SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label celeritas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label celeritas. Show all posts

Thursday, September 12, 2013

celeritas


REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Frey et al 11019948 - (D) NAGUMO 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. DIETERLE, JENNIFER M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Fartmann et al 11547815 - (D) PETTIGREW 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION SAMS, MATTHEW C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Robertson 11036183 - (D) FETTING 112(1)/103 Patrick M. Dwyer PC FADOK, MARK A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Clark et al 11477863 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HEWITT II, CALVIN L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Watrin et al 11813057 - (D) MILLS 102/obviousness-type double patenting Syngenta Corp Protection, Inc. THOMAS, TIMOTHY P

See Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it.”).

Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 21232131.05

HARMON 3: 88
DONNER 7: 709, 738

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Logan 11130806 - (D) KIMLIN 103 Quinn Law Group, PLLC MARTIN, ANGELA J

1745 Ex Parte Peterson 11780034 - (D) KIMLIN 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. OSELE, MARK A

1777 Ex Parte Galifi et al 12450080 - (D) GARRIS 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. KEYWORTH, PETER

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Gyde et al 11689863 - (D) MITCHELL 112(2)/102/103 HONEYWELL/IFL MUHEBBULLAH, SAJEDA

2142 Ex Parte RUMMLER et al 11557357 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP BECKER, SHASHI KAMALA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Choe et al 11299898 - (D) FRAHM 102 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. AKINYEMI, AJIBOLA A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Cullen et al 11349566 - (D) TIMM 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. LUKE, DANIEL M

2816 Ex Parte Mirzaei et al 11823079 - (D) FRAHM 112(2)/103 FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP COLE, BRANDON S

2885 Ex Parte Cousaine et al 11974008 - (D) KALAN 103 OSRAM SYLVANIA INC MAY, ROBERT J

2892 Ex Parte Paek et al 11600762 - (D) KRIVAK 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP HUBER, ROBERT T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Scherl et al 11186843 - (D) HOELTER 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP ALGAHAIM, HELAL A

3674 Ex Parte Meyyappan et al 11467206 - (D) SPAHN 103 SCHLUMBERGER ROSHARON CAMPUS BUCK, MATTHEW R

3677 Ex Parte Pangborn 11527019 - (D) KERINS 102/103 GLOBAL PATENT GROUP - DOM MORGAN, EMILY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Koro 10907887 - (D) SCANLON 101/103 MITCHELL M. MUSIAL II, PLLC HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 TESCO CORP. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of WEATHERFORD/LAMB, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001119 7353880 11/560,211 LEBOVITZ 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) Third Party Requester: Bracewell & Giuliani LLP GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original TSAY, FRANK

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2143 RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED Third Party Requester v. SIMPLEAIR, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000631 6,735,614 09/588,515 McKONE 103 SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Oblon, Spivak, Mcclelland Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original NGUYEN, PHUOC H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 TESCO CORP. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of WEATHERFORD/LAMB, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001114 7219744 11/288,976 LEBOVITZ 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) Third Party Requester: Bracewell & Giuliani LLP GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original TSAY, FRANK

Friday, December 7, 2012

yorkey, celeritas, crish, boyer, bush, kuhle, thompson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Verfaillie et al 10561826 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. WANG, CHANG YU

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Weismantel et al 12065123 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

Determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves two analytical steps: (1) the Board must interpret the claim language; and (2) the Board must then 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."

Yorkey v. Diab, 605 F.3d 1297 (2010) (quoting In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998) (alteration in original))).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Xydis 09997299 - (D) HOMERE 103 103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC PICH, PONNOREAY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Lunak et al 11423060 - (D) KAMHOLZ concurring SCANLON 103 103 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Buehlmeyer et al 12084162 - (D) OWENS 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION CORMIER, DAVID G

1733 Ex Parte Ougi et al 10855868 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. YANG, JIE

The elimination of a feature disclosed by the prior art, along with its attendant function, is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art. Application of Thompson, 545 F. 2d 1290, 1294 (CCPA 1976) Application of Kuhle, 526 F. 2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)

1782 Ex Parte Bartley et al 11840467 - (D) McKELVEY 103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN

1793 Ex Parte DeSmidt et al 10918892 - (D) KIMLIN 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. WONG, LESLIE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Kwon et al 11226693 - (D) JEFFERY 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. LUONG, ALAN H

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Chambers et al 10951930 - (D) KOHUT 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FISHMAN, LLP GENACK, MATTHEW W

2645 Ex Parte Link et al 11541916 - (D) McKONE 103 O'Shea, Getz & Kosakowski, P.C. MILLER, BRANDON J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Nathans et al 10392849 - (D) TURNER 103 Pay Rent, Build Credit, Inc. MONFELDT, SARAH M

In sustaining a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Board may rely on one reference alone without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, (CCPA 1966).

