huai-hung, kao, king

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Nishio et al 10933280 - (D) GRIMES 103 ACS LLC CERMAK NAKAJIMA LLP SIMS, JASON M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Ilnicki et al 11127487 - (D) McKONE 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC JEUDY, JOSNEL

See In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Just as in King Pharmaceuticals, the informing step does not ‘transform[ ] the process of taking the drug.’” (quoting King Pharm., 616 F.3d at 1279)).

King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111.05

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2667 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 11152686 - (D) DILLON 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Foley & Lardner LLP ROSARIO, DENNIS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Healey et al 11146745 - (D) BONILLA 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY OROPEZA, FRANCES P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3713 Ex parte ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC. 90009524 6193520 09/109,784 MARTIN 102/103 112(1)/112(2)/103 Whitaker Law Group WOOD, WILLIAM H original CHENG, JOE H

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Bieley 11969199 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 HARLAN CLAYTON BIELEY JAVANMARD, SAHAR

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Roesler et al 11198707 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC SERGENT, RABON A

1787 Ex Parte Funakoshi et al 11783473 - (D) CRUMBLEY 103 SUGHRUE-265550 SHAH, SAMIR

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Price et al 11499185 - (D) WEINBERG 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP PATEL, DHARTI HARIDAS

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Basner et al 11879325 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Glynn Tech Inc. LOFTUS, ANN E

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2875 SOUTHERN SALES & MARKETING GROUP, INC. Requester and Appellant v. WORLD FACTORY, INC. Patent Owner 95000104 6612713 10/068,424 COCKS 112(1) LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. WALTON, PLLC RUBIN, MARGARET R original SAWHNEY, HARGOBIND S

kao, datamize, fisher, ricoh

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Asrar et al 11028782 - (D) GRIMES 103 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP HOLT, ANDRIAE M

See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If an applicant demonstrates that an embodiment has an unexpected result and provides an adequate basis to support the conclusion that other embodiments falling within the claim will behave in the same manner, this will generally establish that the evidence is commensurate with [the] scope of the claims.”).

1657 Ex Parte Edens et al 10572811 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC SINGH, SATYENDRA K

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1736 Ex Parte Chin et al 12322567 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 The Dow Chemical Company ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY IQBAL, SYED TAHA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Muller 11318805 - (D) HOFF 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP DISTEFANO, GREGORY A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11762868 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 Merchant & Gould - Cox HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2686 Ex Parte Korkowski et al 10758330 - (D) HOFF 103 Kagan Binder, PLLC / STL BLOUIN, MARK S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Carroll 11109781 - (D) KAUFFMAN 102/103 Stephen F. McDonald SAFAVI, MICHAEL

3646 Ex Parte Balzer et al 10545360 - (D) BROWN 103 MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A

3655 Ex Parte Noll 11557710 - (D) ASTORINO 102 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC LE, DAVID D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Jiang et al 10582908 - (D) SCANLON 112(1)/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS JENNISON, BRIAN W

3767 Ex Parte Van Antwerp 10616784 - (D) MARTIN 103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Minimed OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES

3788 Ex Parte Rolfes et al 11949602 - (D) HORNER 112(1)/103 (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) FLETCHER YODER NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Morris et al 10903155 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FENNEMA, ROBERT E

" 'A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.'" Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Pinyayev et al 11592674 - (D) WALSH 102/103 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

3734 Ex Parte Lindquist et al 11775324 - (D) BONILLA 103 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EVERAGE, KEVIN D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kelley 11754082 - (D) GRIMES 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. ORWIG, KEVIN S

1619 Ex Parte Ward 10595033 - (D) PRATS 101/112(1)/112(2) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. KASSA, TIGABU

See In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[As] to the "specific" utility requirement, an application must disclose a use which is not so vague as to be meaningless.”).

