ICON, morris

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

3652 Ex Parte Jonsson 10502017 - (D) FLOYD 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Mark P. Stone TIGHE, BRENDAN P

AFFIRMED 

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2871 Ex Parte Bluem et al 11468737 - (D) BUI 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY ARENDT, PAISLEY L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3721 Ex Parte Simm et al 11497895 - (D) McCARTHY 103 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY SMITH, SCOTT A

Interpreting this recitation as broadly as the ordinary usage of the language and the disclosure of the Specification allow, see In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc, 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), the term “having” does not limit the term “shell element” to an element including first and second shell element portions and nothing more.

icon HARMON 4: 198; 6: 422
DONNER 2: 82-94; 8: 216-38, 299-310; 926-47; 1799-1820; 10: 78-90

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 904.01, 2111,2111.01, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

Morris, santarus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Collins et al 12185575 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 SUMMA, ADDITON & ASHE, P.A. GAKH, YELENA G

1782 Ex Parte Takahashi 11470098 - (D) TIMM 103 YAMAHA C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP PATTERSON, MARC A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Heynemann et al 11938116 - (D) KRIVAK 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CLEARY, THOMAS J

2141 Ex Parte Jha et al 11559639 - (D) DIXON 102/103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP SONG, DAEHO D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Marel et al 10693679 - (D) CURCURI 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NANO, SARGON N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Seo et al 11378799 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Innovation Counsel LLP PHAM, THANH V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Paraschac et al 11820174 - (D) SAINDON 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BROWN, MICHAEL A

3772 Ex Parte Nelson et al 11592529 - (D) SAINDON 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BROWN, MICHAEL A

3772 Ex Parte Falco 11270053 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY PATEL, TARLA R

[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by … the applicant's specification.

In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 904.01, 2111, 2111.01, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Mackles et al 12905803 - (D) TORCZON 103 OMRI M. BEHR DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Hirsch et al 11194086 - (D) BRADEN 102 IBM ZILKA-KOTAB, PC PHAM, KHANH B

2169 Ex Parte Chu et al 11499701 - (D) DIXON 112(1)/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC WEINRICH, BRIAN E

We disagree with Appellants and note that more than mere silence is required. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). ("Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer. In fact, it is possible for the patentee to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same material.") Appellants have not identified any reason to exclude the identified limitation.

2172 Ex Parte Chidlovskii et al 11156776 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 FAY SHARPE LLP WRIGHT, ELIZABETH G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2687 Ex Parte Badillo et al 11264064 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TWEEL JR, JOHN ALEXANDER

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Sugg 10540026 - (D) ARPIN 102 GREIGG & GREIGG P.L.L.C. GORDON, BRYAN P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Boyle et al 11877168 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting McDermott Will & Emery LLP DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

3788 Ex Parte Slomski 10836016 - (D) POWELL 102/103 ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. TAYLOR IP, P.C. PICKETT, JOHN G

topliff, morris

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Pau et al 10/516,946 ADAMS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER AEDER, SEAN E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Yasuoka et al 10/743,745 WARREN 103(a) KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

1762 Ex Parte Mahl et al 10/874,374 HANLON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) PRAXAIR, INC. EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte McArdle 10/988,460 LUCAS 103(a) Greg Goshorn, P.C. EXAMINER
ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Martinez et al 10/613,433 NAPPI 103(a) Carmen Pili Ekstrom EXAMINER
MAYO III, WILLIAM H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Leichter 10/549,091 CRAWFORD 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER
AN, IG TAI
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Corcoran et al 11/413,767 FREDMAN 103(a) 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER PACKARD, BENJAMIN J

1627 Ex Parte Diorio et al 11/642,509 GRIMES 103(a) 103(a) WYETH LLC EXAMINER KAROL, JODY LYNN

1632 Ex Parte Adachi et al 10/580,248 ADAMS 103(a) 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER SGAGIAS, MAGDALENE K

1642 Ex Parte Santin et al 11/248,702 MILLS 112(1)/103(a) 112(1)/103(a) COLEMAN SUDOL SAPONE, P.C. EXAMINER GODDARD, LAURA B

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 10/494,581 NAGUMO 103(a) 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. SANZO, LLC EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Allen et al 11/393,315 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER SWARTHOUT, BRENT

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Campbell et al 10/860,597 BAHR 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER LARSON, JUSTIN MATTHEW
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3723 Ex Parte 6364302 et al 95/000,195 09/896,083 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) For Third Party Requester: YOUNG BASILE For Patent Owner: SAMUEL W. APICELLI DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2643 Ex Parte 6985569 et al 95/001,163 10/376,935 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102(b) PATENT OWNER: SOFER & HAROUN LLP. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER BARNIE, REXFORD N

