SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label lantech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lantech. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

lantech, robertson

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11262499 - (D) GRIMES 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11286133 - (D) GRIMES 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2196 Ex Parte Crisan et al 10407536 - (D) ADAMS 103 KONRAD RAYNES DAVDA & VICTOR, LLP ATTN: IBM54 CAO, DIEM K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Brown 11610156 - (D) BAHR 103 Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. SHAW, PETER C

However, this menu of options does not satisfy the requirements in claims 1 and 13 for both a presentation of a query and a presentation of its predetermined responses. See, e.g., Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in infringement context, a single conveyor held not to meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).

Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio, Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2145

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2112 2114 2163 2163.07(a)

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Frank et al 11395088 - (D) MOHANTY 103 AT&T Legal Department - H&C BROWN, ALVIN L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11327644 - (D) DESHPANDE 102(e) 102(e)/103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP ALLEN, NICHOLAS E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Holmquist et al 11302923 - (D) DELMENDO 102(e) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. ASSOUAD, PATRICK J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Ferren et al 11171649 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE CRANDALL, LYNSEY P

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Han et al 11875775 - (D) WILSON 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Bukris 12359761 - (D) McMILLIN 112(2)/102 MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & DUNLEAVY, P.C. KIM, KENNETH S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte LaJoie et al 12432871 - (D) KINDER 102(e)/103 STRAUB & POKOTYLO PENG, HSIUNGFE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Son et al 10834806 - (D) SHIANG 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. PHUONG, DAI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Maekawa 10653193 - (D) LORIN 103 Cheng Law Group, PLLC PORTER, RACHEL L

3635 Ex Parte BURGER et al 11959542 - (D) ZECHER 103 MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC - GM WENDELL, MARK R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Dilger et al 11250792 - (D) BAHR 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. MULLER, BRYAN R

Friday, April 19, 2013

cybersource, lantech

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Steinmann et al 11115025 - (D) ANDERSON 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. UDDIN, MOHAMMED R

2193 Ex Parte Gustavson et al 11035933 - (D) MacDONALD 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC MALZAHN, DAVID H

“Regardless of what statutory category (‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,’ 35 U.S.C. § 101) a claim’s language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Giefer et al 10595502 - (D) KILE 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC JOHNSON, PHILLIP A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Horton 11937918 - (D) KAUFFMAN 112(1)/103 BRIGGS AND MORGAN P.A. PRONE, JASON D

3743 Ex Parte Tritz 11180866 - (D) SPAHN 103 Lesavich High-Tech Law Group, P.C. LU, JIPING

see also Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Machine Co., 32 F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(in infringement context, a single conveyor held to not meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors).

Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio, Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2145

3767 Ex Parte Obrigkeit 12108579 - (D) GRIMES 103 TERUMO CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS CORPORATION SCHELL, LAURA C

3773 Ex Parte Collier et al 11169869 - (D) JENKS 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON LAUER, CHRISTINA C

3778 Ex Parte Truschel et al 11327631 - (D) WALSH 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Leifermann et al 11407760 - (D) GREENHUT 102 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke) CUOMO, PETER M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Mitrani et al 11037123 - (D) PLENZLER 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) MORALES, JON ERIC C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Groppe et al 11915068 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP ROGERS, MARTIN K

1763 Ex Parte Khabashesku et al 12346729 - (D) NAGUMO 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC FINK, BRIEANN R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Jaakkola 11377454 - (D) McKONE 103 Nokia Corporation Squire Sanders (US) LLP AHMED, MOHAMMED

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Mennie et al 11920649 - (D) GROSSMAN 112(1) 103 Edwards Vacuum, Inc. SAVANI, AVINASH A

3767 Ex Parte OBRIEN et al 12004657 - (D) McCOLLUM 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. THOMAS, JR, BRADLEY G

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Ichihara 11004814 - (R) GONSALVES 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP GONZALEZ, AMANCIO

Monday, August 1, 2011

lantech, robertson, lovin

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Weber 10/928,999 SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Lee 11/025,123 GARRIS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW D. FORTNEY, PH.D., P.C. EXAMINER RAYMOND, BRITTANY L

1742 Ex Parte Funaoka et al 10/973,392 WARREN 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER HUSON, MONICA ANNE

1767 Ex Parte Herbiet et al 11/573,581 SCHEINER 103(a) ALBEMARLE CORPORATION EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Ferren et al 11/223,898 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL

When a claim requires two separate elements, mapping one disclosed element to both recited elements is improper. See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing only two means using one element twice).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

2187 Ex Parte Kreuchauf et al 10/911,319 STEPHENS 102(e)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER THAMMAVONG, PRASITH

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Larson 10/449,025 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, MADELEINE ANH VINH

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Hunter et al 11/337,783 SAADAT 103(a) LARSON NEWMAN, LLP EXAMINER HUR, JUNG H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Batke et al 09/967,124 HOFF 103(a) ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./BF EXAMINER EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

3677 Ex Parte Tolan et al 10/688,032 ASTORINO 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BATSON, VICTOR D

3679 Ex Parte Maciag 10/839,079 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Rankin, Hill & Clark LLP EXAMINER DUNWOODY, AARON M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Zwilling et al 10/833,541 BLANKENSHIP 101/103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER LY, ANH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Burak et al 10/400,239 ASTORINO 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER COBURN, CORBETT B

3736 Ex Parte Ehrenberger et al 11/002,955 BAHR 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T

These vague statements do not constitute separate arguments for patentability of the dependent claims pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See In re Lovin, No. 2010-1499, 2011 WL 2937946, at *7
(Fed. Cir. Jul. 22, 2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Appellants have waived any argument for separate patentability of these dependent claims. See id.

3753 Ex Parte Schafer et al 10/697,376 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and Schoenebaum, P.L.C EXAMINER PRICE, CRAIG JAMES

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2875 Ex Parte 6830358 et al FIBER OPTIC DESIGNS, INC. and HOLIDAY CREATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. SEASONAL SPECIALTIES, LLC Requestor 95/000,137 EASTHOM 102(e)/103(a)/305 Liniak Berenato Longacre & White Third Party Requester: Patterson, Thuente, Skaar & Christensen, PA Attn: Bradley J. Thorson, Esq. EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER HUSAR, STEPHEN F

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Birke et al 11/352,845 COLAIANNI 102(b) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, REBECCA Y

1761 Ex Parte Morgan 11/506,064 SMITH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R

1771 Ex Parte Koshima et al 10/515,822 HANLON 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GOLOBOY, JAMES C

The Appellants do note that Tipton “fails to disclose or suggest the more specific succinimide compounds/compositions encompassed by claims 2, 3, 9 and 11.” App. Br. 7. However, this general assertion does not constitute a separate argument under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010). In re Lovin, No. 2010-1499, slip op. at 16 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 22, 2011)

1781 Ex Parte Skjervold et al 10/276,065 PAK 103(a)/112(1) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

1792 Ex Parte Nihei et al 11/063,572 PAK 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte LeCrone et al 10/955,470 HOMERE 103(a)/provisional obviousness double patenting MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC EXAMINER RUTZ, JARED IAN

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Sablak et al 10/306,509 KRIVAK 103(a) BAKER & DANIELS LLP EXAMINER PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Furry 11/298,862 KOHUT 112(1)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1644 Ex Parte Stumvoll et al 10/027,625 GRIMES 103 PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP EXAMINER ROONEY, NORA MAUREEN

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

lantech, robertson

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kim 11/207,126 PRATS 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER ORWIG, KEVIN S

As stated in TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2001):
The written description requirement and its corollary, the new matter prohibition of 35 U.S.C. § 132, both serve to ensure that the patent applicant was in full possession of the claimed subject matter on the application filing date. When the applicant adds a claim or otherwise amends his specification after the original filing date . . ., the new claims or other added material must find support in the original specification.
...We acknowledge that it is improper to base an obviousness rejection on an unknown inherent property present in the prior art. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“'That which may be inherent is not necessarily known. Obviousness cannot be predicated on what is unknown.' Such a retrospective view of inherency is not a substitute for some teaching or suggestion supporting an obviousness rejection.”) (quoting In re Spormann, 363 F.2d 444, 448 (CCPA 1966)).

Rijckaert, In re, 9 F.3d 1531, 28 USPQ2d 1955 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . .2112, 2141.02, 2144.08

1625 Ex Parte Singh et al 10/931,481 McCOLLUM 112(1) McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP EXAMINER SEAMAN, D MARGARET M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Hutter et al 10/474,022 MORGAN 102(e)/103(a) Joseph S Tripoli Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc EXAMINER PARK, ILWOO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Trampuz et al 11/083,196 GRIMES 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER MACAULEY, SHERIDAN RLink
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Selwyn et al 11/317,374 WALSH 103(a) COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC EXAMINER HAMMER, KATIE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Rummel et al 11/007,634 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER NDUBIZU, CHUKA CLEMENT

See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in infringement context, a single conveyor held to not meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 746 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Vargo et al 10/291,279 NAGUMO 103(a) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY EXAMINER KNABLE, GEOFFREY L

1786 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 11/347,406 OWENS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Weissman et al 10/689,903 STEPHENS 101/102(e) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER SHECHTMAN, CHERYL MARIA

2162 Ex Parte Baek et al 10/973,959 DANG 101/103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER KERZHNER, ALEKSANDR

2186 Ex Parte Bellows et al 11/008,768 COURTENAY 103(a) Leslie Payne IBM Corporation EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/281,056 HOMERE 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - HFZ EXAMINER HIGA, BRENDAN Y