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) , 2103, 2107.01

1634 Ex Parte Wang et al 11256229 - (D) GREEN 103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global SALMON, KATHERINE D

1634 Ex Parte Pont-Kingdon et al 11268433 - (D) WALSH 103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/UTAH SALMON, KATHERINE D

1635 Ex Parte Robertson et al 11083583 - (D) PRATS 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C. SHIN, DANA H

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Naoi et al 11488044 - (D) HASTINGS 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. TADAYYON ESLAMI, TABASSOM

1724 Ex Parte OKAZAKI et al 12022472 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP THOMAS, BRENT C

1736 Ex Parte Meessen 11885666 - (D) PRAISS 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC BERNS, DANIEL J

1761 Ex Parte Hsu et al 12006912 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY KOPEC, MARK T

1787 Ex Parte Finley 11512022 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(2)/102/103 Kagan Binder, PLLC ROBINSON, ELIZABETH A

1791 Ex Parte Baker et al 11669736 - (D) GARRIS 112(2)/103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP DEGUIRE, KATHERINE E

"The scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention." Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention." Id. "A purely subjective construction of 'aesthetically pleasing' would not notify the public of the patentee's right to exclude since the meaning of the claim language would depend on the unpredictable vagaries of any one person's opinion of the aesthetics of interface screens." Id. "While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a claim term, to be definite, requires an objective anchor." Id.

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Niki et al 11130242 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP PIERRE LOUIS, ANDRE

2183 Ex Parte Archer et al 11459387 - (D) GIANNETTI 112(2)/103 IBM (ROC-BLF) C/O BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP GIROUX, GEORGE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Howe et al 10335735 - (D) HUGHES 102 AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A

2432 Ex Parte Drehmel et al 10892430 - (D) FRAHM 103 IBM CORPORATION LANIER, BENJAMIN E

2439 Ex Parte Bhatt et al 10988913 - (D) MOORE 112(2)/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. LE, CANH

2463 Ex Parte Pushparaj 10767392 - (D) BUI 103 Marger Johnson & McCollom, P.C. - Cisco MARCELO, MELVIN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2653 Ex Parte Knott et al 10829557 - (D) McNAMARA 103 AT&T Legal Department - JW PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL

2659 Ex Parte Peck 10722038 - (D) FRAHM 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK PLLC C/O CPA Global SHAH, PARAS D

2664 Ex Parte Kollias et al 11497107 - (D) DANG 102/103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON YE, LIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Freedman 11381583 - (D) HOFF 103 Philip D. Freedman PC KUO, WENSING W

2872 Ex Parte Li 11274241 - (D) KRIVAK 102/103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB DOAK, JENNIFER L

2887 Ex Parte Kelley et al 10905716 - (D) KOHUT 103 (IBM) WHITHAM, CURTIS, CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. MAI, THIEN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Armaly 11827284 - (D) GROSSMAN 103 BUTZEL LONG WOOD, KIMBERLY T

3634 Ex Parte Berger 10822079 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 Sanchelima and Associates, P.A. JOHNSON, BLAIR M

3646 Ex Parte Schrauwen 11792764 - (D) WEATHERLY 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD

3689 Ex Parte Chen et al 11394871 - (D) KIM 112(1)/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP MATTIA, SCOTT A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Clements 10801401 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A

kao

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kao et al 11680432 - (D) GRIMES 103 MAYER BROWN LLP CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA

This appeal returns to us following a remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. ... The Court of Appeals concluded that this finding was not supported by substantial evidence, because the same declaration on which we depended “expressly stated that there is no general correlation between the Basket and Paddle Methods and cited prior art literature that supported this conclusion.” In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The court vacated our decision and remanded “so that the Board can consider whether, under the proper analysis, the evidence of record is sufficient to maintain an obviousness rejection.” Id.

The application was remanded to the Examiner so that five questions could be addressed (Remand Order, Jan. 3, 2012). The Examiner provided a response to the questions (mailed April 16, 2012), as did Appellants (received May 16, 2012).

After considering the evidence of record anew, in light of the guidance provided by the Court of Appeals, we conclude that the Examiner has not provided evidence sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness.

