Friday September 3, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Cole et al 10/802,796 PRATS 101/112(1) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP Examiner Name: HA, JULIE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Thai et al 10/865,265 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY Examiner Name: NERANGIS, VICKEY MARIE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Dobbs et al 11/156,355 STAICOVICI Opinion Dissenting KERINS 103(a) DUNLAP CODDING, P.C. Examiner Name: PARSLEY, DAVID J

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3651
Ex parte HOGUE INDUSTRIES LLC Appellant 90/008,119 6,991,423 MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) SIMPLE IP LAW, P.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER Gavin N. Manning OYEN WIGGS GREEN & MUTALA LLP Examiner Name: KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3651
Ex parte HOGUE INDUSTRIES LLC Appellant 90/008,968 7,201,554 MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) SIMPLE IP LAW, P.C. Third Party Requester Gavin N. Manning OYEN WIGGS GREEN & MUTALA LLP Examiner Name: KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A

A witness’ interest is important in determining the weight to be given declaration evidence submitted during ex parte patent examination. Accord, Pargon Podiatry Lab., Inc. v. KLM Lab., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Holding inequitable conduct resulted from the failure to disclose to the examiner that the declarants who testified supporting patentability had a significant financial stake in the assignee of the invention.); Refac Int’l, Ltd. v. Lotus Development Corp., 81 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that applicant committed inequitable conduct in withholding information on the inventor’s significant prior connections with the affiants - the prior connection was considered material in deciding the weight to be given affidavits supporting the patentability of the claims).

Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 25 USPQ2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993). .410, 2133.03(e)(2)

Refac Int’l Ltd. v. Lotus Development Corp., 81 F.3d 1576, 38 USPQ2d 1665 (Fed. Cir. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .410

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Adams
Ex Parte Chappa
Ex Parte Farmer et al
Ex Parte Hendren et al
Ex Parte Johnson et al
Ex Parte Mason
Ex Parte Nishitani
Ex Parte Utsugi

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Bennett et al
Ex Parte Kerr-Maddox et al
Ex Parte SALLIN et al