SEARCH

Showing posts with label kronig. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kronig. Show all posts

Friday, October 23, 2015

kronig, Jung

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2115 Ex Parte Read et al 12987423 - (D) BAER 102/double patenting MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP CAO, CHUN

We disagree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings in the Examiner’s Answer are a new ground of rejection because the Examiner does not change the basic thrust of the rejection. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (holding that additional explanation responding to arguments offered for the first time “did not change the rejection, and [Appellant] had fair opportunity to respond”).

Kronig, In re, 539 F.2d 1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976) 1207.03

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

Monday, August 17, 2015

kronig, Jung, noznick, krammes, cowles

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Burns et al 11998673 - (D) GARRIS 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP ANDERSON, JERRY W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kummer et al 11693024 - (D) CURCURI 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (EchoStar) MONTOYA, OSCHTA I

2463 Ex Parte Wu et al 12166619 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Hirth 11166464 - (D) EVANS 103 Dilworth IP - SAP ABEL JALIL, NEVEEN

The Board need not use identical language to that of the Examiner to avoid triggering a new ground of rejection. It is not a new ground of rejection, for example, to provide additional explanation or to restate the reasoning of the rejection in a different way, so long as the “basic thrust of the rejection” is the same. In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976); In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (concluding the Board’s additional explanation “did not change the rejection”). See also In re Noznick, 391 F.2d 946, 949 (CCPA 1968) (concluding the Board did not make a new ground of rejection when “explaining to appellants why their arguments were ineffective to overcome the rejection made by the examiner”); In re Krammes, 314 F.2d 813, 817 (CCPA 1963) (“It is well established that mere difference in form of expression of the reasons for finding claims unpatentable or unobvious over the references does not amount to reliance on a different ground of rejection” (internal citations omitted)); In re Cowles, 156 F.2d 551, 555 (CCPA 1946) (holding that the use of “different language” does not necessarily trigger a new ground of rejection).

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

Kronig, In re, 539 F.2d 1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976) 1207.03

Noznick, In re, 478 F.2d 1260, 178 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1973) 716.03(b)

Monday, July 22, 2013

leithem, kronig

custom search

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 IN RE: JOSEPH GIUFFRIDA 2012-1692 11/432,583 PER CURIAM 102/103 103 Great Lakes Neuro Technologies Inc. Deputy Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor Inc. unpublished but incorporated by reference in 13/153,063 SOREY, ROBERT A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 3749 CALICO BRAND, INC. AND HONSON MARKETING GROUP, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERITEK IMPORTS, INC., Defendant, AND ACME INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant. 2008-1324, -1341; 6,318,992 09/531,083 6,814,569 10/005,230 REYNA JMOL/lost profits reasonable royalty Trojan Law Offices Reed Smith, LLP COCKS, JOSIAH C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 IN RE DORON ADLER, OFRA ZINATY, DAPHNA LEVY AND ARKADY GLUKHOVSKY 2012-1610 10/097,096 WALLACH 103 Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP United States
Patent and Trademark Office KISH, JAMES M

When the Board relies upon a new ground of rejection not relied upon by the examiner, the applicant is entitled to reopen prosecution or to request a rehearing. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). This court has stated that “[t]he thrust of the Board’s rejection changes when . . . it finds facts not found by the examiner regarding the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, and these facts are the principal evidence upon which the Board’s rejection was based.” In re Leithem, 661 F.3d 1316, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “‘[T]he ultimate criterion of whether a rejection is considered ‘new’ in a decision by the [B]oard is whether [applicants] have had fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the rejection.’” Id. (quoting In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302–03 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (modifications in original)).
HARMON 18: 8-10
DONNER 2: 218

Friday, September 16, 2011

kronig, boyer, bush, hyatt2

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Weber et al 11/019,492 McKELVEY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER LISTVOYB, GREGORY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Stobbs et al 10/806,307 POTHIER 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN M

2181 Ex Parte Barrenscheen et al 10/727,102 DESHPANDE 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHUN KUAN

2188 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/054,886 ZECHER 102(b) Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC EXAMINER GU, SHAWN X

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/952,708 KRIVAK 102(e) Synopsys/Fenwick EXAMINER KALAM, ABUL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Elgee et al 11/021,650 McCARTHY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MORRISON, THOMAS A

3657 Ex Parte Murakami 10/698,481 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/220,831 SAINDON 112(2)/103(a) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC EXAMINER BERTHEAUD, PETER JOHN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte Wei et al 12/283,347 ADAMS 112(1) 102(a,b) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER MONSHIPOURI, MARYAM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Bohannon et al 11/025,846 GONSALVES 103(a) 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAM LINH T

