SEARCH

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

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

fallaux, richardson-vicks, bayer4

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Boehm 12/026,567 ADAMS 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Yadav et al 11/808,766 WALSH 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES INC EXAMINER YOON, TAE H

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 Ex Parte Buda et al 10/359,218 KRIVAK 103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER HAILE, FEBEN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Chamberlain et al 11/349,019 CLARKE 103(a) W. ALLEN MARCONTELL EXAMINER RAMSEY, JEREMY C

3641 Ex Parte Rednikov 10/544,358 SPAHN 102(b) Valeriy Rednikov EXAMINER LEE, BENJAMIN P

3665 Ex Parte Dwyer et al 11/112,796 O’NEILL 103(a) HONEYWELL/IFL EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHUONG P

3682 Ex Parte Koether et al 11/156,862 CRAWFORD 103(a) EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Koch 10/477,301 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP


AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Kostansek et al 11/131,615 McCOLLUM 103(a) CHUI, MEI PING ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER CHUI, MEI PING

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Lester et al 11/197,010 RUGGIERO 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER TAYLOR, EARL N

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Hasse 10/987,654 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) NGUYEN, CHI Q Hasse & Nesbitt LLC EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CHI Q

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte MacDERMID PRINTING SOLUTIONS, LLC Appellant 90/008,004 6,966,259 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: JOHN L. CORDANI CARMODY & TORRANCE, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MICHAEL S. MARCUS, ESQ. DICKSTEIN SHARPIRO LLP EXAMINER PEIKARI, BEHZAD

REISSUE

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Goode 10/345,836 6,173,769 BAHR 251 GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP EXAMINER BATES, ZAKIYA W

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Hong 10/038,312 LUCAS 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER LEE, TING ZHOU

1618 Ex Parte Bolle et al 10/515,698 SCHEINER 103(a)/nonstatutory double patenting NATH & ASSOCIATES PLLC EXAMINER DICKINSON, PAUL W

Nevertheless, as the Examiner correctly points out, the fact “[t]hat both applications share a common filing date is not a grounds for withdrawing a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection” (Ans. 9). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c)(3). Even if patents granted on the two applications were set to expire on the same date, unjustified timewise extension is not the only concern addressed by the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. “[T]here is a second justification for obviousness-type double patenting - harassment by multiple assignees.” In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313, 1319, (Fed. Cir. 2009).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Li et al 11/690,713 MILLS 112(1)/103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L

1796 Ex Parte Gronsveld et al 11/041,554 WALSH 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Tanner 11/120,027 FREDMAN 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER FISHER, ABIGAIL L

2173 Ex Parte Ubillos 11/652,277 DESHPANDE 102(e) APPLE INC./BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER PILLAI, NAMITHA

2196 Ex Parte Kataoka 10/632,178 MACDONALD 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER CAO, DIEM K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Jordan 10/337,137 GONSALVES 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - PIP Law LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHUOC H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Jordan et al 11/372,312 GREENHUT 103(a) KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP EXAMINER BUTLER, MICHAEL E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Polesuk 10/072,528 LEBOVITZ 103(a) Philip M. Weiss, Esq. Weiss & Weiss EXAMINER DOAN, ROBYN KIEU

The ultimate determination of whether an invention is obvious is a legal question based on the totality of the evidence. Richardson-Vicks, Inc. v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Richardson-Vicks, Inc. v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 44 USPQ2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . 716.01(d)

3782 Ex Parte Chertkow et al 11/063,058 HOELTER 103(a)/112(1) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER PASCUA, JES F


Further, Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 575 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009) provides that it is obvious to try a compound from a finite and easily traversed number of options that were narrowed down from a larger set of possibilities by the prior art.

REHEARING

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Bedoukian 10/949,129 PRATS 103(a) George W. Rauchfuss, Jr. Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P. EXAMINER BARHAM, BETHANY P


NEW

REVERSED

2183 Ex Parte Alsup et al 10/726,902 HUGHES 103(a) MHKKG / GLOBALFOUNDRIES EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E

2442 Ex Parte Kamdar et al 10/690,125 GONSALVES 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3621 Ex Parte Burkholder 11/437,111 FISCHETTI 103(a) TI Law Group EXAMINER OBEID, MAMON A

1763 Ex Parte Durrant 11/188,066 MILLS 103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

2443 Ex Parte Henrie 11/546,488 POTHIER 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER COONEY, ADAM A

3716 Ex Parte Leen et al 11/335,210 BARRETT 103(a) CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. EXAMINER DUFFY, DAVID W

AFFIRMED

2492 Ex Parte Brabson et al 10/007,582 ZECHER 102(e) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER PAN, JOSEPH T

1616 Ex Parte Edwards et al 11/523,914 WALSH 102(e)/obviousness-type double patenting Elmore Patent Law Group EXAMINER HAGHIGHATIAN, MINA


1626 Ex Parte Fischer et al 11/789,737 ADAMS 103(a) BASF Corporation EXAMINER STOCKTON, LAURA LYNNE

2179 Ex Parte Fu 10/644,948 POTHIER 112(2)/102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

1628 Ex Parte Holen et al 11/169,512 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

2628 Ex Parte Kujawa et al 11/132,124 RUGGIERO 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER HARRISON, CHANTE E

3716 Ex Parte Leen et al 11/335,253 BARRETT obviousness-type double patenting/101/103(a) CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. EXAMINER DUFFY, DAVID W

1772 Ex Parte Suganuma et al 10/138,559 PAK 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA

3724 Ex Parte Sussmeier et al 11/286,036 MOHANTY 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER PRONE, JASON D

2448 Ex Parte Uliano et al 10/113,544 GONSALVES 112(1)/103(a) Thomas & Karceski, P.C. EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N

DISMISSED

3684 Ex Parte Pullman 10/159,344 Shaw RCE Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER
MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M

2629 Ex Parte Simon 11/306,229 SHAW RCE Vedder Price PC EXAMINER BOYD, JONATHAN A

No comments :