SEARCH

Showing posts with label minerals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label minerals. Show all posts

Thursday, January 30, 2020

minerals

custom search

Reversed
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Jun Sang. Park et al. 12525058 TOWNSEND 112(1)/103 Harness Dickey (St. Louis) CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft 15097875 FRANKLIN 102/103 CROWELL & MORING LLP WEI, ZHONGQING

1737 Karen A. Moffat et al. 15227827 FRANKLIN 112(1)/112(2)/103 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP (Xerox) XEROX CORPORATION CHEA, THORL

1766 AL-MALKI, Abdullah R. 14887912 McMANUS 103 Bracewell LLP FANG, SHANE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2133 Ian Pratt et al. 14140438 JURGOVAN 103 Brokaw Patent Law, PC WU, STEPHANIE

2174 Stephen Hayden. Cotterill et al. 13077614 SAADAT 103 DENTONS US LLP - Apple TILLERY, RASHAWN N

2176 Samuel C. White et al. 14183423 SAADAT 103 DENTONS US LLP - Apple CAMPBELL, JR., WARREN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Bruce J. Anderson et al. 13188620 SAADAT 102/103 Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP DOSHI, AKSHA Y

2439 Yukari Ishizuka 14344030 DANG 103 WILMERHALE/DC BROWN, CHRISTOPHER J

2486 Vincent Jeanne et al 14234454 PYONIN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS KWON, YONG JOON

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2626 Johan Kildal et al. 13163070 BELISLE 103 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP NGUYEN, JIMMY H

2665 Lieven Trappeniers et al. 11961966 CRAIG 103 FAY SHARPE/NOKIA SAFAIPOUR, BOBBAK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Michael J. Kavis et al. 13630989 TURNER 101/103 41.50 101 ADD&G - 27975 CROSS, MICHAEL J

3646 Michael E. Jackson et al. 14466975 HOFFMANN 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Trimble Inc. Swanson & Bratschun, L.L.C. ISSING, GREGORY C

3697 Bank of America Corporation 14109269 McKEOWN 101 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD TRAN, HAI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Kimberly A. Mcclain et al. 14591512 PESLAK 103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago Baxter POON, ROBERT

3741 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 14431953 O’HANLON 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY SUNG, GERALD LUTHER

3741 United Technologies Corporation 15674576 O’HANLON 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY SUNG, GERALD LUTHER

The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916), which presented the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable?  That standard is still the one to be applied. 

Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) 2144.05 2164.01

Affirmed-in-Part
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Hoffman, Edward A. et al. 14455255 HOUSEL 112(2)/103 102/103 Baker Botts LLP GRUN, ROBERT J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Jason Anguiano 15332601 BUSCH 103 103 Seed IP Law Group/DISH Technologies (290110) CHOKSHI, PINKAL R

2449 Qiang Li et al. 14128996 AHMED 101/103 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Intel) GARCIA-CHING, KARINA J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2619 Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. 15075696 EASTHOM 103 103 Siemens Corporation TSWEI, YU-JANG

2651 Jerry Moro 14605111 MANTIS MERCADER 103 103 Brooks Kushman P.C./Harman EASON, MATTHEW A

2691 Sang-Shin Lee 13872018 CHUNG 102 103 Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP YANG, KWANG-SU

Affirmed
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Richard K. Mann et al. 13018583 CHANG 103 Dow AgroSciences LLC Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC HOLT, ANDRIAE M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Brice Dubost et al. 14761749 PRAISS 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. MCCLURE, CHRISTINA D

1783 Lora Lee. Spangler et al. 13069121 McMANUS 103 EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY GUO, TONG

1784 Timothy Michael. Gross 14331753 GAUDETTE 103 41.50 103 CORNING INCORPORATED SAMPLE, DAVID R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2122 Guven Burc. Arpat et al. 14023136 MORGAN 103 112(2)/101 Facebook/Fenwick ZIDANIC, MICHAEL

2142 Brett A. Krueger et al. 14739044 CUTITTA 101/103 HONIGMAN LLP KLICOS, NICHOLAS GEORGE

2145 Conversant Wireless Licensing S.a r.l. 14224079 AHMED 103 (BLG/Conversant Wireless/27921) Borden Ladner Gervais LLP ORR, HENRY W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2462 QUALCOMM Incorporated 14728859 PYONIN 102 Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP MILLS, DONALD L

2463 Iosif Gasparakis et al. 14931179 MacDONALD 103 Law Office of R. Alan Burnett, PS c/o CPA Global DEWAN, SANJAY K

2463 Hammarwall, David et al. 15273879 AHMED 103/OTDP WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. CHENG, CHI TANG P

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 14539463 YAP 112(1) 103 Jefferson IP Law, LLP HARRIS, DOROTHY H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Stephan Gronenborn 14650606 COLAIANNI 103 112(1) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS HAGAN, SEAN P

