SEARCH

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

voss, borkowski, arkley, fisher, aller, dreyfus, waite

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Enenkiel 11165342 - (D) DIXON 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP LIU, HEXING

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Euvino et al 11140790 - (D) KERINS 103 CPA Global CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY LEE, BENJAMIN P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Kobayashi 11622380 - (D) SAINDON 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SENNIGER POWERS LLP SHAKERI, HADI

See In re Voss, 557 F.2d 812, 816 n.11 (CCPA 1977) (“reversal is not a mandate to the PTO to issue a patent and does not preclude the PTO from reopening prosecution”) (citing In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718 (CCPA 1974) (the Board may not force the granting of patents on inventions that do not comply with the statutes)); see also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 589 (CCPA 1972) (rejecting the notion that the reversal of a rejection indicates that a patent should be granted); In re Fisher, 448 F.2d 1406, 1407 (CCPA 1971) (“we pass only on rejections actually made and do not decree the issuance of patents … the Patent Office can always reopen prosecution”).

Borkowski, In re, 505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974) 715.07

3763 Ex Parte Schneider et al 11646744 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 ST. JUDE MEDICAL, ATRIAL FIBRILLATION DIVISION Kite & Key, LLC SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Gillis et al 11592452 - (D) SAINDON 102 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BROWN, MICHAEL A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte BANOWSKI et al 11960348 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Henkel Corporation KARPINSKI, LUKE E

“[W]here the general conditions of a claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (citing In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931 (CCPA 1934); In re Waite, 168 F.2d 104 (CCPA 1948)).

Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) 2144.05

1631 Ex Parte Homayouni et al 11215635 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE LLP LIN, JERRY

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Gauthier et al 11613625 - (D) TIMM 103 O'Shea Getz P.C. CHAN, SING P

1746 Ex Parte Gauthier et al 11330776 - (D) TIMM 103 O'Shea Getz P.C. GOFF II, JOHN L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Wigard et al 11350394 - (D) POTHIER 102 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ludwig 10676249 - (D) JEFFERY 102 Lester F. Ludwig FLETCHER, MARLON T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Hardison 10674758 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/103 WILLIAMSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, LLC FLICK, JASON E

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2748 Ex parte GRYPHON NETWORKS CORP. 90010978 6130937 08/853,563 PERRY 102/103 HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original FOSTER, ROLAND G

No comments :