SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label raytheon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label raytheon. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

steele, gorman, process control, raytheon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Alvarez et al 11702120 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP YAGER, JAMES C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Xue et al 10910371 - (D) FISHMAN 101/112(1)/102/103 Duane Morris LLP (UDC) DICKEY, THOMAS L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Morikaku et al 11226278 - (D) CALVE 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC ANGWIN, DAVID PATRICK

3744 Ex Parte Meerpohl et al 10584164 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL

See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (holding that the examiner and the board erred in relying on what were at best speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims and basing a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 thereon.)

Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) 2143.03 2173.06

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Shekleton et al 11696752 - (D) KERINS 103 103 DEERE & COMPANY TROUTMAN, MATTHEW D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1646 Ex Parte Hunt 11499432 - (D) GRIMES 103 Allergan, Inc. FORD, VANESSA L

See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (test of obviousness is “whether the teachings of the prior art, taken as a whole, would have made obvious the claimed invention.”).

Gorman, In re, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 707.07(f) 2145

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Abd Elhamid et al 11464844 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER

1776 Ex Parte Alpert 11683812 - (D) GARRIS 101/112(1)/112(2)/102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. THERKORN, ERNEST G

Under the circumstances of this appeal, the issues presented by the § 112, 1st paragraph, rejection correspond to those presented by the § 101 rejection. See Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[A] claim containing a limitation impossible to meet may be held invalid under §112[, and], when a claim requires a means for accomplishing an unattainable result, the claimed invention must be considered inoperative as claimed and the claim must be held invalid under either §101 or §112 of 35 U.S.C.” quoting Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).

Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 52 USPQ2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 706.03(d) 2173.05(a)
DONNER 6: 217, 219, 224-26; 9: 80, 89-91
HARMON 2: 101, 123; 5: 10, 72, 76; 6: 384; 20: 176, 183

Raytheon v. Roper, 724 F.2d 951, 220 USPQ 592 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2107.02 2164.08
DONNER 6: 91, 97, 99, 109-11, 215, 218, 221-23; 9: 79, 82, 88; 10: 43; 11: 137
HARMON 1: 66, 208; 2: 100, 102, 104, 106, 110, 126; 5: 9, 29, 70; 6: 127, 304, 358; 20: 183, 194

1791 Ex Parte Richards et al 10971317 - (D) OWENS concurring NAGUMO 102/103 WARF/MAD/QUARLES & BRADY LLP BADR, HAMID R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Muller et al 11040395 - (D) HUME 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP LE, THU NGUYET T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Giannetti et al 10650638 - (D) ZECHER 112(1)/112(2)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R

2492 Ex Parte Breiter et al 12171744 - (D) POTHIER 103 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. NAJJAR, SALEH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Lee et al 11486204 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Topolinski 12359600 - (D) PLENZLER 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP PRONE, JASON D

3754 Ex Parte Mehus et al 10436454 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. JACYNA, J CASIMER

3766 Ex Parte Stancer et al 11669519 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BAYS, PAMELA M

VACATED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1626 Ex Parte TORRENS et al 11457720 - (D) FREDMAN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HAVLIN, ROBERT H

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 FEI COMPANY Requester v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Patent Owner 95001313 7262411 11/295,148 SIU 112(2)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 112(2) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN Third Party Reqeuster: Michael O. Scheinberg MENEFEE, JAMES A original NGUYEN, KIET TUAN

Thursday, June 30, 2011

minerals, wands, bush, EMI, raytheon

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Zojaji et al 11/242,613 SMITH 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Hinnebusch 10/015,866 KIM 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. EXAMINER NELSON, FREDA ANN

3643 Ex Parte Aandewiel et al 11/600,598 ASTORINO 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3663 Ex Parte Greatbatch 10/998,188 PATE III 112(1)/101/103(a) WALTER W. DUFT EXAMINER MONDT, JOHANNES P

3682 Ex Parte Pudar 09/870,377 McCARTHY 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER MYHRE, JAMES W

3686 Ex Parte Diakides et al 11/222,947 KIM 103(a) NICHOLAS A. DIAKIDES EXAMINER
RAJ, RAJIV J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Ehrnsperger et al 11/251,311 PATE III 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916), which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.01

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Steinmetz et al 11/010,842 STEPHENS 103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, TANH Q

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Medendorp 10/644,354 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE

3688 Ex Parte Hoffberg et al 11/467,915 PETRAVICK 103(a) 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 Ostrolenk Faber LLP EXAMINER CHAMPAGNE, DONALD

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Sutherland et al 11/039,531 PATE III 103(a) EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO EXAMINER RICCI, JOHN A

As an initial matter we note that our reviewing court’s predecessor has stated that the order in which prior art is applied in a rejection is not significant. See, for example, In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, (CCPA 1961) ("[i]n a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references
each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be a matter of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.")