Thursday, September 1, 2011

celeritas, wiseman, kubin

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Srinivas et al 11/916,685 GREEN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC. EXAMINER HEYER, DENNIS

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Kotnis et al 10/380,392 KRATZ 103(a) HUNTSMAN ADVANCED MATERIALS AMERICAS LLC EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I

1716 Ex Parte Choi et al 11/173,210 FRANKLIN 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY

1731 Ex Parte Bagala 11/277,897 FRANKLIN concurring NAGUMO 103(a) BASF CORPORATION EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

1731 Ex Parte Brady et al 11/275,416 GUEST 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A

1741 Ex Parte Willden et al 10/942,501 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) HUGH P. GORTLER EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J

1781 Ex Parte Shimek et al 10/620,038 NAGUMO 102(e)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Lee 10/423,942 BROCKETTI 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ALMO, KHAREEM E

2829 Ex Parte VanBuskirk et al 11/095,849 MACDONALD 102(b) SPANSION LLC C/O MURABITO , HAO & BARNES LLP EXAMINER MAI, ANH D

2837 Ex Parte Takagi et al 11/446,507 KRIVAK 102(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER COLON SANTANA, EDUARDO

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Schuller et al 10/423,471 CRAWFORD 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER GATLING, STACIE D

3657 Ex Parte Walters et al 10/741,760 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) Chrysler Group LLC EXAMINER BURCH, MELODY M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Jansen et al 10/221,379 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER EREZO, DARWIN P


AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte German 10/642,093 ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER HAYES, ROBERT CLINTON

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Busam et al 09/955,665 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HARMAN - BRINKS HOFER CHICAGO Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione EXAMINER TRAN, NGHI V

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Cook Jr et al 10/480,326 CRAWFORD 103(a) SULLIVAN & WORCESTER LLP EXAMINER SHAH, AMEE A

3664 Ex Parte Ban et al 10/989,432 ASTORINO 112(2)/102(b) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC) EXAMINER TRAN, KHOI H

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Borzym 10/762,430 PATE III 103(a) Thomas N. Young Young & Basile P.C. EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T

3734 Ex Parte Falahee 10/689,124 GREENHUT 102(e)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D

3761 Ex Parte Zander et al 11/025,645 SPAHN 102(a)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

The question of whether a prior art reference “teaches away” from the claimed subject matter is irrelevant to an anticipation analysis. See Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. Thus, the question whether a reference ‘teaches away’ from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.”) (Citations omitted).

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

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1724 Ex Parte 7105091 et al 10/883,378 7,105,091 Ex parte KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. LEE 103(a) PATENT OWNER: GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BORIS M. KHUDENKO, Ph.D., P.E. KHUDENKO ENGINEERING, INC. EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER PRINCE, FRED G

EXAMINER REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2624 Ex Parte 7088862 et al 95/001,179 7,088,862 MVTec SOFTWARE GmbH Requester and Appellant v. COGNEX CORPORATION Patent Owner and Respondent SIU 102/103(a) PATENT OWNER COGNEX CORPORATION PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER LAROSE, COLIN M original EXAMINER MARIAM, DANIEL G

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2621 Ex Parte 6771808 et al 95/001,176 6,771,808 MVTec SOFTWARE GmbH Third Party Requester, Appellant v. COGNEX CORPORATION Patent Owner, Respondent SIU 102/103 PATENT OWNER COGNEX CORPORATION PROSKAUER ROSE LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER LAROSE, COLIN M original EXAMINER WERNER, BRIAN P

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Wallach et al 10/761,370 WALSH 103(a) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA

“[Appellants] are, in effect, arguing that a structure suggested by the prior art, and, hence, potentially in the possession of the public, is patentable to them because it also possesses an Inherent, but hitherto unknown, function which they claim to have discovered. This is not the law. A patent on such a structure would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art.” In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1023 (CCPA 1979); see also In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Wiseman, In re, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) 2141.02, 2145, 2164.06(c)

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Jux et al 11/224,395 COLAIANNI 103(a) CIBA VISION CORPORATION EXAMINER ANGEBRANNDT, MARTIN J

1733 Ex Parte Bruckner et al 10/380,792 COLAIANNI 103(a) PROSKAUER ROSE LLP EXAMINER MCGUTHRY BANKS, TIMA MICHELE

1741 Ex Parte Lindsay et al 10/895,594 FRANKLIN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Dority & Manning, P.A. EXAMINER FORTUNA, JOSE A

1763 Ex Parte Carter et al 12/054,476 COLAIANNI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

1767 Ex Parte Ito 11/364,327 PRATS 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER MCCULLEY, MEGAN CASSANDRA

1785 Ex Parte Campbell et al 11/378,780 TIMM 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Kalliokulju et al 10/118,656 KOHUT 103(a) WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER EHICHIOYA, FRED I

2156 Ex Parte Kalthoff et al 11/273,598 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP EXAMINER LIAO, JASON G

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Fellenstein et al 10/205,571 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) CAHN & SAMUELS, LLP EXAMINER CALDWELL, ANDREW T

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Jacob et al 10/386,974 SMITH 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER PANWALKAR, VINEETA S

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Hidaka et al 11/704,916 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER LAM, TUAN THIEU

2824 Ex Parte Hudgens 11/447,821 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, VAN THU T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte McClendon et al 09/923,362 CRAWFORD 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

3679 Ex Parte Knowles 09/982,928 PATE III 103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER BOCHNA, DAVID

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 Ex Parte Braxton 10/034,720 ADAMS 103(a) VAN OPHEM & VANOPHEM, PC REMY J VANOPHEM, PC EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

3761 Ex Parte Schlinz et al 10/883,378 LEE 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3783 Ex Parte Botelho et al 10/825,989 PATE III 103(a) HODGSON RUSS LLP EXAMINER KAMEN, NOAH P

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Armstrong et al 10/889,481 OWENS 103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte Cochran et al 10/879,401 LUCAS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

VACATED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte King 11/031,648 GRIMES 102(b) 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 103(a) Vista IP Law Group LLP EXAMINER HELLER, TAMMIE K

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

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