SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label energizer holdings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energizer holdings. Show all posts

Friday, March 9, 2018

energizer holdings

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Krahenbuhl et al 12756583 - (D) BENOIT 103 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A./Motorola SADIO, INSA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2864 Ex Parte LeCocq et al 12661727 - (D) TIMM 102/103 OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC RIVERA VARGAS, MANUEL A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3659 Ex Parte Ries et al 14174181 - (D) LANEY 102 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL HLAVKA, DAVID J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Klein 12938447 - (D) MURPHY 112(2)/103 PAUL AND PAUL ANNIS, KHALED

 “[T]he failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite” if “the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art.” Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Inti Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370—71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2173.05(e)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Kalhan 14400385 - (D) THOMAS 102 102/103 KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC. CAIRNS, THOMAS R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2687 Ex Parte HOURNE et al 13940895 - (D) ULLAGADDI 102 102 YOUNG & THOMPSON KINGSTON, SHAWNA M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Friedlander et al 14078849 - (D) FLAX 101 Brown & Michaels, PC (END) NEGIN, RUSSELL SCOTT

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte SAKURADA et al 13953421 - (D) OGDEN 103 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC) PLESZCZYNS KA, JOANNA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Agarwal et al 12608118 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 102/103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC BELANI, KISHIN G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2663 Ex Parte LEE et al 14256585 - (D) HOWARD 102 Jefferson IP Law, LLP TEJANO, DWIGHT ALEX C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3681 Ex Parte Symons et al 12853913 - (D) DEJMEK 101 MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. LI, SUN M

3683 Ex Parte Kimelfeld et al 13901165 - (D) BAUMEISTER 101 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - IBM ARC DIVISION LOFTIS, JOHNNA RONEE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte ARMSTRONG et al 13251830 - (D) BAHR 102/103 Baker Botts LLP JACYNA, J CASIMER

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 MEXICHEM AMANCO HOLDING S.A. de C.V. Requester and Respondent v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8053404 et al 95001920 - (R) GUEST 103 HONEYWELL/FOX/BANNER THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: RYAN KROMHOLZ & MANION, S.C. MCKANE, ELIZABETH L original WEBB, GREGORY E

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

chitayat, nautilus, energizer holdings, porter2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Fanning 12790502 - (D) GARRIS 103 BGL/Detroit YANG, JIE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Ohashi et al 11277200 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC JAMAL, ALEXANDER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Laub 12139075 - (D) WORTH 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC DAVIES, SAMUEL ALLEN

3766 Ex Parte Gerber 11261443 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A GHAND, JENNIFER LEIGH-STEWAR

3773 Ex Parte Feinberg 10674653 - (D) SCHOPFER 112(1)/103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. RYCKMAN, MELISSA K

3774 Ex Parte Chuter et al 12338020 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H BGL/Cook - Chicago

The Examiner’s reasoning is not persuasive. Patent drawings are not necessarily intended to show accurate relative dimensions and “arguments based on mere measurement of the drawings [are] of little value.” In re Chitayat, 408 F.2d 475, 478 (CCPA 1969).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte Ould-Brahim 12064477 - (D) MacDONALD 103 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. HSU, ALPUS

2493 Ex Parte Campbell et al 11733354 - (D) McKEOWN 103 101 IBM (RPS-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP LE, CHAU D

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Pass 11505658 - (D) HOUSEL 102/103 SunPower/ BSTZ Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP MOORE, KARLA A

1734 Ex Parte Ylimäinen 12301262 - (D) HASTINGS 103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP LEE, REBECCA Y

1744 Ex Parte LUBURIC 12793748 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 MORRIS MANNING MARTIN LLP LEE, EDMUND H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Zemlok et al 12189834 - (D) WARNER 102(e) Covidien LP WEEKS, GLORIA R

3741 Ex Parte Norris et al 12131280 - (D) SMEGAL 112(2) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M

Definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, requires that “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable clarity.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).

We further note that if the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that “anode gel” provided by implication the antecedent basis for “zinc anode”); Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1145 (BPAI 1992) (“controlled stream of fluid” provided reasonable antecedent basis for “the controlled fluid”). For these reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1−20 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph.

Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2173.05(e)

Porter, Ex parte, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) 608.01(n) 2173.05(e) 2173.05(f) 2173.05(q)

3775 Ex Parte de Villiers et al 11829056 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI SCHAPER, MICHAEL T

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORPORATION Patent Owner/Appellant v. PERMOBIL, INC. Requester/Respondent Ex Parte 8181992 et al 95002355 - (D) MARTIN 103 Baker & Hostetler LLP Third Party: WILMERHALE / DC ENGLISH, PETER C original BROWN, DREW J

Thursday, May 2, 2013

miles labs, sensonics, gore, interconenct, energizer holdings

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1791 Ex Parte Obermann 10492787 - (D) HASTINGS 112(2)/103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP DICUS, TAMRA

“The test for definiteness is whether one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification. If the claims read in light of the specification reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention, § 112 demands no more.” Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon, Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 27 USPQ2d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.01(a)

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Basir et al 11046523 - (D) KILE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. MAWARI, REDHWAN K

To draw on knowledge of Appellants’ own invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction. Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The invention must be viewed not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made. Id. (citing with approval Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Castleberry 11258920 - (D) HOFFMANN 112(2)/102 102(2)/103 GIPPLE & HALE HAYES, KRISTEN C

If the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that “anode gel” provided by implication the antecedent basis for “zinc anode”);

Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2173.05(e)

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1763 Ex Parte Takagi et al 11887435 - (D) McKELVEY 103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. FINK, BRIEANN R

1764 Ex Parte Li et al 12165051 - (D) McKELVEY 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC BOYLE, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Lamoureux 11256327 - (D) ANDERSON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BATURAY, ALICIA

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3628 2761 VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. v. SAP AMERICA, INC. 12-1029 6,553,350 09/253,427 5,878,400 08/664,837 RADER '350 permanent injunction infringement/damages '400 non-infringement McKool Smith, P.C., Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP POINVIL, FRANTZY HUGHET, WILLIAM N

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1614 1614 ALLERGAN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANDOZ INC., ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., ALCON RESEARCH, LTD., ALCON, INC., AND FALCON PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., Defendants-Appellants, AND APOTEX INC. AND APOTEX CORP., Defendants-Appellants, AND WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. 11-1619 7,323,463 10/357,622 7,030,149 10/126,790 PROST concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part DYK '149 103 '463 103 Fish & Richardson P.C. Morrison & Foerster, LLP ALLERGAN, INC. ALLERGAN, INC. KWON, YONG SOK KWON, YONG SOK