ruff, sensonics, interconnect

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Zhou et al 13188598 - (D) HARDMAN 101 AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP SKIBINSKY, ANNA

1634 Ex Parte ALBITAR 14208850 - (D) JENKS 101/103 Parker Highlander PLLC BAUSCH, SARAE L

1634 Ex Parte Matthiesen 14352815 - (D) SCHNEIDER 103/OTDP Agilent Technologies, Inc. CROW, ROBERT THOMAS

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte CANOVA et al 15029656 - (D) DENNETT 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P

Because the Examiner does not establish that the prior art recognizes the purported equivalency between Lemmer and Reymond - as is required by In re Ruff - the Examiner improperly relied on equivalence as a rationale for supporting an obviousness rejection. See In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 596 (CCPA 1958) (substitution of one equivalent for another is obvious only where equivalency is known in the prior art). Frorn our perspective, the only suggestion for putting the selected disclosures of the references together in the manner proposed by the Examiner lays in the hindsight accorded one who first viewed Appellant's disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection. See Sensonics Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("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." ( citing Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). 

Ruff, In re, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) 2144.06

1783 Ex Parte DOLZINSKI et al 13851555 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 Jenkins, Wilson, Taylor & Hunt, P.A. HANDVILLE, BRIAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Beller et al 15152906 - (D) SHIANG 101 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. BLANKENAGEL, BRYANS

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte NELLISSEN et al 14647141 - (D) INGLESE 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SMYTH, ANDREW P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Narayanan et al 13532837 - (D) FINAMORE 103 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. LAMBERT, WAYNE A

3745 Ex Parte Buhl et al 14221563 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP WIBLIN, MATTHEW

3762 Ex Parte Jonsson 12742189 - (D) BAHR 103 OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP NAMAY, DANIEL ELLIOT

3792 Ex Parte Misener 14201300 - (D) CALVE 103 41.50 103 ED/Rutan & Tucker, LLP LEVICKY, WILLIAM J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Wu et al 14037528 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 41.50 103 ALLERGAN, INC. DICKINSON, PAUL W

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1737 Ex Parte Neubauer et al 14362954 - (D) McGEE 103 103 ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY c/o The Dow Chemical Company HUFF, MARK F

1791 Ex Parte Barrett et al 13624073 - (D) GARRIS 103 103 Diederiks & Whitelaw, PLC LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2488 Ex Parte Wang 14461520 - (D) DIRBA 102 112(1)/102/103 GoogleLLC c/o Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane, P.C. XU, XIAOLAN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3792 Ex Parte Gatzemeyer et al 14709140 - (D) ADAMS 101 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY JIAN, SHIRLEY XUEYING

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Thanoo et al 12328136 - (D) GRIMES 112(2) 103/OTDP BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP ORWIG, KEVIN S

1616 Ex Parte McInnes et al 12677236 - (D) WORTH 103 41.50 103 Foley & Lardner LLP CHUI, MEI PING

1619 Ex Parte Lodhi et al 11490414 - (D) WISZ 102/103 SurModics/Kagan Binder, PLLC ALAWADI, SARAH

1623 Ex Parte HOSAKA et al 15323928 - (D) ADAMS 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP WHITE, EVERETT

1655 Ex Parte REID et al 13840921 - (D) PRATS 103 Bayer CropScience LP CLARK, AMYL YNN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Shukla et al 15465004 - (D) FRAHM 103 MITEL NETWORKS CORP. c/o MICHELLE WHITTINGTON PERRY+ CURRIER INC. (FOR MITEL) ALRIYASHI, ABDULKADER MOHAMED

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Hunt et al 14595435 - (D) RAEVSKY 103 TUCKER ELLIS LLP EDWARDS, MARK

2658 Ex Parte Buck et al 13990176 - (D) BRANCH 101 103 Nuance c/o Daly, Crowley, Mofford and Durkee, LLP OPSASNICK, MICHAEL N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Scheibe et al 12198252 - (D) PYONIN 101 103 VLP Law Group LLP SITTNER, MICHAEL J

3624 Ex Parte Banner 13989786 - (D) JEFFERY 101 HP Inc. DICKERSON, TIPHANY B

3634 Ex Parte Roy et al 14224227 - (D) GREENHUT 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC KELLY, CATHERINE A

3682 Ex Parte WU et al 12483358 - (D) BISK 101 Potomac Law Group, PLLC (Oracle International) BROWN, LUIS A

3692 Ex Parte SAMUELS et al 14095225 - (D) MEDLOCK 102 101 TINKLER, MURIEL S TINKLER, MURIEL S

3693 Ex Parte Cataline et al 11717057 - (D) LORIN 101 41.50 101 Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP/JPMorgan Chase KHATTAR, RAJESH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte PAGAN et al 13350336 - (D) CALVE 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY ANDERSON, DON M

3763 Ex Parte Sangiovanni 13982112 - (D) FINAMORE 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier ZEC, FILIP

ruff

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte LELIAS et al 13248785 - (D) McGEE 103 41.50 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

It appears to us that the Examiner’s determination of equivalence is rooted in the fact that alumina is listed among several optional components in Dupin, some of which also appear in Nedez to be optional, and to be included in similar amounts to those also disclosed in Dupin. Final Act. 8 citing Dupin 3:42—46; see also id. at 4 (noting how Nedez’s composition “also comprises at least one compound selected from clays, silicates, titanium sulfate and ceramic fibers in a total amount of 30% by weight or less.”). This, without more, is an insufficient basis upon which to determine equivalence. See In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 598—9 (CCPA 1958) (explaining how equivalence cannot be demonstrated by mere existence within a Markush group). Moreover, we note that the Examiner’s attempted reliance on Appellants’ Specification to support a showing of equivalence (Final Act. 9-10) is legally impermissible. See In re Ruff 256 F.2d at 598 (“To rely on an equivalence known only to the applicant to establish obviousness is to assume that his disclosure is a part of the prior art. The mere statement of this proposition reveals its fallaciousness.”).

Ruff, In re, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) 2144.06

1783 Ex Parte Elhard et al 12682777 - (D) DERRICK 103 FRANK ROSENBERG MILLER, DANIEL H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex Parte Iles 14260530 - (D) INGLESE 103 BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. NGUYEN, VIET P

2865 Ex Parte Allen-Ware et al 13040094 - (D) OWENS 112(2)/103 Garg Law Firm, PLLC IBM AUS IPLAW (GLF) QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte DAY 12558441 - (D) FETTING 101/103 Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. Mintz Levin/SAP FISHER, PAUL R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Collet et al 14324140 - (D) FLAX 102/103 103 LanzaTech New Zealand Limited AFREMOVA, VERA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Lim et al 14025108 - (D) HASTINGS 103 WHITHAM, CURTIS & COOK, P.C. TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1761 Ex Parte Holicza 12541084 - (D) INGLESE 112(2) 103/OTDP Kirton & McConkie KHAN, AMINA S

1764 Ex Parte Holicza 12950110 - (D) INGLESE 103 Kirton & McConkie KAUCHER, MARK S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2125 Ex Parte McGuire et al 14063030 - (D) DEJMEK 102 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MASINICK, MICHAEL D

2164 Ex Parte Nam et al 11849982 - (D) COURTENAY 103 GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD GEBRESENBET, DINKU W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Klunder et al 12447668 - (D) NAGUMO 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LEE, SHUN K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3681 Ex Parte Vitti et al 13178461 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 101 DLA PIPER LLP (US ) LI, SUN M

3691 Ex Parte Pachon et al 11961579 - (D) SHAW 101 General Electric Company KAZIMI, HANI M

3695 Ex Parte Hougland et al 12752985 - (D) FETTING 101 Maschoff Brennan/ PayPal ROBINSON, KITO R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Oesch 11578496 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP COTRONEO, STEVEN J

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3668 Ex Parte Stanek et al 13910303 - (R) BEAMER 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL MARTINEZ BORRERO, LUIS A

3686 Ex Parte Zheng et al 12388901 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 101/102/103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION NAJARIAN, LENA

3692 Ex Parte Saito et al 12354048 - (D) FETTING 101 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC FELTEN, DANIEL S

unigene, GPAC, ruff

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Lorens et al 10696909 - (D) PRATS 103 Klarquist Sparkman, LLP REDDIG, PETER J

Thus, even post-KSR, “[o]bviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Instead, “[i]n determining whether obviousness is established by combining the teachings of the prior art, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted).

