signage, or Prussian Blue dye are within the knowledge of lay people or even within the knowledge of a person of Appeal 2015-003841 Reexamination Control No. 95/001,653 US 7,759,430 B2 9 ordinary skill in the art. Rather, the question is whether an inventor would look to this particular art to solve the particular problem at hand.” Id.

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP. and RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD. Requesters v. INNOVATIVE SONIC LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte RE40077 et al 11/247,003 95002157 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C. Third Party: OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP CORSARO, NICK original LY, ANH VU H

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

medichem, gurley, scientific plastic, clay, innovention toys

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Howard et al 11593958 - (D) GARRIS 103 E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY CHOI, PETER Y

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Goodman et al 10730227 - (D) BAHR 103 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION PATEL, DHAIRYA A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2686 Ex Parte Yu et al 12480944 - (D) HUME 102 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP HINDI, NABIL Z

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte HONG et al 12143255 - (D) HASTINGS 103 H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC LEE, PAUL CHANG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Okuniewicz 11057801 - (D) HILL 103 BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP THOMAS, ERIC M

3724 Ex Parte Claus et al 12174058 - (D) WOODS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR

“When a piece of prior art ‘suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant’ the piece of prior art is said to ‘teach away’ from the claimed invention.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).

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

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Cook et al 11469645 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 102/103 JEANNE E. LONGMUIR PAGE, EVAN RANDALL

3776 Ex Parte TRAN 11767499 - (D) BAHR 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) THOMAS J. TIGHE, ESQ. DOAN, ROBYN KIEU

The Federal Circuit has explained that “[t]he analogous art inquiry is a factual one, requiring inquiry into the similarities of the problems and the closeness of the subject matter as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Scientific Plastic Prods., Inc. v. Biotage AB, 766 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Criteria for determining whether prior art is analogous may be summarized as “(1) whether the art is form the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. at 1359 (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). A reference is reasonably pertinent if . . . it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness
rejection. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Clay, 966 F.2d at 659).

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte SCHOEN et al 12545139 - (D) GRIMES 103 MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. EPPS -SMITH, JANET L

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Buck et al 11731880 - (D) GARRIS 103 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company WEISS, PAMELA HL

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Pandya et al 11638412 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. HO, BINH VAN

2164 Ex Parte Murthy 11442002 - (D) DANG 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE OHBA, MELLISSA M

2164 Ex Parte GROSS 11856202 - (D) HUME 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. QUADER, FAZLUL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Lee et al 12050477 - (D) BUNTING 103 Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC NGUYEN, THU V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Schaich et al 11608182 - (D) HUME 112(1)/102/103 Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC LI, SHI K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte LEE 12856148 - (D) HASTINGS 103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP GANNON, LEVI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte McIntyre et al 11297785 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2667 EC DATA SYSTEMS, INC. Requester v. j2 GLOBAL, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7020132 et al 10/393,227 95002002 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP Third Party Requester: Hamilton, DeSanctis & Cha LLP CORSARO, NICK original HOANG, THAI D

Thursday, June 26, 2014

ICON, clay

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte CHATEL 11945834 - (D) ABRAHAM 112(1)/103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP LATHAM, SAEEDA MONEE

For a reference to be “reasonably pertinent,” it must “logically [] have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). 

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08 (2141.01(a)(I))

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Christenson 11874264 - (D) CRAWFORD 102/103 IBM CORPORATION DESAI, MARGISHI V

2491 Ex Parte Venkatsubra et al 11334658 - (D) ASTORINO 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C. GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2865 Ex Parte Jung et al 11245492 - (D) SAADAT 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC HENSON, MISCHITA L

2872 Ex Parte Knittel et al 11974789 - (D) WILSON 103 Jack Schwartz & Associates, PLLC CHWASZ, JADE R

2872 Ex Parte Kingston et al 12243343 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated WILKES, ZACHARY W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Batot et al 11523200 - (D) CRAWFORD 102/103 IBM CORPORATION ANDERSON, FOLASHADE

3684 Ex Parte Hesselink 12853239 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(2)/103 WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION CIVAN, ETHAN D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Vogel et al 11412482 - (D) BAHR 103 FLETCHER YODER MAYE, AYUB A

3745 Ex Parte Borgen 10599109 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 Abel IP AS EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 12245083 - (D) BUI 102/103 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC LANIER, BENJAMIN E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Beletski et al 11949290 - (D) BAHR 102 112(1)/102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. AMIN, BHAVESH V

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1758 Ex Parte Cousins et al 12233819 - (D) GARRIS 103 SunPower/ BSTZ Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP MERSHON, JAYNE L

1778 Ex Parte Mei et al 12839136 - (D) BEST 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. KURTZ, BENJAMIN M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte George et al 11519178 - (D) STRAUSS 102 GEORGE MADATHILPARAMBIL GEORGE ELMORE, REBA I

