SEARCH

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

Thursday, February 10, 2011

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Hein et al 10/867,537 GREEN 112(1)/103(a) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER PAK, YONG D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Panz et al 11/036,987 HASTINGS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1765 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/104,759 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDINGS, INC. EXAMINER HAIDER, SAIRA BANO

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ludwig 10/702,415 JEFFERY 103(a) Lester F. Ludwig EXAMINER FLETCHER, MARLON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Papsdorf 09/905,274 STAICOVICI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3732
Ex Parte Tarr 10/906,861 HORNER 103(a) HEAD, JOHNSON & KACHIGIAN EXAMINER WILSON, JOHN J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/674,974 JEFFERY 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M

2174 Ex Parte Haynes 10/794,831 COURTENAY 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/IBM EXAMINER KE, PENG

2186 Ex Parte Lee 10/390,667 JEFFERY 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3769 Ex Parte Stelea et al 11/181,122 KERINS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER JOHNSON III, HENRY M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART


3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3618 PlaSmart Inc. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Jar Chen Wang and Hong Jiun Gu Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,355 6,722,674 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: Morris Manning Martin LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Jeffrey Sonnabend Sonnabend Law EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER CAMPBELL, KELLY E

To the extent that Requester’s argument is based on a “common sense” rationale, neither the Examiner nor Requester offers an adequate explanation on this record to support such a conclusion. See Trimed Inc. v. Stryker, 608 F.3d 1333, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Merely saying that an invention is a logical, commonsense solution to a known problem does not make it so.”)

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Jailkhani et al 11/246,569 WALSH 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT ATTORNEYS, LLC EXAMINER GANGLE, BRIAN J

“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references . . . is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The perspective from which these findings are made . . . is that of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention,” Glaverbel Societe Anonyme v. Northlake Mktg. & Supply, Inc., 45 F. 3d 1550, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1995), who is presumed to have knowledge of all “pertinent prior art,” In re Carlson, 983 F.2d 1032, 1038 (Fed. Cir 1992).

Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03

Carlson, In re, 983 F.2d 1032, 25 USPQ2d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . .2126

1616 Ex Parte Miles 10/161,260 McCOLLUM 103(a) James F. Vaughan Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

1615
Ex Parte de Rodas et al 10/349,743 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP F. FOX EXAMINER LEVY, NEIL S

1623
Ex Parte Zikria et al 11/213,303 WALSH 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) EVELYN M. SOMMER EXAMINER OLSON, ERIC

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2187 Ex Parte Gaertner 10/883,236 HOMERE 103(a) SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. EXAMINER THAMMAVONG, PRASITH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Downey 11/123,758 DANG 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINERLIPMAN, JACOB

REHEARING

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Breiner 11/322,051 MacDONALD T.H.P. RICHARDSON EXAMINER HIGA, BRENDAN Y


No comments :