janakiraman, ormco, muchmore, dann

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte King et al 11847612 - (D) REIMERS 103 Universal City Studios LLC c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC MUSTAFA, IMRAN K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Hendricks 12010045 - (D) CHUNG 103 103 ARENT FOX LLP CHAI, LONGBIT

2488 Ex Parte Kim 11607351 - (D) McCARTNEY 112(1)/112(2) 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. PONTIUS, JAMES M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Brunschwiler et al 11957576 - (D) TIMM 102/103 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP HAN, JONATHAN

The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 16 constitutes an implied rejection of the broader claims 1, 2, 13, and 15.Ex parte Janakiraman, 2009 WL 1270322 (BPAI 2009) (Informative); see alsoOrmco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (When the subject matter of dependent claims is determined to have been obvious, the broader subject matter of the claims from which they depend must also be determined to have been obvious.);In re Muchmore, 433 F.2d 824, 824–25 (CCPA 1970) (“Since we agree with the board's conclusion of obviousness as to these narrow claims, the broader claims must likewise be obvious.”). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5, 16, and 17

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Nyhan et al 09900674 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD BOYCE, ANDRE D

While de Mint is silent as to from where these instructions are executed (server side or user computer side), we find that the mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does not establish nonobviousness. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976). The issue is “whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in question ‘is a differen[ce] sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art.’” Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (citation omitted) (finding system for automatic record keeping of bank checks and deposits obvious in view of nature of extensive use of data processing systems in banking industry and “closely analogous” patent for an automatic data processing system used in a large business organization for keeping and updating system transaction files for each department of the organization).

Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) 716.01(a) , 2141 , 2141.03

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Beatty 11183405 - (D) HILL 102(e) 102(e)/103 NIXON PEABODY LLP LIDDLE, JAY TRENT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Heijkants et al 11584682 - (D) PER CURIAM 103/obviousness-type double patenting KENYON & KENYON LLP SERGENT, RABON A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2136 Ex Parte Hoover et al 12117906 - (D) HOMERE 102(e) IBM (ROC-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP TSAI, SHENG JEN

2163 Ex Parte Kang et al 12167324 - (D) TROCK 102 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC BROWN, SHEREE N

2198 Ex Parte De Sio 11230338 - (D) SHAW 103 IBM AUS IPLAW (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC KRETZMER, ERIKA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Dunning et al 10880199 - (D) DANG 103 Daniels IP Services LTD. CHEN, CAI Y

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Chen 11058294 - (D) DANG 103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General MITCHELL, NATHAN A

2642 Ex Parte Obermanns 10590138 - (D) COURTENAY 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte PIETERIS 12700252 - (D) DELMENDO 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC LIAN, MANG TIN BIK

2845 Ex Parte Derneryd et al 11721418 - (D) GARRIS 103/obviousness-type double patenting ERICSSON INC. SMITH, GRAHAM P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Obrea et al 11844020 - (D) CRAWFORD 101/102/103 PITNEY BOWES INC. GARTLAND, SCOTT D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Krumme 12310829 - (D) WOODS 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 D. PETER HOCHBERG CO. L.P.A. ORTIZ, RAFAEL ALFREDO

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Da Palma et al 11297079 - (D) HUME 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG REZA, MOHAMMAD W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Requester and Cross Appellant v. VOLTSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8,242,359 B2 et al 13/053,007 95002374 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 103 Schneider Rothman IP Law Group Third Party Requester: Snell & Wilmer NGUYEN, LINH M original MAYO III, WILLIAM H

2835 SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Requester and Cross Appellant v. VOLTSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7910833 et al 12/127,592 95002365 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102/103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102/103 Schneider Rothman IP Law Group Third Party Requester: Snell & Wilmer MENEFEE, JAMES A original MAYO III, WILLIAM H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 LOGITECH, INC. Requester, Respondent v. IGO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 6527241 et al 09/988,694 95001357 - (D) SONG 102/103 102/314 DOCKET CLERK Third Party Requester: TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP CLARKE, SARA SACHIE original SCHULTERBRANDT, KOFI A

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex parte AVX CORPORATION Appellant Ex Parte 6477032 et al 09/775,050 90012091 - (D) CHEN 102 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. For Third Party Requester: KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP (GREATBATCH) GE, YUZHEN original DINKINS, ANTHONY

landgraf, lintner, muchmore, serrano, spitzglass

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Olson et al 12119885 - (D) BONILLA 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

3774 Ex Parte Rhodes et al 11425921 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP GANESAN, SUBA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Yoshioka et al 11680118 - (D) DELMENDO 103 ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP FORD, NATHAN K

1745 Ex Parte Maddaleni et al 10589007 - (D) SCHAFER 103 BREINER & BREINER, L.L.C. BELL, WILLIAM P

A claim is unpatentable if it encompasses an unpatentable embodiment. See In re Landgraf, 436 F.2d 1046, 1050 (CCPA1971); In re Muchmore, 433 F.2d 824, 826 (CCPA 1970) (Claims that read on patentable as well as unpatentable subject matter are unpatentable.)


1793 Ex Parte Chatel et al 11313483 - (D) OBERMANN 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD, TRAN, LIEN THUY

In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972) (“The fact that appellant uses sugar for a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that its use in a prior art composition would be prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the references.”).

