custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Verfaillie et al 10561826 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. WANG, CHANG YU
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Weismantel et al 12065123 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M
Determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves two analytical steps: (1) the Board must interpret the claim language; and (2) the Board must then compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference."
Yorkey v. Diab, 605 F.3d 1297 (2010) (quoting In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998) (alteration in original))).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Xydis 09997299 - (D) HOMERE 103 103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC PICH, PONNOREAY
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Lunak et al 11423060 - (D) KAMHOLZ concurring SCANLON 103 103 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Buehlmeyer et al 12084162 - (D) OWENS 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION CORMIER, DAVID G
1733 Ex Parte Ougi et al 10855868 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. YANG, JIE
The elimination of a feature disclosed by the prior art, along with its attendant function, is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art. Application of Thompson, 545 F. 2d 1290, 1294 (CCPA 1976) Application of Kuhle, 526 F. 2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)
1782 Ex Parte Bartley et al 11840467 - (D) McKELVEY 103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN
1793 Ex Parte DeSmidt et al 10918892 - (D) KIMLIN 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. WONG, LESLIE A
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Kwon et al 11226693 - (D) JEFFERY 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. LUONG, ALAN H
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Chambers et al 10951930 - (D) KOHUT 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FISHMAN, LLP GENACK, MATTHEW W
2645 Ex Parte Link et al 11541916 - (D) McKONE 103 O'Shea, Getz & Kosakowski, P.C. MILLER, BRANDON J
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Nathans et al 10392849 - (D) TURNER 103 Pay Rent, Build Credit, Inc. MONFELDT, SARAH M
In sustaining a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Board may rely on one reference alone without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, (CCPA 1966).
Showing posts with label crish. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crish. Show all posts
Friday, December 7, 2012
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Wednesday December 1, 2010
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Adkesson et al 10/839,188 PRATS GRIMES GREEN 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER KEYS, ROSALYND ANN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Muhs et al 10/824,291 COLAIANNI GARRIS HANLON 103(a) ORNL-UTB-LUEDEKA, NEELY & GRAHAM EXAMINER MOWLA, GOLAM
"[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Segner et al 10/632,145 GRIMES ADAMS GREEN 102(b)/103(a) POPOVICH, WILES & O'CONNELL, PA EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte MacNeil et al 11/797,365 6,550,486 COLAIANNI KIMLIN TIMM 103(a)VERMETTE & CO. EXAMINER STINSON, FRANKIE L
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Pearson et al 10/080,479 LORIN CRAWFORD FISCHETTI 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J
A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) involves two analytical steps. FN6 First, the Board must interpret the claim language, where necessary. Because the PTO is entitled to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, our review of the Board's claim construction is limited to determining whether it was reasonable. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed.Cir.1997). Secondly, the Board must compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference." Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181
Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . 2123, 2131.05
Crish, In re, 393 F.3d 1253, 73 USPQ2d1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.03, 2112
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Dlugos 11/182,070 STAICOVICI KERINS SILVERBERG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER LACYK, JOHN P
3754 Ex Parte Lassota 10/819,828 LEE TORCZON LANE 103(a) JAMES W. POTTHAST LAW OFFICES OF POTTHAST & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER CARTAGENA, MELVIN A
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1755 ICE BAN AMERICA, INC. & EARTH FRIENDLY CHEMICALS, INC. Requesters v. Patent of SEARS ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS CO., LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,136 6,299,793 DELMENDO TORCZON LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) For Patent Owner: MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP For Third Party Requesters: JAMES J. KELLY OBLON SPIVAK MCCELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER GREEN, ANTHONY J