1617 Ex Parte Seidling et al 11799042 - (D) ADAMS 112(2)/103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. BROWE, DAVID

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Pierre 11795634 - (D) OBERMANN dissenting DELMENDO 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP YOO, HONG THI

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2474 Ex Parte Takasaki 09931922 - (D) DIXON 102/103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP GREY, CHRISTOPHER P

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Nagy 11226872 - (D) MORGAN 103 Delphi Technologies, Inc. MILORD, MARCEAU

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Crampton 11340334 - (D) CALVE 103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte LeMay et al 10601771 - (D) HOELTER 103 Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P. ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

3761 Ex Parte Lannoy 11525800 - (D) GRIMES 103 K&L Gates LLP WIEST, PHILIP R

3771 Ex Parte Sexton et al 11017163 - (D) SAINDON 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY YU, JUSTINE ROMANG

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Stones 10911321 - (D) RICE 102/103 102/103 Black & Decker Corporation PAYER, HWEI SIU CHOU

3742 Ex Parte Kropp et al 11742378 - (D) FITZPATRICK 102 102 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) MAYE, AYUB A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Avagliano et al 11144931 - (D) COURTENAY 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NORTON, JENNIFER L

2191 Ex Parte Betts et al 11091102 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 Baker Botts LLP BROPHY, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Solotorevsky et al 10495495 - (D) SAADAT 102 BROWDY AND NEIMARK, P.L.L.C. BATES, KEVIN T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Silverstein et al 10954112 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MCCOMMAS, BRENDAN N

jones, lemin, merck2, wyers, kao, thorner, aventis

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Nakatani et al 10/513,392 TIMM 103 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P. BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

1785 Ex Parte Weerasinghe et al 10/962,994 BEST 112(1)/102/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP CHAU, LINDA N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Saake et al 10/468,181 COURTENAY 103 EMC Corporation KIM, PAUL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Tabatabai et al 09/865,030 POTHIER 103 WAGNER, MURABITO & HAO LLP SHANG, ANNAN Q

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Braun  10/670,902 BARRY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Basch & Nickerson LLP DHINGRA, PAWANDEEP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 HASBRO, INC. Appellant v. GANZ Patent Owner, Respondent 95/001,345 7568964 12/250,757 SIU 103 Pearne & Gordon LLP KISS, ERIC B original AHMED, MASUD

3731 Ex Parte Jagger et al 10/601,952 GRIMES 103
SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC SONNETT, KATHLEEN C
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Dietrich et al 10/551,108 OWENS dissenting NAGUMO 103 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. LEE, DORIS L

Our reviewing court has rejected the proposition that, “regardless of how broad, a disclosure of a chemical genus renders obvious any species that happens to fall within it.” In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In Lemin, cited by the majority, the court explained that :

The position of the Patent Office is, essentially, that Lemin has done no more than pluck a subgenus out of a generic disclosure by Jones, and has used that subgenus in precisely the manner taught by Jones.
Generally speaking, there is nothing unobvious in choosing ‘some’ among ‘many’ indiscriminately. Here, however, the choice is based on a discovery by Lemin that some compounds, falling within a prior art genus, have a special significance.

332 F.2d 839, 841 (citation omitted). Moreover, unlike the “multitude [1200] of effective combinations” disclosed by the reference patent in Merck, 874 F.2d at 807, the number of combinations in this case is truly astronomical.

Jones, In re, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . 707.07(f), 2143.01, 2144, 2144.05, 2144.08

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

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Horikawa 11/122,249 HOMERE 102/103 102 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP RENNER, BRANDON M

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Mahalingam et al 10/436,310 FREDMAN 103 Avon Products, Inc. VU, JAKE MINH

To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness by showing secondary considerations of unexpected results, Appellants must first establish a nexus between the claimed invention and the allegedly unexpected results. See Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“For objective evidence of secondary considerations to be accorded substantial weight, its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.”). “Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Duffin 10/473,643 GAUDETTE 103 TYCO Healthcare Group LP HUSON, MONICA ANNE

1765 Ex Parte Null 11/920,474 DELMENDO 102/103 SHELL OIL COMPANY VALDEZ, DEVE E

1775 Ex Parte Latino et al 10/963,139 OWENS 103 MORRISS O'BRYANT COMPAGNI, P.C. YOO, REGINA M

1782 Ex Parte Baumgartner et al 11/927,019 GARRIS 103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP SMITH, PRESTON

1786 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/745,327 BEST 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. CHOI, PETER Y

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2122 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/393,641 CHEN 102/103 KRUEGER ISELIN LLP (1391) COUGHLAN, PETER D

2166 Ex Parte Ortwein et al 10/837,980 DILLON 102 IBM LOTUS & RATIONAL SW c/o GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ JOHNSON, JOHNESE T

2194 Ex Parte Krishnaswamy et al 10/808,223 MARTIN 112(1)/101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ZHEN, LI B

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Tao 11/469,626 EASTHOM 103 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC MAPA, MICHAEL Y

Therefore, Appellant attempts to limit the ordinary claim term “message” to exclude packets or other known message formats. However, the Federal Circuit recently reiterated the stringent standard for narrowing a claim term beyond its plain and ordinary meaning in Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America L.L.C., 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There, we explained that we will only interpret a claim term more narrowly than its ordinary meaning under two circumstances: “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as [its] own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. Id. at 1365.

Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Bliznak 11/239,140 LORIN 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N

3637 Ex Parte Atkins 11/501,967 LEE 103 JAMES RAY & ASSOCIATES WILKENS, JANET MARIE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Francischelli et al 11/128,786 McCOLLUM 102 Medtronic CardioVascular COHEN, LEE S

3M, hazani, garnero, seattle box, kao

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/096,820 HOUSEL 102(b)/103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY

1742 Ex Parte Lawton et al 11/931,205 KRATZ 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER THROWER, LARRY W

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Bocionek et al 09/994,184 NAPPI 103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP EXAMINER ENGLAND, SARA M

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Kiuchi et al 10/730,767 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) ALPINE/BHGL EXAMINER WOZNIAK, JAMES S

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Feeney et al 11/738,433 JEFFERY 103(a) JOSEPH SWAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION EXAMINER CHAN, KAWING

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11/930,837 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) David Klein DEKEL PATENT LTD. EXAMINER NGUYEN, SON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Igaki 10/220,472 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) Rader Fishman & Grauer EXAMINER NGUYEN, TUAN VAN

3734 Ex Parte Scheller et al 10/820,330 GRIMES 103(a) Evans & Dixon, LLC EXAMINER DOWE, KATHERINE MARIE

3736 Ex Parte Wollin 10/902,263 SCHEINER 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T

3761 Ex Parte Lam et al 11/155,981 SCHEINER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3761 Ex Parte Wariar 11/345,702 GRIMES 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3656 Ex Parte 7757582 et al Ex parte SHIMANO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 90/011,360 11/641,905 SONG 102(b)/103(a) GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER JOHNSON, VICKY A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Pawlak et al 11/432,692 FRANKLIN concurring NAGUMO 103(a) 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Adams et al 11/158,104 KRIVAK 103(a) 103(a) Borden Ladner Gervais LLP EXAMINER SHEDRICK, CHARLES TERRELL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11/293,178 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) DEKEL PATENT LTD., DAVID KLEIN BEIT HAROF'IM EXAMINER NGUYEN, SON T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Kilcoyne et al 10/896,553 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, HUONG Q

3765 Ex Parte Olofsson 10/761,401 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) 112(2) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER SELF, SHELLEY M

If the words of limitation can connote with equal force a structural characteristic of the product or a process used to obtain it, then the limitation is commonly interpreted in its structural sense. See, e.g., 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[E]ven words of limitation that can connote with equal force a structural characteristic of the product or a process of manufacture are commonly and by default interpreted in their structural sense….”); Hazani v. U.S. Int’l. Trade Com’n., 126 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that claims to a plate having a “chemically engraved” surface are best characterized as pure product claims, since the “chemically engraved” limitation, read in context, describes the product more by its structure than by the process used to obtain it); see also In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 278-79 (CCPA 1969) (noting that past-tense verbs such as “ ‘intermixed,’ ‘ground in place,’ ‘press fitted,’ ‘etched,’ and ‘welded,’ all . . . at one time or another have been separately held capable of construction as structural, rather than process, limitations.”).