GPAC, In re, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 716.03, 2145

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Eickmeyer et al 11812443 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC LEONG, NATHAN T

1716 Ex Parte Mahoney et al 11066520 - (D) PAK 112(2)/103 JOSHUA D. ISENBERG DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR

1734 Ex Parte Kim et al 12192024 - (D) HASTINGS 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP LEE, REBECCA Y

In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant's disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 596-96 (CCPA 1958); In re Lam, 35 Fed. Appx. 889, 894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

Ruff, In re, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) 2144.06

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 Ex Parte Maitland et al 11588384 - (D) DANG 102/103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT TAYLOR, BROOKE JAZMOND

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Kjellstrom et al 11045571 - (D) SCHEINER 102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) HELLER, TAMMIE K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Straccia et al 11609501 - (D) GARRIS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL GAMBETTA, KELLY M

1763 Ex Parte Nodelman et al 12002435 - (D) GARRIS 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC LEONARD, MICHAEL L

1791 Ex Parte Jolly et al 11486423 - (D) SCHAFER 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP BADR, HAMID R

1792 Ex Parte Nietling et al 11255330 - (D) KRATZ 103 WARNER, NORCROSS & JUDD IN RE: ALTICOR INC. CHAWLA, JYOTI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Blair 11783909 - (D) KUMAR 103 Lawrence Harbin MAHMOOD, REZWANUL

2168 Ex Parte Bruce et al 11263224 - (D) NEW 103 Baker Botts LLP MACKES, KRIS E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Muth 10517246 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 112(2) 37 CR 41.50(b) 102/103 NXP B.V. NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Park et al 11454505 - (D) DIXON 102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE ARENDT, PAISLEY L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Tower et al 11432838 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Medtronic, Inc. HUGHES, SAMUEL T

3731 Ex Parte Tower et al 10127969 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/103 Medtronic CardioVascular SEVERSON, RYAN J

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 LTS SCALE COMPANY, LLC Requester and Appellant v. ACME SCALE COMPANY INC. Patent Owner 95001401 7,757,946 11/108,271 WEINBERG 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102/103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH THIRD  PARTY R EQUESTER:  ECKERT  EAMANS  CHERIN  &  MELLOTT TON, MY TRANG original LE, THIEN MINH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1753 Guardian Industries Corp. Requester and Appellant v. Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. and AGC Plat Glass Patent Owner and Respondent 90009782 6,193,856 09/011,749 LEBOVITZ 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP Third Party Requester: Nixon & Vanderhye P.C. original OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. DIAMOND, ALAN D original VERSTEEG, STEVEN H

ruff, ariad, vas-cath,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Kivits et al 10/484,255 LEBOVITZ 102(a)/103(a) nonstatutory obviousnesstype double patenting YOUNG & THOMPSON 

Ex Parte Sakuma et al 10/502,404 PRATS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 

Appellants also argue that a conclusion of obviousness cannot be based on equivalence known only to an applicant (Reply Br. 3 (citing In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 598 (CCPA 1958)). 

Ruff, In re, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.06 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Collins et al 10/461,022 PAK 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Adams 10/158,353 THOMAS 103(a) PATE PIERCE & BAIRD 

Ex Parte Leveille et al 11/419,936 THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

Ex Parte Martin et al 10/484,541 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP 

Ex Parte Barboi et al 10/981,837 HOMERE 101/112(2)/102(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FISH & RICHARDSON PC 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Jackson et al 10/357,949 HUGHES 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Myers Bigel Sibley & Sajovec 

Thus, “the description must ‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.’” Ariad Pharmas. v. Eli Lilly and Co., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 1007369, at *12 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). In other words, the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Id. “[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Ariad, --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 1007369 at *12 (citing Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563.) 

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Coles et al 10/393,729 NAPPI 103(a) JOHN C. MORAN, ATTORNEY, P.C. 

Ex Parte Satoh et al 10/537,417 HOFF 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 

Ex Parte Spinelli 11/360,401 HOFF 103(a) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Bellick et al 10/821,334 PATE III 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP 

Ex Parte Kummer et al 10/823,032 MOHANTY 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Vanderbilt et al 10/640,131 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Hill 10/702,406 GREEN 103(a) MATTHEW R. JENKINS, ESQ. 

Ex Parte Podlich et al 10/874,813 LEBOVITZ 103(A)/112(1)/101 POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Zargham et al 10/013,091 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Hogan 10/667,680 BAHR 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Woodcock Washburn LLP