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN PART & REVERSED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3505 Ex Parte 5566913 et al 90/010,056 & 90/010,078 08/455,386 DELMENDO 103(a) 103(a) PATENT OWNER: ROBERT G. WOOLSTON, ESQ. PERKINS COIE LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER BRIAN M. BERLINER, ESQ. O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP EXAMINER LEWIS, AARON J original EXAMINER PUROL, SARAH L
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Leonard 10/821,278 FREDMAN 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER JAVANMARD, SAHAR

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Crabtree et al 10/479,070 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER QIAN, YUN

1733 Ex Parte Kangas et al 11/666,903 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP EXAMINER YEE, DEBORAH

1771 Ex Parte Monaghan et al 10/535,487 McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) RODMAN RODMAN EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Grandy et al 09/927,972 DANG 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER BLACK, LINH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Malik et al 11/082,703 ROBERTSON Concurring TORCZON 103(a) Lieberman & Brandsdorfer, LLC EXAMINER BEHARRY, NOEL R

Patent specifications and claims have long been said to "constitute one of the most difficult legal instruments to draw with accuracy". Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156, 171 (1892). This difficulty does not, however, justify
careless drafting; rather, it makes basic drafting requisites such as grammar and consistency all the more vital. In creating the patent system, Congress placed the responsibility for precise, lucid drafting on the applicant. 35 U.S.C. 112; In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997). An applicant cannot place a burden of resolving unnecessary complexities on all subsequent readers when correction is readily available through amendment. Cf. Topliff, 145 U.S. at 171 (endorsing reissue as a cure to inevitable mistakes in claims).

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Melnik 11/104,793 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER SHALLENBERGER, JULIE A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Collins et al 11/586,816 CRAWFORD 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER GATLING, STACIE D

3644 Ex Parte Abbas 11/974,390 GREENHUT 103(a) MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC EXAMINER
SMITH, KIMBERLY S

3662 Ex Parte Troxell et al 10/975,264 COCKS 103(a) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER
BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A

3685 Ex Parte White et al 11/005,716 CRAWFORD 102(e)/103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER NIGH, JAMES D

3693 Ex Parte METZ 11/456,196 CRAWFORD 103(a) PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. IBM-RSW EXAMINER KRAMER, JAMES A

Morris, leapfrog, KSR

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Saito et al 11/052,881 KERINS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER

JOHNSON, MATTHEW A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Sakamoto et al 11/047,818 KAUFFMAN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HALL, ARTHUR O

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Baniecki et al 11/343,121 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION EXAMINER MARCANTONI, PAUL D

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex parte POWERS INTEGRATION, INC. 90/008,326 6,249,876 SIU 102(b) James Y. Go

BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN. LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original EXAMINER BUTLER, DENNIS

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Brooks et al 11/498,620 McCOLLUM 103(a) Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Allen et al 11/239,596 JEFFERY 101/102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting IBM (ROC-BLF) C/O BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER DILLON, SAMUEL A

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Kleen 10/927,812 WINSOR 102(e) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER SIM, YONG H

[T]he [US]PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 Ex Parte Laubner et al 09/966,221 KOHUT 103(a) CHRISTOPHER P. MAIORANA, P.C. EXAMINER WIMER, MICHAEL C

Appellants have presented no convincing evidence that modifying Openlander’s antenna containing a prism wherein the antenna is elevated as taught by Murphy was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).

Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fischer Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . 2143.01

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

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Chick 10/884,350 HOELTER 103(a) Paul M. Denk EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

NEW

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1793 Ex Parte Baniecki et al 11/343,121 NAPPI 103(a) SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION EXAMINER MARCANTONI, PAUL D

AFFIRMED
1777 Ex Parte Okuda 11/050,766 GARRIS 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER WALLENHORST, MAUREEN

REHEARING

DENIED
1777 Ex Parte Gupta 11/028,114 PAK 102 PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

Wednesday December 1, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Adkesson et al 10/839,188 PRATS GRIMES GREEN 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER KEYS, ROSALYND ANN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Muhs et al 10/824,291 COLAIANNI GARRIS HANLON 103(a) ORNL-UTB-LUEDEKA, NEELY & GRAHAM EXAMINER MOWLA, GOLAM

"[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Segner et al 10/632,145 GRIMES ADAMS GREEN 102(b)/103(a) POPOVICH, WILES & O'CONNELL, PA EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte MacNeil et al 11/797,365 6,550,486 COLAIANNI KIMLIN TIMM 103(a)VERMETTE & CO. EXAMINER STINSON, FRANKIE L

The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).