2862 WANG, Ping et al. 14593297 REN 101 Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC LIANG, LEONARD S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Kamal Jian et al. 13931679 CRAIG 112(1) 101/103 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (eBay Inc.) CARVALHO, ERROL A

3624 Choi, Woo-Jun et al. 12187775 FISCHETTI 103 101 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. ROTARU, OCTAVIAN

3627 NXP B.V. 15062030 YAP 103 NXP B.V. SHEIKH, ASFAND M

3662 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 14253950 WOODS 103 The Small Patent Law Group, LLC ISMAIL, MAHMOUD S

3682 Robert Crites 10015548 LORIN 101 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC STOLTENBERG, DAVID J

3687 Paulus, Wolfgang et al. 14674960 WIEDER 101 Paradice and Li LLP/Intuit ORTIZ ROMAN, DENISSE Y

3688 Monica Theresa. Mccann et al. 12608679 LORIN 101 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP CAO, VINCENT M

3689 Anuradha Narasimhaswamy Melkote et al. 12950066 LORIN 101/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL WEISENFELD, ARYAN E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Kevin R. Williams et al. 12629354 CALVE 103 Adolph Locklar Michael Locklar BOBISH, CHRISTOPHER S

3774 Thomas Bertels et al. 14007557 LANEY 103 HOLLAND & HART BAHENA, CHRISTIE L.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

minerals, wands, vaeck, wertheim

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Kaijima et al 12254697 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy LY, ANH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Sebire et al 11227923 - (D) LaVIER 103 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Nokia Corporation IRACE, MICHAEL

2656 Ex Parte Green 11365081 - (D) SAADAT 103 Wolfe-SBMC FLANDERS, ANDREW C

2681 Ex Parte Doan et al 12202477 - (D) SHIANG 103 IBM CORP. (DHJ) c/o DAVID H. JUDSON LU, SHIRLEY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Delafoy et al 11628222 - (D) BROWNE 112(1)/112(2)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC O'CONNOR, MARSHALL P

The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Determining enablement is a question of law based on underlying factual findings. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The determination that “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather, it is a conclusion that may be reached by weighing the following factual considerations: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims. Wands at 737.


Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) 2164.01

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 706.03(a) ,   706.03(b) ,   2161.01 ,   2164.01 ,   2164.01(a) ,   2164.06 ,   2164.06(b)

Vaeck, In re, 947 F.2d 448, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2107.01 ,   2144.08 ,   2164.01 ,   2164.01(c) ,   2164.03 ,   2164.06(b) ,   2164.08
...
New Grounds of Rejection
Written Description: Claims 43, 47–65, and 67–69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. ...

As correctly noted by the Examiner, independent claim 43 recites the open ended limitations of “greater than 430 W/cm” and “greater than 180 W/cm.” See Ans. 17. These limitations “do not meet the written description requirement because the phrase ‘at least’ ha[s] no upper limit and cause[s] the claim to read literally on [an] embodiment outside of” the disclosed range of values. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263 (CCPA 1976).


Wertheim, In re, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) 706.03(o) ,   1302.01 ,   2144.05 ,   2163 ,   2163.03 ,   2163.04 ,   2163.05

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Vargo et al 12785136 - (D) HASTINGS 103 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. C/O Conley Rose, P.C. ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Choudhury et al 12134255 - (D) HUME 101/103 IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

2193 Ex Parte Kapoor et al 11420375 - (D) HORVATH 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Jensen et al 12084786 - (D) HANLON 103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC FIGUEROA, FELIX O

2894 Ex Parte Czubatyj et al 11743459 - (D) HANLON 102/103 HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP LAURENZI, MARK A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Caminade 12036582 - (D) GREENHUT 103 HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC. KELLEHER, WILLIAM J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Requester and Respondent v. DENNIS S. FERNANDEZ Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,221,387 et al 10/444,261 95001958 - (D) BRANCH 103 Law Office of Scott C Harris Inc Third Party Requester: HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP IP SECTION  HOTALING, JOHN M original RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR

Thursday, June 30, 2011

minerals, wands, bush, EMI, raytheon

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Zojaji et al 11/242,613 SMITH 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Hinnebusch 10/015,866 KIM 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. EXAMINER NELSON, FREDA ANN

3643 Ex Parte Aandewiel et al 11/600,598 ASTORINO 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3663 Ex Parte Greatbatch 10/998,188 PATE III 112(1)/101/103(a) WALTER W. DUFT EXAMINER MONDT, JOHANNES P

3682 Ex Parte Pudar 09/870,377 McCARTHY 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER MYHRE, JAMES W

3686 Ex Parte Diakides et al 11/222,947 KIM 103(a) NICHOLAS A. DIAKIDES EXAMINER
RAJ, RAJIV J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Ehrnsperger et al 11/251,311 PATE III 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916), which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.01

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Steinmetz et al 11/010,842 STEPHENS 103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, TANH Q

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Medendorp 10/644,354 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE

3688 Ex Parte Hoffberg et al 11/467,915 PETRAVICK 103(a) 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 Ostrolenk Faber LLP EXAMINER CHAMPAGNE, DONALD

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Sutherland et al 11/039,531 PATE III 103(a) EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO EXAMINER RICCI, JOHN A

As an initial matter we note that our reviewing court’s predecessor has stated that the order in which prior art is applied in a rejection is not significant. See, for example, In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, (CCPA 1961) ("[i]n a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references
each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be a matter of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.")

