SEARCH

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

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

alton, automotive technologies, genentech2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Nasvik et al 11655014 - (D) TIMM 103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. RIVERA, JOSHEL

This evidence deserves at least some weight and should have been weighed with the other evidence of record. Cf. In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1173-74 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding as error the failure to consider declaration evidence concerning questions of fact, and the summary dismissal, without adequate explanation, of the declaration as rebuttal evidence.). The Declaration need not prove that all contractors skilled in the art would have not found the method obvious.

Alton, In re, 76 F.3d 1168, 37 USPQ2d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2145, 2163, 2163.06, 2164.05

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Swails et al 10931907 - (D) McCARTHY 103 PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION BRINSON, PATRICK F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Treier et al 12039441 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP CLEMENTE, ROBERT ARTHUR

1785 Ex Parte Hirayama et al 12061518 - (D) OBERMANN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT CHAU, LINDA N

1785 Ex Parte Hirayama et al 11258532 - (D) OBERMANN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT CHAU, LINDA N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 11069468 - (D) KRIVAK 103 GARLICK & MARKISON BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M

2683 Ex Parte Flick 10188440 - (D) McKONE 112(1) ADDMG - 27975 SYED, NABIL H

Rather, "[i]t is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement." GENENTECH, INC v. NOVO NORDISK, A/S, 108 F.2d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) accord Automotive Technologies International v. BMW of North America, 501 F. 3d 1274, 1283 ("Although the knowledge of one skilled in the art is indeed relevant, the novel aspect of an invention must be enabled in the patent.")

Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 42 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2161.01

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Cosmescu 11379406 - (D) JENKS 102/103 Zeman-Mullen & Ford, LLP CARPENTER, WILLIAM R  

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2613 TELLABS OPERATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. FUJITSU LIMITED Requestor, Respondent 95000485 7369772 10/737,765 EASTHOM 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO HUGHES, DEANDRA M original SEDIGHIAN, REZA

REHEARING
 
DENIED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2818 RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO., LTD. and MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC. Requesters 95001152 6,324,120 09/779,296 EASTHOM FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original NGUYEN, TAN

No comments :