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

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Thursday August 26, 2010


1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Stopek et al 11/292,172 PRATS 103(a) TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LPD/B/A COVIDIEN Examiner Name: DICKINSON, PAUL W

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Grandominico et al 11/355,053 PAK 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. Examiner Name: O HERN, BRENT T

Ex Parte Kitamura et al 11/682,527 PRATS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. Examiner Name: GEORGE, PATRICIA ANN

As our reviewing court has recently stated, “it is not enough to simply show that the references disclose the claim limitations; in addition, ‘it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements as the new invention does.’” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 3257312 at *4 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007)).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

Ex Parte Kuibira et al 10/480,166 FRANKLIN 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP Examiner Name: DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR

Ex Parte Sachedina et al 10/921,469 THOMAS 102(b)/103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) LAW OFFICE OF JIM BOICE Examiner Name: DEBROW, JAMES J

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Mohammed 10/115,767 RUGGIERO 103(a) ADELI & TOLLEN, LLP Examiner Name: IQBAL, KHAWAR

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Collazo 10/679,569 HORNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,

Ex Parte DeSmet et al 10/941,210 BARRETT 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. Examiner Name: STEWART, ALVIN J

Ex Parte Sosalla et al 11/025,528 McCARTHY 103(a)/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TARA POHLKOTTE Examiner Name: STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Although the printed matter must be considered, in that situation it may not be entitled to patentable weight.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (footnote omitted). In dealing with printed matter, “the critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” Id. at 1386.

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01

see also In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 231 (CCPA 1947) (differences in ornamentation are entitled to little weight in determining the obviousness of a claim to a structure).

Seid, In re, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04


1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Ginger 10/140,694 GRIMES 112(1)/112(2) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP Examiner Name: BAUSCH, SARAE L

“An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Ex Parte Miles et al 11/528,286 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC Examiner Name: DIRAMIO, JACQUELINE A

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

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gingles 10/991,289 McCARTHY 103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/INDY/COOK Examiner Name: VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG



3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1615
DAIRY HEALTH PRODUCTS, INC. Third Party Requester and Respondent v. Patent of IBA, INC 95/001,016 7,208,170 LEBOVITZ 103(a) Terry M. Crellin Third Party Requestor: Jonathan R. Lee Patent Owner and Appellant Examiner Name: HUANG, EVELYN MEI

To overcome a finding of obviousness by demonstrating commercial success, there must be a nexus between commercial success and the claimed features. Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “[T]he asserted commercial success of the product must be due to the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.” J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[I]f the commercial success is due to an unclaimed feature of the device, the commercial success is irrelevant. So too if the feature that creates the commercial success was known in the prior art, the success is not pertinent.” Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech. Inc., 463 F.3d at 1312 (footnotes omitted).

“Ordinarily, [a] nexus may be inferred when ‘the patentee shows both that there is commercial success, and that the thing (product or method) that is commercially successful is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.’” Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports Inc., 392 F.3d at 1324 (citing Demaco Corp. v. F, Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.05

Demaco Corp. v. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . 716.01(b), 716.01(d), 716.03, 716.03(a), 716.03(b)


3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3733
Ex parte FITLINXX, INC. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,024 5,785,632 LANE 102(b) Kevin Mason Ryan, Mason, & Lewis, LLP Examiner Name: FOSTER, JIMMY G



Ex Parte Montero
Ex Parte Rodrigues et al
Ex Parte Sesek et al
Ex Parte Umezawa et al


Ex Parte Eves et al


Ex Parte Ballard et al
Ex Parte Bunker et al
Ex Parte Faber et al
Ex Parte Guo et al
Ex Parte Kelkar et al
Ex Parte Reddy et al
Ex Parte Ryan
Ex Parte Buckenmaier
Ex Parte Senda et al
Ex Parte Zha et al

No comments :