KSR, kahn

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Hermann 13027018 - (D) HASTINGS 103  Garlick & Markison (TSLA) CHERNOW, FRANK A

1784 Ex Parte Tsypine et al 12532276 - (D) OWENS 103 GOUDREAU GAGE DUBUC SCHLEIS, DANIEL J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte BACHRACH et al 13204534 - (D) JIVANI 102/103 Artegis Law Group, LLP COTHRAN, BERNARD E

2185 Ex Parte Bell et al 13046610 - (D) ENGELS  102 Vierra Magen Marcus LLP I Intersil HUYNH, KIM T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Senften 13280648 - (D) OWENS 103 Evans & Dixon, LLC FLETCHER, MARLON T

Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141 ,   2144.05 ,   2145 ,   2216 ,   2242 ,   2286 ,   2616 ,   2642 ,   2686.04

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Daniel-Wayman et al 12396922 - (D) CHERRY 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP STRIMBU, GREGORY J

“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), quoted with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417–18 (2007).

Kahn, In re, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2143.01 , 2144

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141 ,   2144.05 ,   2145 ,   2216 ,   2242 ,   2286 ,   2616 ,   2642 ,   2686.04

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2486 Ex Parte Kulas 11499315 - (D) PINKERTON 103 103 Renaissance IP Law Group LLP (Portland - North) CHIO, TAT CHI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Pratt et al 13128134 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA VENKAT, JYOTHSNA A

1642 Ex Parte Shin et al 12665007 - (D) FLAX 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP AEDER, SEAN E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Star et al 11457525 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP DOUYETTE, KENNETH J

1788 Ex Parte Emmert 13900336 - (D) REN 103/double patenting HANLEY, FLIGHT & ZIMMERMAN, LLC NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L

1788 Ex Parte Colhoun et al 12909115 - (D) KENNEDY 102/103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP, LE, HOA T

2445 Ex Parte Bailey et al 12715921 - (D) LENTIVECH 102/103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN JAKOVAC, RYAN J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Blankenship et al 12861635 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Slater Matsil, LLP MARCELO, MEL VIN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte MOLNAR et al 12904927 - (D) SHIANG 103 Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA HE, WEIMING

2621 Ex Parte Shahparnia et al 12772012 - (D) STEPHENS 103 SYNAPTICS C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP MATTHEWS, ANDRE L

2622 Ex Parte HALLFORD et al 13688629 - (D) COURTENAY 103 BlackBerry Limited (HFZ) ZHENG, CHARLES H

2625 Ex Parte Raviv 12693463 - (D) PYONIN 112(1)/102/103 DEKEL PATENT LTD. ELNAFIA, SAIFELDIN E

2652 Ex Parte Sacha et al 12905421 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner I Starkey FALEY, KATHERINE A

2685 Ex Parte Loffl et al 13393352 - (D) SHIANG 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP WU, ZHEN Y

2688 Ex Parte Jin et al 13593682 - (D) DEJMEK 103 Avago Technologies Limited ALUNKAL, THOMAS D

2692 Ex Parte KIM et al 12267388 - (D) CUTITTA 103 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP ABDIN, SHAHEDA A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte OSTROVSKY et al 13252157 - (D) GARRIS 103 Collard & Roe, P.C./Leviton MISKA, VIT W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3667 Ex Parte Wang et al 12082396 - (D) OSINSKI 103 InTouch Health KISWANTO, NICHOLAS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Wickland et al 11705028 - (D) PLENZER 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. KIRSCH, ANDREW THOMAS

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2122 Ex Parte Bonasso et al 12042434 - (D) SMITH 103 Roberts Mlotkowski Safran Cole & Calderon, P.C. RIFKIN, BEN M

2137 Ex Parte Afriat 11964057 - (R) MACDONALD 103 MPG, LLP AND SANDISK PARIKH, KALPIT

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Horn et al 13124045 - (D) MACDONALD 103 Squire PB (NV A/DC Office) JAMSHIDI, GHODRAT

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Ellis et al 13169930 - (R) SMITH 103 CRGO LAW HARRIS, DOROTHY H

