SEARCH

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

Monday, March 18, 2013

umbarger, ratti, union oil, vas-cath


REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Huebner et al 12074169 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 ROGERS TOWERS, P.A. NAGPAUL, JYOTI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3674 Ex Parte Diez et al 11630408 - (D) HORNER 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. LEE, GILBERT Y

AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Grove et al 10843636 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 US ARMY SOLDIER AND BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL COMMAND DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Immordino et al 11639793 - (D) KRATZ 103 GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD. BARCENA, CARLOS

1743 Ex Parte Knobel 10519292 - (D) GARRIS 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. BODAWALA, DIMPLE N

1779 Ex Parte Nunes et al 11165474 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1) 103 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC JARRETT, LORE RAMILLANO

However, it has been established that the claim need not use the same words as the specification, but rather it is enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed. Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We, therefore, conclude Appellants’ Specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, Appellants were in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Union Oil of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 54 USPQ2d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2163.05

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 1504.20, 2161, 2161.01, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Chidlovskii et al 11170542 - (D) SIU 101/103 FAY SHARPE LLP PAULA, CESAR B

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Skraba et al 11152244 - (D) ZECHER 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT FAN, HUA

2491 Ex Parte Fineberg 10121188 - (D) KUMAR 112(1)/103 CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC POPHAM, JEFFREY D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Moulin et al 11662106 - (D) HORNER 103 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor&Zafman LLP SINGH, SUNIL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Rothschild 10850993 - (D) HORNER 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP LIM, SENG HENG

The difference between using ROM to store a fixed memory of graphics to be displayed by the gaming machine versus downloading the graphics to be displayed on the gaming machine from a remote location (e.g., server) does not affect the overall principle of operation of Ozaki’s gaming machine. See In re Umbarger, 407 F.2d 425, 430-31 (CCPA 1969) (finding In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959) inapplicable where the modified apparatus will operate “on the same principles as before.”).

Ratti, In re, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959) 2143.01

3766 Ex Parte Daly 11192014 - (D) CALVE 102/103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP SCHAETZLE, KENNEDY
 
REHEARING  

DENIED  
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Harris 10216268 - (D) THOMAS 102 CURTIS, NEIL & ELWOOD, LLC CHEN, TE Y

No comments :