o'farrell, medichem

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Lucas et al 12463457 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 Ingersoll-Rand Company Krieg DeVault LLP HAMO, PATRICK

Generally, for a combination to be obvious to one skilled in the art there must be at least a reasonable expectation that the combination would successfully yield a functioning device. See In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Whether there is a reasonable expectation of success is a question of fact. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165–66 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

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

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Wirth et al 10468708 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. BERRIOS, JENNIFER A

1616 Ex Parte Mohammadi et al 11679269 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 THE ESTEE LAUDER COS, INC KARPINSKI, LUKE E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Li et al 11683655 - (D) TIMM 102/103 ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP YUSHINA, GALINA G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Casey 11967672 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 102(e)/103 GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP (OTT) ABDI, KAMBIZ

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Weaver et al 12138797 - (D) STEPINA 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY FERNSTROM, KURT

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Bernstein 12761953 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH) ARNOLD, ERNST V

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC.Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 5771511 et al 08/511,556 90012399 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Hill-Rom) For THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD. ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original CONLEY, FREDRICK C

winner int'l, medichem

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2878 Ex Parte Gelb et al 11455149 - (D) HASTINGS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LE, BAO-LUAN Q

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2688 Ex Parte Allen et al 11419279 - (D) SMITH 102/103 103 LSI Corporation HITT GAINES, PC MERCEDES, DISMERY E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte SCHMIDT 11619966 - (D) ASTORINO 103 BEEM PATENT LAW FIRM MYHR, JUSTIN L

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Kim et al 11460188 - (D) KAISER 103 Vista IP Law Group LLP KAUR, GURPREET

1793 Ex Parte Cristadoro et al 12481055 - (D) OWENS 103 AlbertDhand LLP TRAN, LIEN THUY

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2688 Ex Parte Smith et al 11317442 - (D) SHAW 103 GOTTLIEB RACKMAN & REISMAN PC PENDLETON, DIONNE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Nichols et al 11950808 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Georgia-Pacific LLC STEPHAN,BETH A

Notably,

[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine. See [Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)] (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”).

Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex parte CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6,534,805 et al 09/829,510 90011833 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Third Party Requester: DLA Piper LLP (US) ANDUJAR, LEONARDO original THOMAS, TONIAE M

2821 Ex parte ADFLASH LIMITED Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 6169368 et al 09/101,612 90012089 - (D) HOMERE 103 CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP For Third Party Requester: ADE & COMPANY INC. original WAGNER, ANDERSON & BRIGHT, LLP YIGDALL, MICHAEL J original VU, DAVID HUNG

norgren, medichem, mems tech

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Stadtlander et al 11441893 - (D) OWENS 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global SCHATZ, CHRISTOPHER T

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte McNeal et al 10153116 - (D) SAADAT 102 Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman AL HASHEMI, SANA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte St. Laurent et al 11854442 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. HSU, ALPUS

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Dumarest 11352893 - (D) FRAHM 102 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Boomershine et al 11179405 - (D) LORIN 101/112(2)/102/103 IBM CORPORATION RAVETTI, DANTE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Mandavilli et al 10998819 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MAI, KEVIN S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte MARTIN 11740974 - (D) NAGUMO 103 INVISTA NORTH AMERICA S.A.R.L. TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1763 Ex Parte Easter et al 11655144 - (D) McKELVEY 103 BLANK ROME LLP LACLAIR LYNX, DARCY DANIELLE

1774 Ex Parte Sell et al 11481746 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO MCCAIG, BRIAN A

1776 Ex Parte BARRATT 12708669 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC JONES, CHRISTOPHER P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Armanino et al 11130773 - (D) Per curiam 103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ CHOJNACKI, MELLISSA M

2169 Ex Parte Bicheno et al 11593888 - (D) BUI 102 BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC ROBINSON, GRETA LEE

2174 Ex Parte Rice 11372973 - (D) DILLON 103 INTUIT - OSHA - LIANG L.L.P. TILLERY, RASHAWN N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Vogel 11135194 - (D) PETTIGREW 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC DUFFIELD, JEREMY S

See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”).

2456 Ex Parte Rhodes et al 10671234 - (D) ANDERSON 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION BATES, KEVIN T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2677 Ex Parte McKellar 10564306 - (D) FRAHM 103 FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. NGUYEN, HAU H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Gu 12131982 - (D) CLEMENTS 102/103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED HOUSTON, ADAM D

The plain meaning of “coupled” encompasses both direct and indirect coupling. See MEMS Tech. Berhad v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 447 Fed. Appx. 142, 151-53 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (declining to limit “electrically coupled” to direct coupling);4 see also US Patent Application Publication 2002/0116139, at ¶ 0038 (“Herein, the phrase ‘coupled with’ is defined to mean directly connected to or indirectly connected with through one or more intermediate components.”)

4 Cf. Ex parte Palomar, No. 2009-011698, 2011 WL 3666727, at *2 (BPAI 2011) (non-precedential) (construing a claim reciting “directly coupled” as excluding indirect coupling).

2819 Ex Parte Monro 11332777 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. WILLIAMS, HOWARD L

2853 Ex Parte Stelter et al 11072781 - (D) FRAHM 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY LIANG, LEONARD S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Richter 11475439 - (D) DANIELS 102 KLAUS J. BACH & ASSOCIATES LE, TAN

3635 Ex Parte Hileman et al 11521179 - (D) McCARTHY 103 NOVA Chemicals Inc./Karen S. Lockhart WENDELL, MARK R

3671 Ex Parte Hamburger et al 11691955 - (D) DANIELS 103 Tomlinson Rust McKinstry Grable RISIC, ABIGAIL ANNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Le Bot et al 10555745 - (D) WOOD 103 112(1)/112(2) American Air Liquide, Inc. ABDUR RAHIM, AZIM  

See Norgren v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claim drawn to a “four-sided, generally rectangular clamp” requires that “the clamp as a whole, and not merely portions of it, must be four-sided and generally rectangular”).