Garnero, In re, 412 F.2d 276, 162 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Addington et al 11/089,977 PAK 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ABOAGYE, MICHAEL

1774 Ex Parte Farrell 11/046,468 GARRIS 102(b) WALTER A. HACKLER, Ph.D. EXAMINER
COOLEY, CHARLES E

1774 Ex Parte Harms et al 10/539,139 FRANKLIN dissenting NAGUMO 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Jagadeesan et al 11/003,201 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER FARAGALLA, MICHAEL A

2628 Ex Parte Witter et al 11/251,599 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER MARTELLO, EDWARD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Rice et al 10/282,897 PER CURIAM 102(e)/103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

When the term “substantially” is recited by a claim, its meaning is determined from the specification. See Seattle Box Co., v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .2173.05(b)

3674 Ex Parte Merideth et al 11/163,306 PER CURIAM 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER LUGO, CARLOS

3687 Ex Parte Mazzara 10/736,491 FISCHETTI 103(a) Julia Church Dierker Dierker & Associates, P.C. EXAMINER IWARERE, OLUSEYE

3693 Ex Parte Mathews et al 10/453,396 CRAWFORD 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD, LLP EXAMINER KHATTAR, RAJESH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Weber et al 11/280,120 BONILLA 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

“An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut that case.” Id. If the applicant presents rebuttal evidence, such as unexpected results or that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention, the Examiner “must consider the totality of the evidence to determine whether the obviousness rejection should stand.” Id.

3775 Ex Parte Hazebrouck et al 11/241,461 LEE 112(1)/102/103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER RAMANA, ANURADHA

kao, dillon

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Graf 11/192,938 MORGAN 102(b)/102(a) SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC EXAMINER FLEURANTIN, JEAN B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Schlecht 10/892,390 PETRAVICK 102(b)/103(a) VINSON & ELKINS, L.L.P. EXAMINER MAGUIRE, LINDSAY M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Gorelik 10/725,116 MORGAN 103(a) Dr. Victor Gorelik EXAMINER LOUIE, OSCAR A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Ging et al 11/080,446 SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
ACUSHNET COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. Patents of CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,122; 95/000,120; 95/000,121; & 95/000,123 6,506,130 B2; 6,210,293 B1; 6,503,156 B1; & 6,595,873 B2 DELMENDO 103(a) Patent Owner: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH & RICHARDSON PC Third-Party Requester: CLINTON H. BRANNON MAYER BROWN LLP

In re Kao, 2011 WL 1832537 * 10 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“This is not a case where the Board relied on an unknown property of prior art for a teaching. Rather, Maloney’s express teachings render the claimed controlled release oxymorphone formulation obvious, and the claimed ‘food effect’ adds nothing of patentable consequence.”). Further on this point, we think that the following guidance from In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), is instructive:

This court, in reconsidering this case in banc, reaffirms that structural similarity between claimed and prior art subject matter, proved by combining references or otherwise, where the prior art gives reason or motivation to make the claimed compositions, creates a prima facie case of obviousness, and that the burden (and opportunity) then falls on an applicant to rebut that prima facie case. Such rebuttal or argument can consist of a comparison of test data showing that the claimed compositions possess unexpectedly improved properties or properties that the prior art does not have . . . . There is no question that all evidence of the properties of the claimed compositions and the prior art must be considered in determining the ultimate question of patentability, but it is also clear that the discovery that a claimed composition possesses a property not disclosed for the prior art subject matter, does not by itself defeat a prima facie case.

