remark, demaco, pentec, McLaughlin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Warrier et al 10577754 - (D) SMITH 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC MARKS, JACOB B

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Sperle et al 11284263 - (D) SHIANG 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP RICHARDSON, JAMES E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Cooper et al 11252320 - (D) HUGHES 102 THOMSON Licensing LLC VANCHY JR, MICHAEL J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Peltier et al 12331621 - (D) HOELTER 103 American Air Liquide, Inc. ADAMOS, THEODORE V

3663 Ex Parte Katsumata et al 11476143 - (D) BROWNE 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP TISSOT, ADAM D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Lloyd 12011415 - (D) SMEGAL 103 102/103 Jerrod R. Lloyd AVILA, STEPHEN P

In ex parte proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, an applicant must show that the claimed features were responsible for the commercial success of an article if the evidence of nonobviousness is to be accorded substantial weight. Merely asserting commercial success of an article-alleged to embody an invention that is being offered for sale by another-is not sufficient. See Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1502-03 (BPAI 1990). Compare Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1394 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988). See also Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (commercial success may have been attributable to extensive advertising and position as a market leader before the introduction of the patented product).

Remark, Ex parte, 15 USPQ2d 1498 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) 716.03 , 716.03(b) , 2144.08

Demaco Corp. v. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   716.01(b) ,   716.01(d) ,   716.03 ,  716.03(a) ,  716.03(b)

Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.03(b) , 716.06 , 2141.01(a)


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Ott 11625357 - (D) GOODSON 103 obviousness-type double patenting FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) MAYE, AYUB A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Fukushima et al 11812272 - (D) HASTINGS 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO BOYLE, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Buller et al 12244764 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG SINGH, AMRESH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Swager et al 12268291 - (D) WINSOR 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Lu et al 12502211 - (D) KATZ 103 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. ALROBAIE, KHAMDAN N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Buhamad 12706858 - (D) SMEGAL 103 LOWE HAUPTMAN & HAM, LLP RISIC, ABIGAIL ANNE

See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971(“[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning”).

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) 707.07(f) , 2145

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Kleyne 11599496 - (D) KINDER 103 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. SHEARER, DANIEL R

3777 Ex Parte Cain et al 12569061 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 SHAY GLENN LLP NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC