SEARCH

Showing posts with label eaton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eaton. Show all posts

Friday, October 2, 2015

eaton,

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Melsheimer et al 11842338 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 BGL/Cook - Chicago MARCETICH, ADAM M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2663 Ex Parte Jung et al 12799367 - (D) WINSOR 101/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC TREHAN, AKSHAY

2691 Ex Parte Yang et al 11753831 - (D) ENGELS 103 WPAT, PC YANG, KWANG-SU

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 PPG Industries, Inc. Requester v. Patent of Valspar Sourcing, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8092876 et al 12/505,236 95001950 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 Turner Boyd LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Rothwell Figg Ernst & Manbeck KUGEL, TIMOTHY J original MIGGINS, MICHAEL C

1792 PPG Industries, Inc. Requester v. Patent of Valspar Sourcing, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7592047 et al 11/253,161 95001951 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 Turner Boyd LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Rothwell Figg Ernst & Manbeck KUGEL, TIMOTHY J original CAMERON, ERMA C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 LT GAME INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Requester and Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL GAMING SUPPORT OF AMERICA, LLC, Owner Ex Parte 8087984 et al 11/232,240 95002145 - (D) POTHIER 103 41.55 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTERS: Meredith & Keyhani, PLLC SAADAT, CAMERON original THOMAS, ERIC M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS US, Inc. Third Party Requester, v. SCHRADER ELECTRONICS, INC. Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7518495 et al 10/716,121 95002268 - (D) MOORE 103 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) Third Party Requester: FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP NGUYEN, MINH DIEU T original POPE, DARYL C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 SEVERSTAL NORTH AMERICA, INC., TATA STEEL, and VOESTALPINE STAHL GmbH Requesters v. ARCELORMITTAL Patent Owner Ex Parte 6564604 et al 09/827,167 95001214 - (D) MARTIN 112(1)/112(2)/103 103 SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS, PLLC THIRD PARTY REQUESTERS: REISING ETHINGTON P.C. NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP PAULEY PETERSEN & ERICKSON LILLIS, EILEEN DUNN original LARSON, LOWELL A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 UNISENSE FERTILITECH A/S Respondent and Requester v. Patent of THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7963906 et al 12/982,341 95001785 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 41.55 102/103 COOLEY LLP Third Party Requester: THOMPSON COBURN LLP PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original BERTOGLIO, VALARIE E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS INC. Requester, Respondent v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8151923 et al 12/968,749 95002011 - (D) SONG 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP-Polaris Third Party Requester: Thomas, Karceski & Karmilovich, PC ENGLISH, PETER C original STABLEY, MICHAEL R

3611 BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS INC. Requester, Respondent v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7854285 et al 11/709,421 95002010 - (D) SONG 103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP-Polaris Third Party Requester: Thomas, Karceski & Karmilovich, PC ENGLISH, PETER C original STABLEY, MICHAEL R

3635 TANDUS FLOORING, INC Requester v. INTERFACE, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7721502 et al 11/251,733 95001726 - (D) MARTIN 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE PLLC GELLNER, JEFFREY L original NGUYEN, CHI Q

J.T. Eaton & Co., Inc. v. Atlantic Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he asserted commercial success of the product must be due to the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.”).

3635 TANDUS FLOORING, INC Requester v. INTERFACE, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7464510 et al 11/018,947 95001725 - (D) MARTIN 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLPTHIRD PARTY REQUESTER: WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE PLLC GELLNER, JEFFREY L original NGUYEN, CHI Q

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex parte ALLIED MACHINE & ENGINEERING CORP. Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7942616 et al 12/623,061 90012666 - (D) SONG 103 HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Karma, INC. Hamilton IP Law, PC FETSUGA, ROBERT M original HOWELL, DANIEL W

3751 INTELLIGENT HOSPITAL SYSTEMS LTD. Requester v. FORHEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 6877530 et al 10/457,066 95000335 - (D) MARTIN 112(2)/103 Baxter Corporation Englewood c/o Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP Third Party Requester: OBLON SPIVAK MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT LLP WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original MAUST, TIMOTHY LEWIS

3764 STRAVA, INC.; MAPMYFITNESS, INC.; & FITNESSKEEPER, INC. Third Party Requesters v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7,789,800 et al 11/314,133 95002359 - (D) MARTIN 103 Maschoff Brennan THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERN, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. DEMILLE, DANTON D original RICHMAN, GLENN E

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 INOVA LABS, INC. Third Party Requester/Cross-Appellant v. INOGEN, INC. Patent Owner/Appellant Ex Parte 6605136 et al 95001886 - (R) MARTIN KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. DIAMOND, ALAN D original SPITZER, ROBERT H

Friday, March 15, 2013

bicon, zumbiel, cortright, case, eaton, richdel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Braun et al 11721077 - (D) KRATZ 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. SAHA, BIJAY S

1745 Ex Parte Schonbeck 11152425 - (D) DELMENDO 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2699 Ex Parte Branton et al 11192619 - (D) KRIVAK 103 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP SHAPIRO, LEONID

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte CELESTINI 11463918 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Lutz 11354781 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Cozen O'Connor TAOUSAKIS, ALEXANDER P

Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Prior art references may be ‘indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means ... [and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.’ ... Accordingly, the PTO’s interpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from analogous art.

Id. (internal citations omitted).

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111, 2164.04

As the Appellant chose to use both the preamble and the body of the claim to define the subject matter of the claimed invention, the preamble is limiting. See e.g., C.W. Zumbiel Co., Inc. v. Kappos 702 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952-53 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“when the limitations in the body of the claim ‘rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention’” (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Sonderkaer 10513672 - (D) SAINDON 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC CHAPMAN, JEANETTE E

3634 Ex Parte Ashmus 11207409 - (D) OSINSKI 112(2) 103 JANSSON SHUPE & MUNGER LTD. CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3689 Ex Parte Harris 10531246 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(1)/112(2)/101/103 112(2)/101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Nederegger et al 11605228 - (D) KILE 103 102/103 Manelli Selter PLLC TIETJEN, MARINA ANNETTE

3769 Ex Parte Rogers 11448296 - (D) PRATS 103 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP SHAY, DAVID M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Feng et al 12187049 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 Hartman Global IP Law TAKEUCHI, YOSHITOSHI

1756 Ex Parte Clipstone et al 11375693 - (D) BEST 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1791 Ex Parte Mayville et al 11106082 - (D) NAGUMO 103/obviousness-type double patenting BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DICUS, TAMRA

As our reviewing court has explained, “[p]recedent cannot establish facts.” Case v. CPC Int’l, Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Case v. CPC Int’l Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 221 USPQ 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2301.03

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Videtich 10135300 - (D) DIXON 112(2)/102 General Motors Corporation ANTHONY LUKE SIMON NGUYEN, THUONG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Dick 11619642 - (D) TARTAL 103 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP BOEHLER, ANNE MARIE M

Moreover, asserting that what makes an invention commercially successful is a claimed feature that is well known in the art fails to establish a nexus because “the asserted commercial success of the product must be due to the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.” J.T. Eaton & Co., Inc. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) citing to Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 714 F.2d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (claims held obvious despite purported showing of commercial success when patentee failed to show that “such commercial success as its marketed system enjoyed was due to anything disclosed in the patent in suit which was not readily available in the prior art.”)

3611 Ex Parte Parenti et al 12015337 - (D) CAPP 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C KIM, SHIN H

3626 Ex Parte Graves et al 10813230 - (D) KIM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 DOWELL & DOWELL P.C. COUPE, ANITA YVONNE

3689 Ex Parte Cole et al 10408175 - (D) FETTING 102/103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Porter et al 11031421 - (D) DANIELS 103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP MANAHAN, TODD E