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145
REHEARING

DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
PENTEL CO., LTD. and PENTEL OF AMERICA, LTD. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of BENJAMIN J. KWITEK Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,399 6,447,190 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ADAMS AND WILKS EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Gentle 10/667,110 DANG 103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Park et al 10/662,406 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP EXAMINER SHERMAN, STEPHEN G

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Jaranson et al 11/530,067 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) EXAMINER DUNN, DAVID R

3687 Ex Parte Watson et al 10/555,914 KIM 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER CRAWLEY, TALIA F

NEW

REVERSED

1767 Ex Parte Borke et al 11/717,944 MILLS 103(a) LyondellBasell Industries EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2812 Ex Parte Tsakalakos et al 10/273,926 HAHN 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER MULPURI, SAVITRI

AFFIRMED

2816 Ex Parte Chan et al 11/054,310 SAADAT 103(a) Richard Lau INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER TRA, ANH QUAN

1644 Ex Parte Goldenberg et al 11/534,124 FREDMAN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP EXAMINER SCHWADRON, RONALD B

1761 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/957,759 MILLS 103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

2629 Ex Parte Kambayashi 11/068,144 SAADAT 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER PERVAN, MICHAEL

2182 Ex Parte Klein 10/424,206 HUGHES 102(e) Dorsey & Whitney LLP-IP Dept.-MTI EXAMINER PARK, ILWOO

1641 Ex Parte Rosenstein et al 11/117,825 FREDMAN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DO, PENSEE T

DISMISSED

2117 Ex Parte Dubey 11/437,420 Shaw new ground of rejection SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, STEVE N

chu, rice, KSR, kao

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Ou-Yang 10/725,795 TIMM Dissenting SMITH 102(b)/103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER JOLLEY, KIRSTEN

1724 Ex Parte Shiota et al 10/436,479 SMITH 103(a) McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER VAN, LUAN V

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Djugash et al 10/865,261 STEPHENS 103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER RAAB, CHRISTOPHER J

2182 Ex Parte Brune et al 10/399,272 MacDONALD 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Joseph S Tripoli Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc EXAMINER PARK, ILWOO

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Li et al 10/404,288 SAADAT 103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER NEWLIN, TIMOTHY R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Ong et al 11/782,812 HAHN 102(b)/103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER EXAMINER SNOW, COLLEEN ERIN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Whitworth et al 11/970,885 MOHANTY 103(a) Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt EXAMINER RIVIERE, HEIDI M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Franson et al 11/266,973 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER HWU, DAVIS D

3761 Ex Parte Zander et al 11/020,844 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Ma et al 10/786,707 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER FORTUNA, ANA M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Raikar et al 10/632,446 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHIN, KYUNG H

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Andreasson et al 10/980,040 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP EXAMINER LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC

2618 Ex Parte Vance 10/709,345 FRAHM 103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex Parte Bossler et al 10/869,685 KAUFFMAN 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER LOUIE, WAE LENNY

In support of their contention that the additional limitations of claims 4-6 and 9 are not merely matters of design choice, Appellants cite In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995). App. Br. 9-17; Reply Br. 8-17. To the contrary, Chu supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that such modifications were a matter of obvious design choice where, as here, Appellants fail to describe any difference in function between the prior art and the claims, or to identify any unexpected results attributable to the limitations of those claims. In re Chu, at 298-99 (a finding of “design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function or give unexpected results (citing In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965)). Further, Appellants‟ contention that the proposed modification is not merely a matter of design choice, “since there is no teaching or suggestion in the art” (App. Br. 10) is unpersuasive because the Supreme Court has rejected the rigid requirement for a teaching, suggestion or motivation to be in the prior art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).

Chu, In re, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . 201.11, 716.02(f), 1504.20, 2145

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Hogg et al 10/674,914 KAUFFMAN 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER NGUYEN, HUONG Q
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Perricone et al 10/750,390 MILLS 112(1)/112(2)/103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V

1648 Ex Parte Ertl et al 10/480,793 MILLS 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) HOWSON & HOWSON LLP EXAMINER HILL, MYRON G

1653 Ex Parte Knize 11/387,291 MILLS 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER SHEN, BIN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Eibeck et al 11/815,723 COLAIANNI 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER SHEH, ANTHONY H

Moreover, Appellants have failed to provide an adequate basis that other embodiments falling within the scope of the claim will behave in the same manner as the tested compositions. In re Kao, No. 2010-1308, 2011 WL 1832537, at *8 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2011 page 17).