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte Tantivy Communications, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner TESCO CORPORATION
95/001,113 7,048,050 SONG 102/103(a) For Patent Owner: MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP For Third Party Requester : BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLPEXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. Patent of WEATHERFORD/LAMB, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent 90/008,990 6,151,332 TURNER 103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER LAROSE, COLIN M


AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Sigler et al 11/155,180 SMITH Concurring PAK 102(b)/103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER LAM, CATHY FONG FONG

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Whaley 11/127,049 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) Docket Clerk Dallas TX EXAMINER DANG, KHANH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Mastin Crosbie et al 09/793,355 MacDONALD 102(e) Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle EXAMINER OSMAN, RAMY M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Medendorp 11/708,818 DROESCH 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER CROWE, DAVID R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Howell 11/634,454 HORNER 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3739 Ex Parte Prabhu et al 09/891,773 BAHR 102(e) Carestream Health, Inc. EXAMINER COHEN, LEE S

3748 Ex Parte Lifson 11/544,403 HORNER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER TRIEU, THERESA

3774 Ex Parte Fariabi 10/750,079 HOELTER 103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

3774 Ex Parte Trese et al 11/234,518 DELMENDO 101/112(1)/103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

“A claimed invention having an inoperable or impossible claim limitation may lack utility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and certainly lacks an enabling disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112.” EMI Group North America, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 268 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “When a claim itself recites incorrect science in one limitation, the entire claim is invalid, regardless of the combinations of the other limitations recited in the claim.” EMI, 268 F.3d at 1349.

Raytheon v. Roper, 724 F.2d 951, 220 USPQ 592 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . .2107.02, 2164.08

REHEARING

DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11/429,507 GRIMES Technology Advancement Labs LLC EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY

NEW

REVERSED

3684 Ex Parte Foy et al 11/226,463 DESHPANDE 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R

1765 Ex Parte Hulse et al 11/955,475 ROBERTSON 103(a) HONEYWELL/FOX ROTHSCHILD EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

1645 Ex Parte Miller 10/470,797 MILLS 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER TONGUE, LAKIA J

3691 Ex Parte Mitchell et al 10/169,501 CRAWFORD 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER ONYEZIA, CHUKS N

3685 Ex Parte Raley et al 10/388,162 FISCHETTI 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER KIM, STEVEN S

3624 Ex Parte Santos et al 10/378,872 MOHANTY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

1621 Ex Parte STAUFFER 12/632,840 ADAMS 103(a) YOUNG BASILE EXAMINER PARSA, JAFAR F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2114 Ex Parte JOHANSSON et al 11/834,731 POTHIER 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/101 YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER CHU, GABRIEL L

3749 Ex Parte Schnell et al 10/413,018 BROWN 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER PRICE, CARL D

2453 Ex Parte Wilson et al 11/455,037 DROESCH 102(e)/103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU HA T

AFFIRMED

2442 Ex Parte Beisiegel et al 10/489,051 MacDONALD 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NICKERSON, JEFFREY L

2183 Ex Parte Dieffenderfer et al 11/363,072 DANG 102(e)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER FAHERTY, COREY S

2178 Ex Parte Lu et al 10/668,399 BARRY 103(a) IBM CORP (AP) EXAMINER QUELER, ADAM M

3632 Ex Parte MATIAS 11/735,523 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) PERRY + CURRIER INC. EXAMINER KING, ANITA M

2166 Ex Parte Raley et al 11/141,229 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER TANG, JIEYING

2156 Ex Parte Recio et al 11/304,954 KOHUT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION (RVW) EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE

3774 Ex Parte Reed et al 11/252,169 HORNER 103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

3715 Ex Parte Seelig et al 09/791,463 BROWN 102(e) IAN F. BURNS & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER MOSSER, KATHLEEN MICHELE

3644 Ex Parte Simoni 11/039,210 STAICOVICI 103(a) JACQUELYN R. SIMONI EXAMINER ABBOTT, YVONNE RENEE

3667 Ex Parte Turgeon 10/086,793 LORIN 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER BADII, BEHRANG

REHEARING

DENIED
2448 Ex Parte Traversat et al 10/055,645 KRIVAK 103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER LUU, LE HIEN