Lintner, In re, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) 2142, 2143.01, 2144, 2144.08, 2145

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Dahan et al 10322893 - (D) BUSCH 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED PYZOCHA, MICHAEL J

2451 Ex Parte Sinclair et al 10616515 - (D) NAPPI 103 AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler MADAMBA, GLENFORD J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Kawai et al 11183041 - (D) FITZPATRICK 103 HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC MICHENER, JOSHUA J

3643 Ex Parte Osborn et al 11084785 - (D) JENKS 103 CARGILL, INCORPORATED PARSLEY, DAVID J

See Serrano v. Telular Corp., 111 F.3d 1578, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(“The inventors’ definition and explanation of the meaning of the word … as evidenced by the specification, controls the interpretation of that claim term).

3677 Ex Parte Biro 10975333 - (D) PLENZLER 103 COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP BATSON, VICTOR D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Pacey et al 10657650 - (D) GREENHUT 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP HOEL, MATTHEW D

3734 Ex Parte Jones et al 11821340 - (D) WALSH 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON HOLLM, JONATHAN A

3775 Ex Parte Cragg 10430751 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP NELSON, CHRISTINE L

see also, e.g., In re Spitzglass, 96 F.2d 1002, 1005 (CCPA 1938) (construing functional limitations in such a manner prior to the enactment of what became 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph).

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Ainsworth et al 11453881 - (D) WINSOR 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP KUNDU, SUJOY K

hall, heyna, mcclain, passal, lohr, muchmore

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/193,444 GRIMES 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SHOMER, ISAAC

1618 Ex Parte Knight Castro et al 10/510,454 MILLS 103(a) Tim A Cheatham Mallinckrodt Inc EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN

Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, "public accessibility‟ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a "printed publication‟ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). . . . The proponent of the publication bar must show that prior to the critical date the reference was sufficiently accessible, at least to the public interested in the art, so that such a one by examining the reference could make the claimed invention without further research or experimentation. In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898-899 (Fed. Cir. 1986).Hall, In re, 781 F.2d 897, 228 USPQ 453 (Fed. Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . .2128, 2128.01, 2128.02

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Ye et al 10/689,186 DESHPANDE 102(b)/112(1) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER HILLERY, NATHAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Thompson et al 10/943,221 FREDMAN 102(b) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

3761 Ex Parte Sperl et al 11/026,423 PRATS 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Malitski 11/212,317 KIM 102(b) 102(b) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER LEVINE, ADAM L
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Classen et al 11/640,514 GUADETTE 102(b)/103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER KO, JASON Y

1766 Ex Parte Henning et al 11/771,496 McKELVEY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER NEGRELLI, KARA B

Applicable precedent requires an applicant attempting to show unexpected results to establish its case with clear and convincing evidence. In re Heyna, 360 F.2d 222, 228 (CCPA 1966) ("It was incumbent upon appellants to submit clear and convincing evidence to support their allegation of unexpected property."). See also McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 429 (1891) (conclusive evidence needed to establish new function); In re Passal, 426 F.2d 409, 412 (CCPA 1970) ("Certainly, at least, that 'clear and convincing evidence' of unexpected properties required by this court in In re Lohr . . . is lacking.") and In re Lohr, 317 F.2d 388, 392 (CCPA 1963)( "When a new compound so closely related to a prior art compound as to be structurally obvious is sought to be patented based on the alleged greater effectiveness of the new compound for the same purpose as the old compound, clear and convincing evidence of substantially greater effectiveness is needed.")

...

In re Muchmore, 433 F.2d 824, 826 (CCPA 1970) (claims which include obvious subject matter and non-obvious subject matter are not patentable under § 103).
1785 Ex Parte Tran et al 11/103,827 PER CURIAM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HIGGINS, GERARD T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Roth et al 10/992,261 SCHEINER 102(e)/103(a) FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP EXAMINER HOFFMAN, MARY C

3737 Ex Parte Camus et al 11/500,536 WALSH 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER SMITH, RUTH S

3774 Ex Parte Ta et al 11/104,862 BAHR 103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER GANESAN, SUBA

callaway, muchmore

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Ivanov et al 11/138,531 DANG 103(a) DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte LeCrone et al 10/955,142 HOMERE 103(a)/provisional obviousness double patenting MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC EXAMINER RUTZ, JARED IAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Crawley et al 10/931,009 GREENHUT 103(a) PAMELA A. KACHUR EXAMINER PRICE, CARL D
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART with a new ground of rejection

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte 6,779,118 B1 et al 90/009,301 09/295,966 Ex parte LINKSMART WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC TORCZON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) For the appellant: Abraham Hershkovitz & Ed Garcia-Otero, HERSHKOVITZ & ASSOCIATES, LLC For the requestor: Jerry Turner Sewell For the Commissioner of Patents: Sam Rimell with Jeffrey D. Carlson and Alexander J. Kosowski EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER ELISCA, PIERRE E

Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding jury verdict inconsistent for holding only the dependent claim to have been obvious); In re Muchmore, 433 F.2d 824, 824-25 (CCPA 1970) ("Since we agree with the board's conclusion of obviousness as to these narrow claims, the broader claims must likewise be obvious.").

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Eagles 10/740,126 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte OKONSKI et al 10/285,036 CHEN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DUONG, THOMAS

2455 Ex Parte Auffret et al 10/396,698 SMITH 103(a) King & Spalding LLP EXAMINER LAZARO, DAVID R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Green 10/562,293 DANG 102(b)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER STARK, JARRETT J

2837 Ex Parte Fitzgibbon 10/118,523 SAADAT 102(b) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER DUDA, RINA I

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Morizon et al 10/561,557 HOELTER 103(a) Theodore W Olds Carlson Gaseky & Olds EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN