SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label vitronics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vitronics. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Phillips, vitronics, merrill

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Matsuoka et al 13294451 - (D) HANLON 103 KILYK & BOWERSOX, P.L.L.C. YANG, JIE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Jerez et al 14222953 - (D) KRATZ 103 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO SMYTH, ANDREW P

2893 Ex Parte Ma et al 13474408 - (D) GUPTA 103 Bell & Manning, LLC YUSHIN, NIKOLAY K

2898 Ex Parte Liu et al 13286888 - (D) GUPTA 103 DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC ESKRIDGE, CORY W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Graydon et al 13233166 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 The Linde Group WARD, THOMAS JOHN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Rizzo et al 13466183 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY SAMUELS, LAWRENCE H

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1639 Ex Parte Ge et al 12868399 - (D) SMITH 103 Parker Highlander PLLC DINES, KARLA A

1657 Ex Parte Bayer et al 13856086 - (D) SCHNEIDER 101 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO SRIVASTAVA, KAILASH C

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Daines-Martinez et al 12989096 - (D) ROSS 102 112(2)/103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC FITZSIMMONS, ALLISON GIONTA

1786 Ex Parte Nomura et al 12326311 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz YANG, JAY

2128 Ex Parte Geffin et al 13220613 - (D) CHEN 103 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP KHAN, IFTEKHAR A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Cunningham et al 14053260 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC MCLEOD, MARSHALL M

2456 Ex Parte Rekimoto et al 13458657 - (D) KENNY 103 Paratus Law Group, PLLC KEEHN, RICHARD G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Kotecha et al 13706939 - (D) BAIN 103 VERIZON LAFONTANT, GARY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2886 Ex Parte Levy et al 13959621 - (D) CASHION 103 Entropy Matters LLC STOCK JR, GORDON J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte MACIOCCI et al 13216044 - (D) BENNETT 101 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED JEANTY, ROMAIN

3627 Ex Parte SPURGAT et al 13019783 - (D) FETTING 102 101/102 Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook OBAID, FATEH M

3627 Ex Parte Walker et al 13920474 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 101/double patenting Maschoff Brennan/ PayPal SHEIKH, ASFAND M

3629 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 12491825 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 101/103 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP BAHL, SANGEETA

3663 Ex Parte Maass et al 13265687 - (D) HOELTER 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP EVANS, GARRETT F

3689 Ex Parte ROY et al 11557507 - (D) LORIN 112(1) 103 41.50 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA LLP MINCARELLI, JAN P

3689 Ex Parte Sinclair 11778560 - (D) FISCHETTI 112(1)/112(2)/103 GARVEY, SMITH & NEHRBASS, PATENT ATTORNEYS, L.L.C. RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lander 12882192 - (R) GUIJT 102 VENJURIS, P.C. NGUYEN, SON T

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex parte USCO S.P.A Appellant Ex Parte 6412267 et al 09/825,581 90013496 - (D) HOFF 103 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP Third Party Requester: NIXON PEABODY LLP GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original JONES, DAVID B

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3683 Ex parte STUBHUB, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8,521,618 B2 et al 13/492,599 90013113 - (D) SIU Concurring JEFFERY 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST, P.A. HOTALING, JOHN M original MISIASZEK, MICHAEL

The claims are “of primary importance, in the effort to ascertain precisely what it is that is patented.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 570 (1876)).  Hence, we first “look to the words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented invention” in the context of the particular claim in which the term appears.  Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).  “[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.”  Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 2111.01 2143.01 2258

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2111.01

Friday, July 3, 2015

armbruster, marzocchi, angstadt, sullivan, vitronics

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Bastian 12420311 - (D) HORVATH 103 BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS & MAIRE, P. A. SHIN, ANDREW

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2855 Ex Parte Taylor et al 12830810 - (D) PAK 112(1)/112(2) ENDURANCE LAW GROUP PLC k-Space Associates, Inc. KAPLAN VERBITSKY, GAIL

As the predecessor to our reviewing court stated in In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677 (CCPA 1975):

[A] specification disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support.