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte Tantivy Communications, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner TESCO CORPORATION
95/001,113 7,048,050 SONG 102/103(a) For Patent Owner: MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP For Third Party Requester : BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLPEXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. Patent of WEATHERFORD/LAMB, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 90/008,990 6,151,332 TURNER 103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER LAROSE, COLIN M


AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Sigler et al 11/155,180 SMITH Concurring PAK 102(b)/103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER LAM, CATHY FONG FONG

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Whaley 11/127,049 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) Docket Clerk Dallas TX EXAMINER DANG, KHANH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Mastin Crosbie et al 09/793,355 MacDONALD 102(e) Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle EXAMINER OSMAN, RAMY M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Medendorp 11/708,818 DROESCH 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER CROWE, DAVID R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Howell 11/634,454 HORNER 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3739 Ex Parte Prabhu et al 09/891,773 BAHR 102(e) Carestream Health, Inc. EXAMINER COHEN, LEE S

3748 Ex Parte Lifson 11/544,403 HORNER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER TRIEU, THERESA

3774 Ex Parte Fariabi 10/750,079 HOELTER 103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

3774 Ex Parte Trese et al 11/234,518 DELMENDO 101/112(1)/103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

“A claimed invention having an inoperable or impossible claim limitation may lack utility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and certainly lacks an enabling disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112.” EMI Group North America, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 268 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “When a claim itself recites incorrect science in one limitation, the entire claim is invalid, regardless of the combinations of the other limitations recited in the claim.” EMI, 268 F.3d at 1349.

Raytheon v. Roper, 724 F.2d 951, 220 USPQ 592 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . .2107.02, 2164.08

REHEARING

DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/429,507 GRIMES Technology Advancement Labs LLC EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY

NEW

REVERSED

3684 Ex Parte Foy et al 11/226,463 DESHPANDE 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R

1765 Ex Parte Hulse et al 11/955,475 ROBERTSON 103(a) HONEYWELL/FOX ROTHSCHILD EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

1645 Ex Parte Miller 10/470,797 MILLS 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER TONGUE, LAKIA J

3691 Ex Parte Mitchell et al 10/169,501 CRAWFORD 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER ONYEZIA, CHUKS N

3685 Ex Parte Raley et al 10/388,162 FISCHETTI 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER KIM, STEVEN S

3624 Ex Parte Santos et al 10/378,872 MOHANTY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

1621 Ex Parte STAUFFER 12/632,840 ADAMS 103(a) YOUNG BASILE EXAMINER PARSA, JAFAR F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2114 Ex Parte JOHANSSON et al 11/834,731 POTHIER 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/101 YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER CHU, GABRIEL L

3749 Ex Parte Schnell et al 10/413,018 BROWN 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER PRICE, CARL D

2453 Ex Parte Wilson et al 11/455,037 DROESCH 102(e)/103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T

AFFIRMED

2442 Ex Parte Beisiegel et al 10/489,051 MacDONALD 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NICKERSON, JEFFREY L

2183 Ex Parte Dieffenderfer et al 11/363,072 DANG 102(e)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S

2178 Ex Parte Lu et al 10/668,399 BARRY 103(a) IBM CORP (AP) EXAMINER QUELER, ADAM M

3632 Ex Parte MATIAS 11/735,523 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) PERRY + CURRIER INC. EXAMINER KING, ANITA M

2166 Ex Parte Raley et al 11/141,229 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER TANG, JIEYING

2156 Ex Parte Recio et al 11/304,954 KOHUT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION (RVW) EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE

3774 Ex Parte Reed et al 11/252,169 HORNER 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

3715 Ex Parte Seelig et al 09/791,463 BROWN 102(e) IAN F. BURNS & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER MOSSER, KATHLEEN MICHELE

3644 Ex Parte Simoni 11/039,210 STAICOVICI 103(a) JACQUELYN R. SIMONI EXAMINER ABBOTT, YVONNE RENEE

3667 Ex Parte Turgeon 10/086,793 LORIN 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER BADII, BEHRANG

REHEARING

DENIED
2448 Ex Parte Traversat et al 10/055,645 KRIVAK 103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER LUU, LE HIEN