1747 Ex Parte Maziers 11/597,227 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER MCNALLY, DANIEL

1782 Ex Parte Bertolino et al 11/203,318 PAK 102(b) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER MIGGINS, MICHAEL C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Monteleone 10/410,820 DANG 102(b) JACK SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, PLLC EXAMINER BECKER, SHASHI KAMALA

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Zuk et al 10/072,683 LUCAS 103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER ARANI, TAGHI T

2478 Ex Parte Ueda et al 10/244,104 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Kanevsky et al 10/609,769 DROESCH 103(a) PAUL D. GREELEY, ESQ. OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, L.L.P. EXAMINER WHIPKEY, JASON T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Jacobson 11/467,692 WHITEHEAD, JR. Concurring-In-Part BAUMEISTER 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER BHAT, ADITYA S

2858 Ex Parte Philbrook 11/207,419 HOFF 103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. EXAMINER PIGGUSH, AARON C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Chang et al 10/273,679 TURNER 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP EXAMINER KARDOS, NEIL R

3686 Ex Parte Wahlbin et al 09/969,024 FISCHETTI 103(a) ERIC B. MEYERTONS CONLEY, ROSE & TAYON, P.C. EXAMINER KOPPIKAR, VIVEK D

NEW

REVERSED

1777 Ex Parte Berlin et al 10/262,349 KRATZ 112(1) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (INTEL) EXAMINER GAKH, YELENA G

2165 Ex Parte Brown et al 09/968,353 SMITH 102(a)/103(a) KONRAD RAYNES & VICTOR, LLP EXAMINER ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN

1727 Ex Parte Kearl et al 11/168,712 OWENS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALEJANDRO, RAYMOND

2168 Ex Parte Labossiere et al 10/857,172 POTHIER 102(b) Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. EXAMINER SANDERS, AARON J

1716 Ex Parte Lenz 12/078,348 OWENS 102(b) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN

1767 Ex Parte Menovcik et al 11/239,606 NAGUMO 103(a) Harness, Dickey and Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

2451 Ex Parte Mullendore et al 10/393,957 MANTIS MERCADER 112(1)/102(e) HENSLEY KIM & HOLZER, LLC EXAMINER PATEL, DHAIRYA A

1716 Ex Parte Nishio et al 10/902,032 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER MACARTHUR, SYLVIA

2163 Ex Parte Olivieri et al 11/035,262 HUGHES 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M

1784 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/290,812 GARRIS 112(1)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER XU, LING X

1716 Ex Parte Tsukamoto et al 11/390,196 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CHANDRA, SATISH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3641 Ex Parte Eberhart et al 11/011,318 HOELTER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) WIGGIN AND DANA LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, STEPHEN

3727 Ex Parte Fisher 10/821,071 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER MULLER, BRYAN R

3753 Ex Parte Lochtefeld et al 11/431,910 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER PRICE, CRAIG JAMES

1723 Ex Parte Voss et al 10/858,656 COLAIANNI 103(a) BASF CATALYSTS LLC EXAMINER HANDAL, KAITY V

AFFIRMED

1774 Ex Parte Kelm 11/264,905 WARREN 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER LEUNG, JENNIFER A

1762 Ex Parte Ma et al 11/067,436 KRATZ 112(2)/102/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

1742 Ex Parte Richard 10/362,623 GUEST 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D

1788 Ex Parte Saitou et al 10/921,845 COLAIANNI 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 CHANG, VICTOR S

REHEARING

DENIED

1787 Ex Parte Breese et al 11/053,962 HANLON 103(a) LyondellBasell Industries EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R