NTP, medichem, woodland trust, borden, optivus

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Hansen 11/595,141 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LUK, VANESSA TIBAY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/737,124 MACDONALD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DANG, KHANH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Roginsky et al 09/999,643 POTHIER 103(a) Robert V. Wilder EXAMINER TRUONG, LAN DAI T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Thiers et al 10/216,821 BAHR 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Goicoechea et al 09/977,826 COCKS 112(1) BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/172,021 GAUDETTE 112(1) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

1736 Ex Parte KURATA et al 12/130,179 GARRIS 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER WALCK, BRIAN D

1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,659 GAUDETTE 103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

A party seeking to antedate a reference based on reduction to practice must present evidence of the actual reduction to practice of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference. 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b). An inventor cannot rely on uncorroborated testimony to establish a prior invention date. Id. It has long been the case that an inventor’s allegations of earlier invention alone are insufficient—an alleged date of invention must be corroborated. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc., 148 F.3d 1368, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[E]vidence is assigned probative value and collectively weighed to determine whether reduction to practice has been achieved.” Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1170. “Sufficiency of corroboration is determined by using a ‘rule of reason’ analysis, under which all pertinent evidence is examined when determining the credibility of an inventor’s testimony.” Id.

In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,853 GAUDETTE 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU) EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Raley et al 10/425,647 HOMERE concurring BLANKENSHIP obviousness-type double patenting/102(e) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER NOBAHAR, ABDULHAKIM
REHEARING

GRANTED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Giordano et al 12/038,177 KIM 102(b) MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC FOR BOFA EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[a]ny bases for asserting error, whether factual or legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived”); see also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“an issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

interactive gift, medichem, winner int'l, mannesmann

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Murthy 11/400,384 GRIMES 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER KARPINSKI, LUKE E

1653 Ex Parte Metters et al 11/034,437 GREEN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER SINGH, SATYENDRA K

In addition, “[u]nless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Hasegawa et al 11/221,853 TIMM 103(a) CLARK & BRODY EXAMINER LUK, VANESSA TIBAY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Wolfe et al 10/662,683 McCARTHY 103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP EXAMINER PHAN, THIEM D

3734 Ex Parte Szabo 10/985,800 SAINDON 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Malik et al 10/264,393 PAK 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER SONG, MATTHEW J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Woltman et al 11/408,324 SAINDON 103(a) 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

see also Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”); Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”).

3788 Ex Parte Goodrich et al 11/027,066 SILVERBERG dissenting-in-part BARRETT 102(a)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3742 Ex Parte 6,501,906 et al 95/000,372 09/994,032 ZOBELE ESPANA, S.A. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of C.T.R. CONSULTORIA TECNICA E REPRESENTACOES LDA Patent Owner and Appellant LEBOVITZ 103(a) MCCRACKEN & FRANK LLC EXAMINER WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3747 Ex Parte 6511509 et al 90/009,348 09/073,877 Ex parte DEPUY MOTECH ACROMED, INC. and LIFENET HEALTH Appellants, Patent Owners SONG 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 102(b)/102(e) For Patent Owner: Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP For Third Party Requester: Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN original EXAMINER HIRSCH, PAUL J
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Weeks et al 11/557,037 PAK 103(a) Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP EXAMINER DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR

1746 Ex Parte Broberg et al 10/722,575 KRATZ dissenting-in-part NAGUMO 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L

When the phrase “consisting of” occurs in the body of the claim, it limits only the element set forth in that
clause. Mannesmann DeMag Corp. v. Engineered Metal Products Co., Inc., 793 F.2d 1279, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Mannesmann Demag Corp. v. Engineered Metal Products Co., 793 F.2d 1279, 230 USPQ 45 (Fed. Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

1762 Ex Parte Drzal et al 11/435,471 GAUDETTE concurring NAGUMO 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

1777 Ex Parte Antwiler 11/769,579 SMITH 103(a) CaridianBCT, Inc. EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

1798 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/287,788 OWENS dissenting NAGUMO 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Schaefer 10/806,868 SMITH 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER VO, TED T

2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Walls et al 11/135,815 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHAUHAN, ULKA J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Park et al 10/872,495 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC EXAMINER SNOW, COLLEEN ERIN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Kempe 10/682,083 SAINDON 103(a) OYEN, WIGGS, GREEN & MUTALA LLP EXAMINER MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE
REHEARING

GRANTED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,501 HOFF obviousness-type double patenting obviousness-type double patenting SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C

medichem

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte But et al 11/224,165 WALSH 103(a) WILKINSON & GRIST EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E 

To sustain a conclusion of obviousness, the prior art must provide a reasonable expectation of success for modifying a known method. E.g., Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L. , 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

Ex Parte Wolfert et al 10/523,919 LEBOVITZ 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR 

Ex Parte Yang et al 11/118,079 GRIMES 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER COOK, LISA V 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Acharya et al 10/438,431 HOFF 102(e) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER RUSSELL, WANDA Z 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Wiechers et al 10/635,467 HOFF 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, LENNIN R