KSR

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Racey et al 12511210 - (D) GRIMES 103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP DUTT, ADITI

The Examiner’s finding that the claimed configuration would be obvious “should the additional focusing be desired,” standing alone, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. “[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141 ,   2144.05 ,   2145 , 2216 ,   2242 ,   2286 ,   2616 ,   2642 ,   2686.04

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte PETRIC 12790177 - (D) JIVANI 103 OKAMOTO & BENEDICTO LLP OSENBAUGH-STEWAR, ELIZA W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Sanders 11580439 - (D) HOUSEL 103 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP TARAZANO, DONALD LAWRENCE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Hazut et al 10560063 - (D) HOSKINS 103 112(1)/103 MARSTELLER & ASSOCIATES MCEVOY, THOMAS M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Ganey et al 12325253 - (D) ENGELS 103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC BHARGAVA, ANIL K

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Beck 10228182 - (D) DEJMEK 103 FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP DAFTUAR, SAKET K

KSR

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte ABBOT et al 12768992 - (D) SHIANG 102/103 Garg Law Firm, PLLC IBM AUS IPLAW (GLF) PATEL, JIGAR P

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Supramaniam et al 10742710 - (D) ENGELS 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. WANG, HARRIS C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2681 Ex Parte Tucker 12246695 - (D) SMITH 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC BARAKAT, MOHAMED

“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)   2141 ,   2145 ,   2216 ,   2242 ,   2286 ,   2616 ,   2642 ,   2686.04

japikse, KSR

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Rezin 12259544 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(2)/103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP PRAKASH, GAUTAM

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Goetz et al 11406738 - (D) FRAHM 102 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP BROMELL, ALEXANDRIA Y

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Larsson et al 12109667 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. SHANG, ANNAN Q

2436 Ex Parte Cuellar et al 10497019 - (D) NAPPI 103 King & Spalding LLP YALEW, FIKREMARIAM A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Duan et al 12317579 - (D) HOELTER 102 LingLing Zhang DOLAK, JAMES M
REVERSED 3628 Ex Parte GUYETT et al 12629786 - (D) LORIN 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. JUNG, ALLEN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Smoot et al 12397990 - (D) HORNER 103 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. c/o Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP KLAYMAN, AMIR ARIE

The Examiner further stated that the claimed invention would have been obvious because “[s]hifting Rosenbaum’s magnets onto his wheels would have not modified the operation of his device.” Id. at 7, 24 (citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950)).

Appellants argue that “the Examiner has failed to show in the references or elsewhere why such modifications and combinations would be made as he has proposed” and that the Examiner is engaging in impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. Br. 14; id. at 12 (arguing the motivation provided by the Examiner to modify Rosenbaum with the teachings of Burrows are “mere conclusory statements that do not comply with [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)]”).

Japikse, In re, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) 2144.04

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141 ,   2145 ,   2216 ,   2242 ,   2286 ,   2616 ,   2642 ,   2686.04

3725 Ex Parte Ota et al 12234861 - (D) HOELTER 103 James W. Judge KATCOFF, MATTHEW GORDON

3733 Ex Parte Davison 10941697 - (D) ADAMS 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC CARTER, TARA ROSE E

3763 Ex Parte Lentz et al 12714589 - (D) GRIMES 103 Cook Medical Technologies LLC c/o Liell & McNeil Attorneys PC VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Arney et al 11275443 - (D) GUIJT 102 103 WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER SKURDAL, COREY NELSON

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Scott et al 11006919 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY PACKARD, BENJAMIN J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Al-Lamee et al 12160255 - (D) SMITH 103 Dewitt Ross & Stevens SC MELLOTT, JAMES M

1725 Ex Parte Fuller et al 12650019 - (D) ROESEL 103 Brooks Kushman P.C. CULLEN, SEAN P

1747 Ex Parte KATAYAMA et al 12790351 - (D) DERRICK 103 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP MAYES, DIONNE WALLS

1772 Ex Parte OLENICK 12157730 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 ANTHONY J O'LENICK JR BULLOCK, IN SUK C