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Jung et al 10844564 - (D) SAADAT 112(1)/112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC SURVILLO, OLEG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Ma et al 10803225 - (D) OWENS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FREEMAN, SHEMA TAIAN

REHEARING

DENIED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Grosset et al 11609531 - (D) FETTING 103 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. LIN, SHEW FEN

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3614 Ex parte BEACON NAVIGATION, GMBH Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 5819201 et al 08/713,625 90012382 - (D) EVANS 102/103 LEE & HAYES, PLLC LIE, ANGELA M original LOUIS JACQUES, JACQUES H

Thursday, February 13, 2014

clay, antor media, datamize, seattle box

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Dao et al 11347404 - (D) BUI 102 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC TRAN, BAO G

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Erceg et al 12264472 - (D) COURTENAY 103 GARLICK & MARKISON BAIG, ADNAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Cruz-Hernandez et al 10926644 - (D) STRAUSS 103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP ZHOU, HONG

To be considered in an obviousness analysis the art must be analogous “prior art” which means the prior art must be in either the same field of Appellants’ endeavor or reasonably pertinent to Appellants’ problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Whether a prior art reference is “analogous” is a question of fact. Id. at 658. The Examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Parmater’s exercise device providing adjustable head resistance as being in the same field of endeavor as Appellants’ apparatus.

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08
DONNER 8: 262, 267, 275, 283
HARMON 4: 162; 20: 163

2659 Ex Parte Wu 11558145 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) GUERRA-ERAZO, EDGAR X

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Kouvetakis et al 11969689 - (D) GARRIS 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP GUPTA, RAJ R

The Examiner is correct that the prior art printed publications Roucka and Jorgenson are presumptively enabling. In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, when an applicant challenges enablement of a reference, applicant's evidence and argument must be thoroughly reviewed to determine if the reference is enabling. Id., 689 F.3d at 1292.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Schwan 10518369 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. PAINTER, BRANON C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Ingram et al 11860994 - (D) ABRAMS 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) EDWARD S. WRIGHT LONG, ROBERT FRANKLIN

The term “enhanced” is a word of degree, and “when a word of degree is used [a court] must determine
whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). ... Thus, an unrestrained, subjective construction of “strands having enhanced gripping properties” “would not notify the public of the
patentee’s right to exclude since the meaning of the claim language would depend on the unpredictable vagaries of any one person’s opinion . . . . While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a claim term, to be definite, requires an objective anchor.” Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1350.

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)
Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2173.05(b)
DONNER 10: 290, 292, 566; 14: 31, 53, 54, 442
HARMON 5: 272, 274; 13: 235; 18: 289, 307, 314

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Schmidl et al 11360654 - (D) SHIANG 103 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED HSIUNG, HAI-CHANG

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Huck 11717701 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC TSVEY, GENNADIY

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Wan et al 10906513 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC CHOI, YUK TING

2193 Ex Parte Harvey et al 11674893 - (D) KUMAR 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller, PLLC VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte CHOI et al 12133946 - (D) KRIVAK 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC LEWIS, JONATHAN V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Amizic et al 12427387 - (D) FISHMAN 102/obviousness-type double patenting Zenith Electronics LLC PUENTE, EVA YI ZHENG

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Daneshvar 11731945 - (R) ADAMS 103 Yousef Daneshvar, MD FACC. SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 SOLVAY S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1660 6,730,817 09/051,746 DYK dissenting NEWMAN 102(g)(2) Williams & Connolly LLP; Kirkland & Ellis LLP original NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP PRICE, ELVIS O

Thursday, December 13, 2012

brana, bigio, clay, innovention toys

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Senga et al 11818783 - (D) GRIMES 112(1) Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz AEDER, SEAN E

Nonetheless, “[u]sefulness in patent law, and in particular in the context of pharmaceutical inventions, necessarily includes the expectation of further research and development.” In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Although the Brana court referred to usefulness, the rejection on appeal was based on nonenablement. See 51 F.3d at 1564.)

Brana, In re, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995) , 2107.01, 2107.03, 2164.01(c), 2107.02, 2164.02, 2164.04, 2164.07  

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Dheap et al 11390398 - (D) WEINBERG Dissenting SMITH 103 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, L.L.P. LE, JESSICA N

2164 Ex Parte Kwan 11222321 - (D) JEFFERY 112(2)/103 IBM ENDICOTT (ANTHONY ENGLAND) GEBRESENBET, DINKU W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Sano et al 10909109 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP TIV, BACKHEAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2657 Ex Parte Lee et al 10891423 - (D) DROESCH 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP NEWAY, SAMUEL G

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Herremans et al 11427599 - (D) THOMAS 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. PATEL, HARSHAD R

2887 Ex Parte Johnson et al 11641556 - (D) PETTIGREW 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 JENKINS, WILSON, TAYLOR & HUNT, P. A. VO, TUYEN KIM

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Ruehl 11279321 - (D) SPAHN 103 GODFREY & KAHN S.C. GILBERT, WILLIAM V

3635 Ex Parte Lyngstad 10492867 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. MICHENER, JOSHUA J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Henriksson 10592601 - (D) ABRAMS 103 HOLTZ, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK PC CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

3721 Ex Parte Denney et al 11401116 - (D) BAHR 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

3721 Ex Parte Irwin 10835327 - (D) RICE 103 Wells St. John P.S. WEEKS, GLORIA R

3721 Ex Parte Nicolantonio et al 10959796 - (D) KAMHOLZ 102 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY WEEKS, GLORIA R

3737 Ex Parte Haider 10742283 - (D) DILLON 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY MEHTA, PARIKHA SOLANKI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Mehra 10694323 - (D) CURCURI 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 CHEMTURA CORPORATION Requester v. ALBEMARLE CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant 95000391 6,958,423 09/888,246 GUEST 102/103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP JONES, DWAYNE C original BADIO, BARBARA P

1618 Ex Parte Kling 10440395 - (D) SCHEINER 103 WINSTEAD PC VU, JAKE MINH

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Rosenbloom et al 11167587 - (D) KUMAR 102 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. BATAILLE, PIERRE MICHE

2191 Ex Parte Dye et al 10772518 - (D) ZECHER 103 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel PC CHEN, QING

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte James et al 11097724 - (D) HOMERE 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. TILAHUN, ALAZAR

2427 Ex Parte Townsend et al 11403869 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q

2465 Ex Parte Limaye et al 10284619 - (D) SMITH 103 Wilson & Ham ZHU, BO HUI ALVIN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Da Palma et al 10734866 - (D) NEW 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP COLUCCI, MICHAEL C

A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. Innovention Toys, LLC, v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08

2687 Ex Parte Ho et al 11297767 - (D) BENOIT 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC HEINZ, ALLEN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Chen et al 12055010 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 ALIGN TECHNOLOGY C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP MAI, HAO D

3768 Ex Parte Hardy et al 10955630 - (D) BAHR 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY WEATHERBY, ELLSWORTH

Thursday, November 8, 2012

thibault, clay, dunn, innovention toys

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Tam et al 11393218 - (D) GARRIS 103 HONEYWELL/DLA PIPER ROGERS, MARTIN K

1772 Ex Parte Wohltjen 11474532 - (D) METZ 112(1)/112(2)/103 LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP KILPATRICK, BRYAN T

1791 Ex Parte Lykomitros et al 12021959 - (D) GARRIS 103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP DEGUIRE, KATHERINE E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Thiessen et al 10607892 - (D) WEINBERG 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LIANG, LEONARD S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Herrmann 11735253 - (D) TORCZON 103 112(a) GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC CULLEN, SEAN P

In Thibault, the board explained that

If the apparatus as claimed is not fully described in [the prior art], it differs so little therefrom as to be obvious to the designer of apparatus. The purpose to which the apparatus is to be put and the numerous expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.

Thibault does not reproduce the apparatus claim in question, but expressly finds that it is very closely the same as the prior art. Thibault, thus, does not create a per se rule that contents and mode of operation never count, but rather simply holds that when disclosed structures are essentially the same and the contents and use would have been obvious from the prior-art structure, the lack of an express teaching of content and use will not prevent anticipation. In short, Thibault's holding cannot be abstracted from its context. Today, we might say that the prior art apparatus was capable of containing and operating as claimed.

Thibault, Ex parte, 164 USPQ 666 (Bd. App. 1969) 2115

1729 Ex Parte Owens et al 11643392 - (D) TIMM 103 103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC DAVIS, PATRICIA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2485 Ex Parte Gordon 10871657 - (D) JEFFERY 102 102 Broadcom/BHGL LEE, Y YOUNG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Petereit et al 10532831 - (D) BONILLA 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. WESTERBERG, NISSA M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Albright 12290333 - (D) KIMLIN 103 Robert W. Mulcahy, Esq. SCHIFFMAN, BENJAMIN A

1762 Ex Parte Zhou et al 11260749 - (D) McKELVEY 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY REDDICK, MARIE L

1789 Ex Parte Dumond 11741266 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 O'Shea Getz P.C. ORTIZ, ANGELA Y

Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting a reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness analysis only when it is analogous to the claimed invention (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992))). If a reference is in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is still considered analogous art if it deals with a matter which logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2655 Ex Parte Disange et al 11014063 - (D) HOMERE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. PAUL, DISLER

Teaching an alternative or equivalent method, however, does not teach away from the use of a claimed method. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 438 (CCPA 1965).

Dunn, In re, 349 F.2d 433, 146 USPQ 479 (CCPA 1965) 804.02

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 Ex Parte Schippers et al 11753368 - (D) KOHUT 103 Trop, Pruner & Hu, P.C. RADKE, JAY W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Burgdorf et al 11182303 - (D) ASTORINO 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F