REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Manjunath et al 12720689 - (D) ENGELS 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PEACH, POLINA G
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Wang et al 12864205 - (D) HANLON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Gill 12084718 - (D) WOODS 103 Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co., LPA IHEZIE, JOSHUA K
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte DAY et al 12267815 - (D) KINDER 103 103 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP (SV) DRAGOESCU, CLAUDIA B
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3681 Ex Parte Irwin 10775680 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 102/103 DILWORTH IP, LLC HENRY, RODNEY M
3696 Ex Parte Deeming et al 12144538 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/103 103 AOL Inc./Finnegan BERONA, KIMBERLY SUE
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Grgac et al 12746948 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 MAGNA INTERNATIONAL, INC. VAN SELL, NATHAN L
It has been recognized that the question of obviousness involves hindsight reasoning:
Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) 707.07(f) , 2145
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Hammen et al 12136058 - (D) JIVANI 112(2)/103 Perkins Coie LLP - SHA General WITZENBURG, BRUCE A
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Jacobs 11852956 - (D) McCARTNEY 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. SMITH, CHENEA
2487 Ex Parte Biesbrouck et al 11008165 - (D) SHIANG 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON WERNER, DAVID N
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Kirk 12193546 - (D) HOSKINS 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG NGUYEN, BAO LONG T
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Hoang 12515531 - (D) WOODS 102/103 FLETCHER YODER (CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION) FOX, JOHN C
While we are mindful that Hockerson-Halberstadt cautioned that patent drawings not designated as being drawn to scale cannot be relied upon to define precise proportions of elements if the specification is completely silent on the issue, that does not mean, “that things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded.” In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972); Hockerson-Halberstadt, 222 F.3d at 956. ...
We find the Mraz decision to be more on point than both the Wright and Nystrom cases. The Mraz case involved a claim that included an edging roll having a groove therein formed by inwardly converging inclined surfaces, with the angle of the inclines not exceeding 15°. Mraz, 435 F.2d at
1070. A prior art reference to Wilson, asserted to disclose this claim feature, and illustrating (but not explicitly disclosing in writing) an angle of incline of about 6°, was characterized by the Court as, “focus[ing] on the edge rolls, showing them with great particularity and showing the grooves thereon to have an angularity well within the range recited in appellant’s claims.” 1 Id. at 1072. This was contrasted with and distinguished from a situation in an earlier decision, In re Wilson, in which “the attempted reliance was not only on a patent drawing per se, it was on a greatly enlarged section of a small drawing obviously never intended to show the dimensions of anything.” Mraz, 435 F.2d at 1072; In re Wilson, 312 F.2d 449 (CCPA 1963).
1 The angle of incline was presumably determined through the simple use of a protractor.
Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2125
Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972) 2125
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL INC. Requester and Respondent v. MOTIONPOINT CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7584216 et al 10/784,727 95001918 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP - MotionPoint THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC DESAI, RACHNA SINGH original AL HASHEMI, SANA A
No comments :
Post a Comment