SEARCH

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

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Morris, leapfrog, KSR

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Saito et al 11/052,881 KERINS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER

JOHNSON, MATTHEW A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Sakamoto et al 11/047,818 KAUFFMAN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HALL, ARTHUR O


AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Baniecki et al 11/343,121 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION EXAMINER MARCANTONI, PAUL D


REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex parte POWERS INTEGRATION, INC. 90/008,326 6,249,876 SIU 102(b) James Y. Go

BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN. LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original EXAMINER BUTLER, DENNIS

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Brooks et al 11/498,620 McCOLLUM 103(a) Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Allen et al 11/239,596 JEFFERY 101/102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting IBM (ROC-BLF) C/O BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER DILLON, SAMUEL A

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Kleen 10/927,812 WINSOR 102(e) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER
SIM, YONG H

[T]he [US]PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 Ex Parte Laubner et al 09/966,221 KOHUT 103(a) CHRISTOPHER P. MAIORANA, P.C. EXAMINER WIMER, MICHAEL C

Appellants have presented no convincing evidence that modifying Openlander’s antenna containing a prism wherein the antenna is elevated as taught by Murphy was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).

Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fischer Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . 2143.01

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


3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Chick 10/884,350 HOELTER 103(a) Paul M. Denk EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

NEW

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1793 Ex Parte Baniecki et al 11/343,121 NAPPI 103(a) SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION EXAMINER MARCANTONI, PAUL D

AFFIRMED
1777 Ex Parte Okuda 11/050,766 GARRIS 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER WALLENHORST, MAUREEN

REHEARING

DENIED
1777 Ex Parte Gupta 11/028,114 PAK 102 PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

No comments :