SEARCH

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

Thursday, May 24, 2012

net moneyin, edge, lindemann

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Remacle et al 10/991,087 MILLS 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP WILDER, CYNTHIA B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Takagi et al 10/854,212 COURTENAY 102(e) CROWELL & MORING LLP CHOWDHURY, NIGAR

See Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (To anticipate under §102 “it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.”) (underline added).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Linder et al 10/936,857 ADAMS 102(e)/103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC LANG, AMY T

3733 Ex Parte Klaue et al 11/245,703 MILLS 103(a) Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP HOFFMAN, MARY C

3742 Ex Parte Zajchowski et al 10/976,969 STAICOVICI 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. RALIS, STEPHEN J

3748 Ex Parte Nakhamkin 12/818,186 SPAHN 103(a) Manelli Selter PLLC JETTON, CHRISTOPHER M

The Examiner appears to be relying on the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2144.04 II B, which states that “the omission of an element and retention of its function is an indicia of (un)obviousness. [sic]” See In re Edge, 359 F.2d 896 (CCPA 1966).

Edge, In re, 359 F.2d 896, 149 USPQ 556 (CCPA 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

3761 Ex Parte Roe et al 10/769,493 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

The requirement for anticipation that the prior art elements themselves be “arranged as in the claim” means that claims cannot be “treated ... as mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458-59 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 221 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.03, 2164.01, 2164.05(a)

3764 Ex Parte Long et al 11/512,801 PRATS 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

3776 Ex Parte Evazynajad et al 11/204,453 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC DOAN, ROBYN KIEU

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Andreas-Schott et al 11/434,386 TIMM 102(a,e)/103(a) 102(a,e)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION RYAN, PATRICK J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Mukund et al 10/712,711 BISK 103(a) 103(a) MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP LO, SUZANNE

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/235,102 BARRY 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) 103(a) JOHN S. HALE GIPPLE & HALE TANG, SON M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Daniel et al 11/027,613 ADAMS 103(a) 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC LANG, AMY T

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Richardson et al 10/811,309 GARRIS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC LAZORCIK, JASON L

No comments :