(quoting In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220 (CCPA 1971)).
 However, the Examiner did not supply a sufficient reason to doubt the object truth of the statements in the Specification.  Nor did the Exminer proffer any evidence to show that the above spectra preprocessing steps could not be conducted without "undue experimentation."  In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976) (explaining that the Examiner has the "burden of giving reason, supported by the record as a whole, why the specification in not enabling.... Showing that the disclosure entails undue experimentation is part of the PTO's initial burden ....")  The Examiner did not even meaningfully address the Rule 132 Affidavits of record relied upon by Appellants to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to perform the above spectra preprocessing steps recited in the claims based on the information provided in the Specification.  Compare Ans. 8 with App. Br. 6-7; In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaning that failure to meaningfully address submitted evidence is error). Rather than focusing on the sufficiency of any underlying evidence and/or any passages of the Specification relied upon by the affiants for their averments, the Examiner inappropriately ignored the contents of the Rule 132 Affidavits because the affiants were deemed experts, rather that one of ordinary skill in the art.  Ans. 8; see, e.g., Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1585 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (explaining that an expert testimony can be relied on to show the state of the art, e.g., the knowledge of one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.)

Armbruster, In re, 512 F. 2d 676, 185 USPQ 152 (CCPA 1975) 608.01(b) 2161 2181

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971)  2107.01 ,   2107.02 ,   2124 ,   2163 ,   2163.04 ,   2164.03 ,   2164.04 ,   2164.08

Angstadt, In re, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976) 2164.01 2164.06 2164.08(b)

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2111.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Hanes 11669232 - (D) KAISER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MESA, JOSE M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Rasmusson et al 12127462 - (D) FINK 112(2) 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC CRADDOCK, ROBERT J

Friday, January 16, 2015

Phillips, vitronics

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2495 Ex Parte Al-Azzawi 11450476 - (D) BEAMER 103 MOORE PATENTS LEWIS, LISA C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Schneider 10833431 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 FAY SHARPE LLP KANTAMNENI, SHOBHA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Card 12263163 - (D) HAAPALA 103 103 Lowe Graham Jones PLLC DANG, KHANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Andersen et al 12226599 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC POLITO, NICHOLAS F

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Becker et al 12391629 - (D) JESCHKE 102 102/103 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) COLLINS, ANDREW WARREN

Here, neither party has identified intrinsic evidence to aid in the construction of “conduit,” and we have identified no such evidence in conflict with the construction provided by the combined dictionary definitions discussed above. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (stating that judges may “‘rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents’”) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 2111.01 2143.01 2258

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc ., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2111.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Chen et al 11520564 - (D) HASTINGS 103 AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. PARSONS, THOMAS H

1789 Ex Parte Muncaster et al 11881197 - (D) KRATZ 103 JACK A. KANZ COLE, ELIZABETH M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2132 Ex Parte Veazey et al 11551777 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MERCADO, RAMON A

2157 Ex Parte Unz 11704551 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP GIRMA, ANTENEH B

2194 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 11624253 - (D) KAISER 103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC DAO, TUAN C.

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte Sriram 12592416 - (D) HAAPALA 103 Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC NG, CHRISTINE Y

2497 Ex Parte BUDYTA et al 12115372 - (D) SILVERMAN 103/obviousness-type double patenting INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) HOLMES, ANGELA R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2864 Ex Parte Power et al 13028308 - (D) KRATZ 112(1) 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP SUGLO, JANET L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte CHERNICK et al 12496196 - (D) GOODSON concurring BROWNE 103 obviousness-type double patenting LAMORTE & ASSOCIATES P.C. WONG, STEVEN B

3781 Ex Parte Heisner et al 12207696 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 Baker Botts LLP POOS, MADISON LYNN

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

vitronics, best, crown operations, Jung, hyatt, schreiber

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Davidai 11454720 - (D) GREEN 103 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA CORPORATION CHONG, YONG SOO