“In civil litigation, a challenger who attacks the validity of patent claims must overcome the presumption of validity [under 35 U.S.C. § 282] with clear and convincing evidence that the patent is invalid.” In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “If this statutory burden is not met, “‘[c]ourts do not find patents ‘valid,’ only that the patent challenger did not carry the ‘burden of establishing invalidity in the particular case before the court.’’” Id. (quoting Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1429 n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). By contrast, “[i]n PTO examinations and reexaminations, the standard of proof – a preponderance of the evidence – is substantially lower than in a civil case.” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377 (citation omitted). Also, “unlike in district courts, in reexamination proceedings ‘[c]laims are given ‘their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification . . . .’’” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377-78 (internal citations omitted). Thus, “[t]he two forums take different approaches in determining validity and on the same evidence could quite correctly come to different conclusions.” Ethicon, 849 F.2d at 1428. Moreover, the PTO was not a party to the patent infringement action and thus cannot be estopped by its holdings. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297-98 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 7 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . .1442.02, 2242,2286, 2642, 2686.04
Trans Texas Holdings Corp., In re, 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2286, 2686.04
AFFIRMED
1612 Ex Parte Buck et al 11/328,247 MILLS EXAMINER SUTTON, DARRYL C
3612 Ex Parte Compton et al 11/202,793 BAHR EXAMINER BLACK, MELISSA ANN
1633 Ex Parte Cosenza 10/735,203 WALSH EXAMINER WEHBE, ANNE MARIE SABRINA
1628 Ex Parte Ebens et al 11/141,344 MILLS EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
1782 Ex Parte Elder et al 10/931,021 LANE EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A
1785 Ex Parte Hansson et al 10/440,317 TIERNEY EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L
3686 Ex Parte Hartlaub 10/002,669 FETTING EXAMINER I NAJARIAN, LENA
2456 Ex Parte Huynh et al 10/611,698 DANG EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
2123 Ex Parte Kalley 09/983,597 BARRY EXAMINER PROCTOR, JASON SCOTT
1627 Ex Parte Levy et al 11/529,199 GREEN EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN
2193 Ex Parte MacInnis et al 10/786,195 J. THOMAS EXAMINER MALZAHN, DAVID H
1618 Ex Parte Pandey et al 11/431,275 GREEN EXAMINER JONES, DAMERON LEVEST
3731 Ex Parte Simonson 10/899,707 McCARTHY EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANH TUAN TUONG
1656 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/360,284 WALSH EXAMINER DESAI, ANAND U
REHEARING DENIED
1729 Ex Parte Fujikawa et al 11/437,328 FRANKLIN EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG
2174 Ex Parte Hackbarth et al 09/886,876 BLANKENSHIP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F
1742 Ex Parte Klotz 10/403,545 FRANKLIN EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D
3621 Ex Parte Marcon 10/266,660 LORIN EXAMINER FISCHER, ANDREW J
1649 Ex Parte Schenk 10/777,792 WALSH EXAMINER KOLKER, DANIEL E
3732 Ex Parte Shluzas et al 10/926,579 PATE III EXAMINER MAI, HAO D
1746 Ex Parte Sjoberg et al 11/129,497 KIMLIN EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L
1781 Ex Parte Zeller 10/919,472 KRATZ EXAMINER HEGGESTAD, HELEN F
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Adkesson et al 10/839,188 PRATS GRIMES GREEN 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER KEYS, ROSALYND ANN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Muhs et al 10/824,291 COLAIANNI GARRIS HANLON 103(a) ORNL-UTB-LUEDEKA, NEELY & GRAHAM EXAMINER MOWLA, GOLAM
"[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Segner et al 10/632,145 GRIMES ADAMS GREEN 102(b)/103(a) POPOVICH, WILES & O'CONNELL, PA EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte MacNeil et al 11/797,365 6,550,486 COLAIANNI KIMLIN TIMM 103(a)VERMETTE & CO. EXAMINER STINSON, FRANKIE L
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Pearson et al 10/080,479 LORIN CRAWFORD FISCHETTI 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J
A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) involves two analytical steps. FN6 First, the Board must interpret the claim language, where necessary. Because the PTO is entitled to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, our review of the Board's claim construction is limited to determining whether it was reasonable. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed.Cir.1997). Secondly, the Board must compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference." Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181
Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . 2123, 2131.05
Crish, In re, 393 F.3d 1253, 73 USPQ2d1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.03, 2112
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Dlugos 11/182,070 STAICOVICI KERINS SILVERBERG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER LACYK, JOHN P
3754 Ex Parte Lassota 10/819,828 LEE TORCZON LANE 103(a) JAMES W. POTTHAST LAW OFFICES OF POTTHAST & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER CARTAGENA, MELVIN A
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1755 ICE BAN AMERICA, INC. & EARTH FRIENDLY CHEMICALS, INC. Requesters v. Patent of SEARS ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS CO., LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,136 6,299,793 DELMENDO TORCZON LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) For Patent Owner: MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP For Third Party Requesters: JAMES J. KELLY OBLON SPIVAK MCCELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER GREEN, ANTHONY J
“In civil litigation, a challenger who attacks the validity of patent claims must overcome the presumption of validity [under 35 U.S.C. § 282] with clear and convincing evidence that the patent is invalid.” In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “If this statutory burden is not met, “‘[c]ourts do not find patents ‘valid,’ only that the patent challenger did not carry the ‘burden of establishing invalidity in the particular case before the court.’’” Id. (quoting Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1429 n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). By contrast, “[i]n PTO examinations and reexaminations, the standard of proof – a preponderance of the evidence – is substantially lower than in a civil case.” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377 (citation omitted). Also, “unlike in district courts, in reexamination proceedings ‘[c]laims are given ‘their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification . . . .’’” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377-78 (internal citations omitted). Thus, “[t]he two forums take different approaches in determining validity and on the same evidence could quite correctly come to different conclusions.” Ethicon, 849 F.2d at 1428. Moreover, the PTO was not a party to the patent infringement action and thus cannot be estopped by its holdings. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297-98 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 7 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . .1442.02, 2242,2286, 2642, 2686.04
Trans Texas Holdings Corp., In re, 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2286, 2686.04
AFFIRMED
1612 Ex Parte Buck et al 11/328,247 MILLS EXAMINER SUTTON, DARRYL C
3612 Ex Parte Compton et al 11/202,793 BAHR EXAMINER BLACK, MELISSA ANN
1633 Ex Parte Cosenza 10/735,203 WALSH EXAMINER WEHBE, ANNE MARIE SABRINA
1628 Ex Parte Ebens et al 11/141,344 MILLS EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
1782 Ex Parte Elder et al 10/931,021 LANE EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A
1785 Ex Parte Hansson et al 10/440,317 TIERNEY EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L
3686 Ex Parte Hartlaub 10/002,669 FETTING EXAMINER I NAJARIAN, LENA
2456 Ex Parte Huynh et al 10/611,698 DANG EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
2123 Ex Parte Kalley 09/983,597 BARRY EXAMINER PROCTOR, JASON SCOTT
1627 Ex Parte Levy et al 11/529,199 GREEN EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN
2193 Ex Parte MacInnis et al 10/786,195 J. THOMAS EXAMINER MALZAHN, DAVID H
1618 Ex Parte Pandey et al 11/431,275 GREEN EXAMINER JONES, DAMERON LEVEST
3731 Ex Parte Simonson 10/899,707 McCARTHY EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANH TUAN TUONG
1656 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/360,284 WALSH EXAMINER DESAI, ANAND U
REHEARING DENIED
1729 Ex Parte Fujikawa et al 11/437,328 FRANKLIN EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG
2174 Ex Parte Hackbarth et al 09/886,876 BLANKENSHIP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F
1742 Ex Parte Klotz 10/403,545 FRANKLIN EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D
3621 Ex Parte Marcon 10/266,660 LORIN EXAMINER FISCHER, ANDREW J
1649 Ex Parte Schenk 10/777,792 WALSH EXAMINER KOLKER, DANIEL E
3732 Ex Parte Shluzas et al 10/926,579 PATE III EXAMINER MAI, HAO D
1746 Ex Parte Sjoberg et al 11/129,497 KIMLIN EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L
1781 Ex Parte Zeller 10/919,472 KRATZ EXAMINER HEGGESTAD, HELEN F
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)