Jung, gechter, stepan

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2687 Ex Parte Skillman et al 11830203 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Mahamedi Paradice LLP (QCA) MURPHY, JEROLD B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Zhang et al 12386775 - (D) OWENS 102 Docket Clerk - SAMS O TOOLE, COLLEEN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Goetz 12682923 - (D) GREENHUT 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A EDWARDS, PHILIP CHARLES

A rejection must be set forth in sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of § 132, such as by identifying where or how each limitation of the rejected claims is met by the prior art references. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 37 C.F.R. § l . 104(c)(2) ("When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified."), Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (PTO must create a record that includes "specific fact findings for each contested limitation and satisfactory explanations for such findings."). It is neither our place, nor Appellant's burden, to speculate as to the basis for rejecting claims. In re Stepan, 660 F. 3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (It is the PTO's obligation to provide prior notice to the applicant of all matters of fact and law asserted prior to an appeal hearing before the Board.).

Jung, In re, 637 F.3d 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 1205.02 1504.01(c)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3762 Ex Parte Moffitt et al 12630633 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 102 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC D ABREU, MICHAEL JOSEPH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1643 Ex Parte Zhao et al 10335056 - (D) HARLOW 103 ANTICANCER, INC BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte SETO 12892537 - (D) KENNEDY 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP DIGNAN, MICHAEL L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Campagna et al 12050575 - (D) PINKERTON 103 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. TAYLOR, JOSHUA D

2468 Ex Parte Garudadri et al 11129635 - (D) KENNY 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED PHUNG, LUAT

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte YACH 13438373 - (D) HAGY 103 PERRY + CURRIER INC. (BlackBerry) LAI, DANIEL

2648 Ex Parte Huang et al 12361741 - (D) MacDONALD 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL TALUKDER, MD K

2695 Ex Parte Dassanayake et al 12605705 - (D) HAGY 103 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD KIYABU, KARIN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Duvalsaint et al 12388797 - (D) OWENS 103 Keohane & D'Alessandro GRANT, ROBERT J

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Zheng et al 11615457 - (D) OWENS 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP BADR, HAMID R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Itani et al 12062506 - (D) JIVANI 102/103 CRGO LAW NGUYEN, MAIKHANH

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex parte SILGAN PLASTICS LLC Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 6,095,359 et al 09/405,614 90013044 - (D) SONG 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. For Third Party: MOLD-MASTERS (2007) LIMITED LEWIS, AARON J original CRONIN, STEPHEN K

gechter

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2126 Ex Parte Mirza et al 12603482 - (D) WORMMEESTER 102/103 Betty E. Ungerman STEVENS, THOMAS H

“Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.” Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

fritch, princeton biochemicals, gechter, pullman-standard

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Hsu 12/156,687 NAGUMO 103(a) PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Shepard 11/541,354 DESHPANDE 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP EXAMINER LE, DIEU MINH T

2165 Ex Parte Armanino et al 11/130,773 STEPHENS 101/103(a) AT & T Legal Department - BK EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Neo et al 11/164,204 SAADAT 103(a) NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION EXAMINER MALDONADO, JULIO J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 11/302,162 COCKS 112(2)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

A patent examiner evaluating the patentability of a claimed invention must take care when assessing the teachings of the prior art to refrain from impermissible reliance on hindsight using the inventor’s own disclosure in concluding obviousness. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The record must show that a skilled artisan confronted by the problems faced by the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention would have selected the various elements of the prior art and combined them in the manner claimed. Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Mellott et al 11/514,320 GARRIS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER VETERE, ROBERT A
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Nelson 11/337,098 BAHR 103(a) Jonathan A. Bay EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3671 Ex Parte 6,336,311 et al 95/000,245 THE TORO COMPANY Requester v. TEXTRON INNOVATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant SONG 102/103(a)/112(1) Patent Owner: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. Third Party Requestor James W. Miller EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original EXAMINER PEZZUTO, ROBERT ERIC
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Aitken et al 11/270,818 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER TABONE JR, JOHN J

2186 Ex Parte Arndt et al 11/066,487 STEPHENS 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Novack et al 10/887,807 GONSALVES 101/103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB EXAMINER SHAN, APRIL YING
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Gotsick et al 11/592,680 KRIVAK 103(a) John L. Cordani Carmody & Torrance, LLP EXAMINER YAN, REN LUO

2858 Ex Parte Lubcke et al 10/694,349 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER KOVAL, MELISSA J
REHEARING

DENIED - VACATED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES Concurring BLANKENSHIP 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N

As explained by the Gechter court (supra), vacatur is appropriate when the decision under review “lacks adequate fact findings [and] meaningful review is not possible.” Gechter, 116 F.3d at 1457. The federal circuit courts of appeal vacate trial court decisions “[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291 (1982). See 9 Moore’s Federal Practice § 52.12[1] (3d ed., Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. 1997) (“When the trial court completely fails . . . to make findings on a material issue, the appellate court is entitled to vacate the judgment and remand the action to the district court . . . .” (footnotes omitted)).

hoffer, gartside, princeton biochemicals, dystar, merck2, gechter, champagne

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1615 Ex Parte Ahlgren et al 11/057,480 MILLS 103(a) Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. EXAMINER SASAN, ARADHANA

07/25/2011 1624 Ex Parte Pathi et al 11/574,642 WALSH Concurring FREDMAN 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER WILLIS, DOUGLAS M

07/25/2011 1628 Ex Parte Bieringer et al 10/198,580 MILLS 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2161 Ex Parte Rath et al 11/388,012 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

See Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.”).

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04

07/25/2011 2168 Ex Parte Idicula et al 11/014,442 DIXON 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER MOBIN, HASANUL

07/25/2011 2179 Ex Parte Uotila et al 11/124,651 GONSALVES 102(b)/103(a) HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3624 Ex Parte Fama et al 11/478,714 PETRAVICK 103(a) SETTER ROCHE LLP EXAMINER WALKER III, GEORGE H

07/25/2011 3634 Ex Parte Rieder et al 11/288,682 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/25/2011 3767 Ex Parte Torris et al 10/419,934 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO EXAMINER GRAY, PHILLIP A
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1626 Ex Parte Almirante et al 10/566,292 WALSH 103(a) ARENT FOX LLP EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R

“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references. . . is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Motivation to apply prior art teachings may be found when “the nature of the problem called for exactly the solutions in the prior art.” Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming obviousness). Accord, DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied”). The prior art’s disclosure of a multitude of combinations does not necessarily render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. .716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

07/25/2011 1637 Ex Parte Park et al 11/965,687 ADAMS 103(a) MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. EXAMINER TUNG, JOYCE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/25/2011 1763 Ex Parte Gestermann et al 11/709,411 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

07/25/2011 1787 Ex Parte NOWAK et al 09/178,329 KRATZ 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2166 Ex Parte Kreulen et al 10/851,754 DANG 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2436 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos et al 10/810,025 DROESCH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, DANIEL L

07/25/2011 2464 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 10/354,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) EXAMINER HAN, CLEMENCE S

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Smith 10/658,896 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Nakhjiri et al 11/169,406 DANG 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

2600 Communications
07/26/2011 2617 Ex Parte Heaven et al 11/239,346 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3621 Ex Parte Goodwin III 12/128,694 KIM 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E
REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2187 Ex Parte Lake 10/960,184 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N

Our reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has had occasion to analyze the word “review” as it is used in its jurisdictional statutes – 35 U.S.C. § 144.3 See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1458, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (discussing the scope of review, and vacating a Board decision that omits several crucial findings); accord Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir 1998) (J. Michel concurring) (citing Gechter). We find the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the term “review,” in the context of the Federal Circuit’s review of Board decisions, to be particularly helpful in determining the meaning of the word “review” in the context of our statutory duty to review adverse decisions of examiners.