PTAB.US

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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, February 23, 2017

klosak

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Li 13942906 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 Eschweilers & Associates, L.L.C. GATES, BRADFORD M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2194 Ex Parte Arora et al 13562756 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 HP Inc. YUN, CARINA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Noldus et al 13376471 - (D) BARRY 103 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC MOBIN, HASANUL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Allen 12326331 - (D) BROWNE 103 103 HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. KIRSCH, ANDREW THOMAS

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Ryther et al 12816016 - (D) RANGE 103 McKee, Voorhees & Sease P.L.C. ATTN: Ecolab Inc ASDJODI, MOHAMMADREZA

“[I]t is not enough to show that results are obtained which differ from those obtained in the prior art: that difference must be shown to be an unexpected difference.” In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Ma et al 11620876 - (D) HUME 103 DLA Piper LLP (US) PAN, PHOEBE X

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Piard et al 12412313 - (D) KUMAR 103 Garlick & Markison (IH) LIN, JASON K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex Parte Fritsch et al 12096228 - (D) HOELTER 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP KONG, SZE-HON

 See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails “to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function or give unexpected results”) [citing In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309 (CCPA 1965) (“Appellants have failed to show that the change [in the claimed invention] as compared to [the reference], result in a difference in function or give unexpected results”)].

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 ANVIL INTERNATIONAL, LLC. Requester, Appellant v. VICTALIC COMPANY Patent Owner, Respondent Ex Parte 7712796 et al 11/485,921 95001880 - (D) SONG 102 103 41.77 102/103 OLIFF PLC PATENT OWNER Taylor English Duma LLP ENGLISH, PETER C original BOCHNA, DAVID