1648 Ex Parte Doranz et al 10901399 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 Pepper/Integral Molecular, Inc. LUCAS, ZACHARIAH

1651 Ex Parte Morozov et al 11419593 - (D) FREDMAN 103 GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DAVIS, RUTH A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Fryer et al 11441767 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. CHU, JOHN S Y

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Atkins 11536556 - (D) DILLON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RIES, LAURIE ANNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Barnett 11516600 - (D) FLOYD 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT CANADA LLP (PWC) EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT

3764 Ex Parte Grind 12317586 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 Precor Incorporated Amer Sports North America THANH, LOAN H

3767 Ex Parte McFerran 10667056 - (D) GREEN 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC GRAY, PHILLIP A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Chu 10933702 - (D) POTHIER 103 103 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) TABOR, AMARE F

2444 Ex Parte Jennings et al 11049808 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 103 SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P.C. RICHARDSON, THOMAS W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Norin et al 11593711 - (D) McKONE 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. SOROWAR, GOLAM

2677 Ex Parte Laksono 11285643 - (D) McKONE 103 103 VIXS Systems, Inc. c/o Davidson Sheehan LLP MCDOWELL, JR, MAURICE L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Xu 12039913 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 102/103 103 Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP ENAD, CHRISTINE A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Cieslik et al 11628727 - (D) SPAHN 103 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION WALBERG, TERESA J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Yadav et al 10898849 - (D) GARRIS 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P

1741 Ex Parte Pinkham et al 11805373 - (D) METZ 103 Johns Manville LAZORCIK, JASON L

1782 Ex Parte Lovett et al 10588710 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Monro 11255090 - (D) HUGHES 102 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. JACOB, AJITH

2171 Ex Parte Torres et al 11304947 - (D) DILLON 102/103 IBM END IPLAW (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC NUNEZ, JORDANY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2446 Ex Parte Vellanki et al 10818227 - (D) NAPPI 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP NGUYEN, DUSTIN

2448 Ex Parte Gonen et al 10941790 - (D) BENOIT 103 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. BUI, JONATHAN A

2456 Ex Parte Mamas 10492095 - (D) BOUCHER 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP BARQADLE, YASIN M

Although technical treatises and dictionaries fall within the category of extrinsic evidence, as they do not form a part of an integrated patent document, they are worthy of special note. Judges are free to consult such resources at any time in order to better understand the underlying technology and may also rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2111.01

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Holtschneider 10929829 - (D) WINSOR 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON CASCA, FRED A

2675 Ex Parte Walmsley et al 11176372 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Memjet c/o Cooley LLP HON, MING Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Miyaji et al 11772537 - (D) COURTENAY 102 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC KIM, JOHN K

The Examiner has the burden of providing reasonable proof that a claim limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (C.C.P.A. 1977); see also Crown Operations Int'l, LTD v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Examiner meets this "burden of production by `adequately explaining the shortcomings it perceives so that the applicant is properly notified and able to respond.'" In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Hyatt v. Dudas,492 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). The burden of proof then shifts to the applicant "to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on." Best, 562 F.2d at 1254-55; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that once the Examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation, the burden of proof was properly shifted to the inventor to rebut the finding of inherency).

In re MOUSA, 479 Fed. Appx. 348, 352 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (unpublished) 

Best, In re, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) 2112, 2112.01, 2112.02, 2114

Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2163.04

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02, 2112, 2114

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte White 11213603 - (D) McCARTHY 103 CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE DONDERO, WILLIAM E  

FEDERAL CIRCUIT  

AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1614 NOVO NORDISK INC. AND NOVO NORDISK A/S, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PADDOCK LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1031 6,677,358 09/459,526 PROST inequitable conduct 103 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Latham & Watkins LLP SPIVACK, PHYLLIS G

1614 NOVO NORDISK A/S AND NOVO NORDISK INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES, LTD. AND SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendants-Appellees. 2011-1223 6,677,358 09/459,526 PROST inequitable conduct 103 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Winston & Strawn LLP SPIVACK, PHYLLIS G