2161 Ex Parte Boss et al 10/992,572 DESHPANDE 103(a) 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU N

2179 Ex Parte Hymes et al 10/633,250 FRAHM 103(a) 103(a) FROST BROWN TODD LLC EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte McCall et al 10/956,426 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER JOSEPH, JAISON

AFFIRMED

1653 Ex Parte Kilminster 10/570,447 ADAMS 103(a) ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC EXAMINER MARTIN, PAUL C

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Wendker et al 12/093,097 MILLS 103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP EXAMINER KAUCHER, MARK S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Matthews et al 10/814,426 HUGHES 103(a) HOWISON & ARNOTT, L.L.P EXAMINER DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY

Although we apply a somewhat different reasoning than that provided by the Examiner, where, as here, the limitations at issue are found in a single reference and the thrust of the obviousness reasoning remains the same, the Board may rely on a single reference to affirm a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) without designating it a new ground of rejection. Reliance upon fewer references in affirming a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 does not normally constitute a new ground of rejection. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966); In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); see also Hyatt v. Doll, 576 F.3d 1246, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The Board cannot be said to have presented a new ground of rejection simply by elaborating on the examiner’s rejection or by using different words.”).

Kronig, In re, 539 F.2d 1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207.03

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Gugliotta 11/293,756 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) PATENT, COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK LAW GROUP EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAUREN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Pommereau 10/525,900 ASTORINO 112(2)/102(b) 103(a) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN EXAMINER BUTLER, MICHAEL E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Savic et al 11/343,584 O’NEILL 102(b) Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus P.A. EXAMINER MAI, HAO D

Monday, May 9, 2011

scaltech, weber, haas, harnisch, kronig

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Peterson 10/246,851 GRIMES 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

“Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to establish inherency.” Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra L.L.C., 178 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1999). ]

Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 269 F.3d 1321, 60 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . .2133.03(c)

3765 Ex Parte Nunn 11/650,365 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Timothy T. Tyson Freilich, Hornbaker & Rosen EXAMINER QUINN, RICHALE LEE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Kong et al 10/852,448 TIMM 102(b) WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK P.C. EXAMINER PIERY, MICHAEL T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Doll et al 10/926,155 SCHAFER 102(b)/103(a) MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC EXAMINER PETTITT, JOHN F

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Makadia et al 11/267,540 FREDMAN 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP (MTC) EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Sell et al 10/437,267 GREENHUT 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER KISH, JAMES M


ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte DeGrado et al 10/801,951 SCHAFER 121 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO

Applicants ... argued that requiring a restriction between independent inventions present in a single claim was improper under In re Weber, 580 F.2d 455 (C.C.P.A. 1978) and In re Haas, 580 F.2d 461 (C.C.P.A. 1978).

We require that Applicants brief the apparent conflict between the plain language of § 121 and the Weber and Haas opinions. As part of the briefing applicants are required to address whether the language of the second paragraph of § 112, requiring “one or more claims . . . claiming the subject matter the applicant regards as his invention” necessarily precludes the Director from exercising his statutory discretion “to require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions” when more than one independent and distinct inventions are encompassed within a single claim.

Weber, In re, 580 F.2d 455, 198 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803.02

Haas, In re, 580 F.2d 461, 198 USPQ 334 (CCPA 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803.02

We also require additional briefing on whether Claims 16-48 are proper Markush Claims. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716 (C.C.P.A. 1980) notes that the body of law relating to Markush-type claims is concerned with the concept of “unity of invention.” Harnisch, 631 F.2d at 721.

Harnisch, In re, 631 F.2d 716, 206 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . 803.02, 2173.05(h)

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Frutos et al 11/437,477 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J

See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302 (CCPA 1976) (“[T]he ultimate criterion of whether a rejection is considered „new‟ in a decision by the board is whether appellants have had fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the rejection.”)

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Ni et al 09/821,753 TIMM Dissenting Opinion KRATZ 112(1)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN GILMAN & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ALEJANDRO MULERO, LUZ L

NEW

REVERSED
2444 Ex Parte Betge-Brezetz et al 10/434,056 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

3753 Ex Parte Strattan et al 10/972,923 KAUFFMAN 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER RIVELL, JOHN A

AFFIRMED
1781 Ex Parte Makadia et al 11/267,540 FREDMAN 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP (MTC) EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

3734 Ex Parte Terry et al 11/135,824 STAICOVICI 102(b) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER DOWE, KATHERINE MARIE