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

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Pearson et al 10/080,479 LORIN CRAWFORD FISCHETTI 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J

A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) involves two analytical steps. FN6 First, the Board must interpret the claim language, where necessary. Because the PTO is entitled to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, our review of the Board's claim construction is limited to determining whether it was reasonable. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed.Cir.1997). Secondly, the Board must compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference." Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . 2123, 2131.05

Crish, In re, 393 F.3d 1253, 73 USPQ2d1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.03, 2112

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Dlugos 11/182,070 STAICOVICI KERINS SILVERBERG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER LACYK, JOHN P

3754 Ex Parte Lassota 10/819,828 LEE TORCZON LANE 103(a) JAMES W. POTTHAST LAW OFFICES OF POTTHAST & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER CARTAGENA, MELVIN A

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1755 ICE BAN AMERICA, INC. & EARTH FRIENDLY CHEMICALS, INC. Requesters v. Patent of SEARS ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS CO., LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,136 6,299,793 DELMENDO TORCZON LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) For Patent Owner: MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP For Third Party Requesters: JAMES J. KELLY OBLON SPIVAK MCCELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER GREEN, ANTHONY J

“In civil litigation, a challenger who attacks the validity of patent claims must overcome the presumption of validity [under 35 U.S.C. § 282] with clear and convincing evidence that the patent is invalid.” In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “If this statutory burden is not met, “‘[c]ourts do not find patents ‘valid,’ only that the patent challenger did not carry the ‘burden of establishing invalidity in the particular case before the court.’’” Id. (quoting Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1429 n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). By contrast, “[i]n PTO examinations and reexaminations, the standard of proof – a preponderance of the evidence – is substantially lower than in a civil case.” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377 (citation omitted). Also, “unlike in district courts, in reexamination proceedings ‘[c]laims are given ‘their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification . . . .’’” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377-78 (internal citations omitted). Thus, “[t]he two forums take different approaches in determining validity and on the same evidence could quite correctly come to different conclusions.” Ethicon, 849 F.2d at 1428. Moreover, the PTO was not a party to the patent infringement action and thus cannot be estopped by its holdings. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297-98 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 7 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . .1442.02, 2242,2286, 2642, 2686.04

Trans Texas Holdings Corp., In re, 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2286, 2686.04

AFFIRMED

1612 Ex Parte Buck et al 11/328,247 MILLS EXAMINER SUTTON, DARRYL C
3612 Ex Parte Compton et al 11/202,793 BAHR EXAMINER BLACK, MELISSA ANN
1633 Ex Parte Cosenza 10/735,203 WALSH EXAMINER WEHBE, ANNE MARIE SABRINA
1628 Ex Parte Ebens et al 11/141,344 MILLS EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
1782 Ex Parte Elder et al 10/931,021 LANE EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A
1785 Ex Parte Hansson et al 10/440,317 TIERNEY EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L
3686 Ex Parte Hartlaub 10/002,669 FETTING EXAMINER I NAJARIAN, LENA
2456 Ex Parte Huynh et al 10/611,698 DANG EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
2123 Ex Parte Kalley 09/983,597 BARRY EXAMINER PROCTOR, JASON SCOTT
1627 Ex Parte Levy et al 11/529,199 GREEN EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN
2193 Ex Parte MacInnis et al 10/786,195 J. THOMAS EXAMINER MALZAHN, DAVID H
1618 Ex Parte Pandey et al 11/431,275 GREEN EXAMINER JONES, DAMERON LEVEST
3731 Ex Parte Simonson 10/899,707 McCARTHY EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANH TUAN TUONG
1656 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/360,284 WALSH EXAMINER DESAI, ANAND U

REHEARING DENIED

1729 Ex Parte Fujikawa et al 11/437,328 FRANKLIN EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG
2174 Ex Parte Hackbarth et al 09/886,876 BLANKENSHIP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F
1742 Ex Parte Klotz 10/403,545 FRANKLIN EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D
3621 Ex Parte Marcon 10/266,660 LORIN EXAMINER FISCHER, ANDREW J
1649 Ex Parte Schenk 10/777,792 WALSH EXAMINER KOLKER, DANIEL E
3732 Ex Parte Shluzas et al 10/926,579 PATE III EXAMINER MAI, HAO D
1746 Ex Parte Sjoberg et al 11/129,497 KIMLIN EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L
1781 Ex Parte Zeller 10/919,472 KRATZ EXAMINER HEGGESTAD, HELEN F