1786 Ex Parte Howard 12177196 - (D) WILSON 103 E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY CHOI, PETER Y

1787 Ex Parte Hebert 12637915 - (D) ROESEL 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY FUNG, CHING-YIU

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Buller et al 12244767 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG BIBBEE, JARED M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Nadalin et al 11165483 - (D) MORGAN 112(1)/103 IBM CORP. (DHJ) c/o DAVID H. JUDSON DAVIS, ZACHARY A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte DAWSON et al 11842757 - (D) NEW 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. HUA, QUAN M

2647 Ex Parte Hudson et al 11847084 - (D) DIXON 103 Holland & Hart LLP (ViaSat) NGUYEN, DUC M

2691 Ex Parte Hsu 12208033 - (D) DIXON 103 BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP RABINDRANATH, ROY P

2692 Ex Parte Cheong et al 11927909 - (D) SHAW 103 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP MERKOULOVA, OLGA VLADIMIROVNA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Ciprino et al 12971631 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS DICKERSON, TIPHANY B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Warner 11703947 - (D) MILLS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY TREYGER, ILYA Y

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 GOOGLE INC. ’546 Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant and SMART MODULAR TECHNOLOGIES ’577 Requester and Respondent v. NETLIST, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent Ex Parte 7289386 et al 11/173,175 95000577 95/000,546 - (D) JEFFERY 112(a)/112(b)/103 The Law Office of Jamie Zheng, Ph.D Esq. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: KING & SPALDING LLP PEIKARI, BEHZAD original SOFOCLEOUS, ALEXANDER

keller, KSR, kahn

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Singh et al 12175441 - (D) JENKS 103 Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP ZAREK, PAUL E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Baziuk 12817258 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Ade & Company Inc. WHATLEY, KATELYN B

1761 Ex Parte Gatlin et al 10745290 - (D) SMITH 103 ROBERT W STROZIER, P.L.L.C OGDEN JR, NECHOLUS

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Oliver et al 11589007 - (D) SAADAT 112(2)/103 Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP HARPER, ELIYAH STONE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Breiter et al 10562504 - (D) LORIN 112(1)/103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM POUGHKEEPSIE ANDERSON, FOLASHADE

3688 Ex Parte Chang et al 11728069 - (D) WORTH 102/103 Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP MACASIANO, MARILYN G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Taljaard 10520231 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Frommer Lawrence & Haug MAI, HAO D

The test for obviousness “is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) 707.07(f) , 2145

Kahn, In re, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2143.01 , 2144

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141 ,   2145 ,   2216 ,   2242 ,   2286 ,   2616 ,   2642 ,   2686.04

3762 Ex Parte Carroll et al 10761424 - (D) GRIMES 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP KAHELIN, MICHAEL WILLIAM

3765 Ex Parte Drosihn 12330738 - (D) SMEGAL 102 COOLEY LLP MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte KLAPP et al 12829865 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1758 Ex Parte Buller et al 11378847 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(1) 103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (SF) MERSHON, JAYNE L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2898 Ex Parte McANDREW et al 12721362 - (D) HOUSEL 103 103 American Air Liquide, Inc. ABDELAZIEZ, YASSER A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Chalker et al 11851354 - (D) BROWN 103 103 SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C. WALLACE, KIPP CHARLES

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Sciver et al 12748271 - (D) HASTINGS 103 SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP MRUK, BRIAN P

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Calmes 12355510 - (D) DERRICK 103 Carter Scholer Arnett Hamada Mockler PLLC CHWASZ, JADE R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Pappas et al 12338942 - (D) FETTING 103 KELLY & KELLEY, LLP CHAMPAGNE, LUNA

3692 Ex Parte Morgan et al 12005531 - (D) FISCHETTI 112(2) 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. BAIRD, EDWARD J

3692 Ex Parte Shipman 10902046 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 DIEDERIKS & WHITELAW, PLC EBERSMAN, BRUCE I

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Kim 12137349 - (D) GREENHUT 101/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC FERNSTROM, KURT

3726 Ex Parte Kessler 12157360 - (D) GREENHUT 103 112(2)/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION AFZALI, SARANG

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Ex parte ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC Ex Parte RE41,562 et al 11/102,887 90012095 - (D) FRAHM 102 102/103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC Third Party Requester: TUCKER ELLIS LLP TARAE, CATHERINE MICHELLE original TWEEL JR, JOHN ALEXANDER

KSR, patel

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2878 Ex Parte Hoffman 12258664 - (D) NAGUMO 103 U S ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY LEGASSE JR, FRANCIS M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Angell et al 12135960 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. NGUYEN, TRAN N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Haverstock 12157761 - (D) BROWN 103 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP TRAN, THIEN S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Boyden et al 11526192 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Barenholz et al 10314487 - (D) FREDMAN 103 PASTERNAK PATENT LAW WESTERBERG, NISSA M

This explicit analysis by the Examiner provides “an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. This is also consistent with the recent non-precedential decision in In re Patel, 2014 WL 3454231 *4 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“a rejection based on ranges approaching each other might well be appropriate where there is a teaching in the prior art that the end points of the prior art range are approximate, or can be flexibly applied”).

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)  2141 ,   2145 ,   2216 ,   2242 ,   2286 ,   2616 ,   2642 ,   2686.04

1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11503501 - (D) GRIMES 103 obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Eriksson et al 11632312 - (D) WARREN 103 VENABLE LLP TUROCY, DAVID P

1787 Ex Parte Wu et al 12331591 - (D) SMITH 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. FUNG, CHING-YIU

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte TSUDA et al 12419610 - (D) GARRIS 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. NGUYEN, CHAU N

2883 Ex Parte Digiovanni et al 12525138 - (D) KATZ 103 OFS Fltel, LLC (FORMERLY FURUKAWA ELECTRIC NORTH AMERICA, INC.) TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH

KSR

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Hillyard et al 11018973 - (D) HOMERE 103 McDermott Will & Emery LLP (Broadcom) IQBAL, KHAWAR

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Fleischer 12479246 - (D) KAISER 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP WEST, PAUL M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Walker et al 11688294 - (D) BROWN 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC PATEL, VINOD D

The Examiner also stated that the combination of Minegishi and Ripma is proper and, in  support, listed every one of the seven exemplary rationales (A)-(G) that may support a conclusion of prima facie obviousness as set forth in Manual of Patent Examining Prodecure (MPEP) 2143(I). However, this section states "[a]ny rationale employed must provide a link between the factual findings and the legal conclusion of obviousness."  Id.2  here the Examiner did not provide such a link for any one of the rationales (A)-(G), but merely listed the rationales.  See Id.

2 This section also states "[i]t is important for Office personnel to recognize that when they do choose to formulate an obviousness rejection using one of the rationales suggested by the Supreme Court in KSR and discussed herein, they are to adhere to the guidance provided regarding the necessary factual findings. It remains Office policy that appropriate factual findings are required in order to apply the enumerated rationales properly."

Accordingly we agree with Applicant that the Exminer did not establish a prima facie case of obviousness for Claim 15. 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Burgess 12041801 - (D) NAGUMO 103 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P. A. SCHECHTER, ANDREW M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Pugh et al 11057097 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(2)/103 101/103 KIRTON & McCONKIE CHUMPITAZ, BOBR

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Daum et al 11848063 - (D) BUI 102/103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN SAEED, USMAAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte MRAIHI 11407996 - (D) BUI 103 Lowenstein Sandler LLP ZECHER, CORDELIA P K

2451 Ex Parte Pazhyannur et al 12046528 - (D) DANG 103 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. TIV, BACKHEAN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Ohta et al 12230364 - (D) PAK 103 Harness, Dickey & Pierce P.L.C. KING, JOSHUA

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 APPLE, INC., EBAY, INC., FACEBOOK, INC., NETFLIX, INC., OFFICE DEPOT, INC., STAPLES, INC., and YAHOO!, INC. Requesters, Appellants, and Cross-Respondents v. INTERVAL LICENSING LLC Patent Owner, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant 95001576 6757682 09/656,638 JEFFERY 102/103/112(1)/112(2) 112(4) EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC For THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/DEFENSE GROUP HUGHES, DEANDRA M original RONES, CHARLES