REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Martuza et al 10/788,410 FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP SHEN, WU CHENG WINSTON
This is the essence of an impermissible obvious to try argument, since there is no evidence that the combination had a reasonable expectation of success in treating cancer. Therefore, we see the invention as, at best, an improper use of an obvious to try rationale. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Saito 10/105,262 DANG 103(a) MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. TRUVAN, LEYNNA THANH
2465 Ex Parte Wild et al 10/818,823 POTHIER 102(b)/103(a) SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP HSU, ALPUS
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Johnsen et al 10/350,640 BAHR 103(a) Kolisch, Hartwell, Dickinson, McCormack & Heuser CHIN, RANDALL E
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3612 Ex Parte RANDALL MFG. Requester and Respondent v.FG PRODUCTS, INC.Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,326 11/083,041 7214017 COCKS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original GORDON, STEPHEN T
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Fung 11/591,021 DANG 102(e)/103(a) 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHEN, XIAOLIANG
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Ohata et al 10/769,866 NAGUMO 103(a) MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY LAIOS, MARIA J
1775 Ex Parte Sand 11/620,238 SCHAFER 103(a) TAYLOR IP, P.C. YOO, REGINA M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Both 10/454,389 DANG 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. PADMANABHAN, KAVITA
2168 Ex Parte Sanders et al 10/776,069 DANG 103(a) Sue Z. Shaper MORRISON, JAY A
2192 Ex Parte Glider et al 10/723,085 BARRY 103a) GIBB & RILEY, LLC WEI, ZHENG
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Dukes et al 10/752,824 COURTENAY 103(a) YAHOO! INC. SHELEHEDA, JAMES R
2443 Ex Parte Bahar 09/978,224 HOMERE 101/112(2)/103(a) CAHILL VON HELLENS & GLAZER PLC BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H
2451 Ex Parte Schrempp et al 09/910,680 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) Lowenstein Sandler PC PATEL, DHAIRYA A
2452 Ex Parte Christian et al 09/991,386 HOMERE 103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. CHANKONG, DOHM
2478 Ex Parte Biran et al 10/733,734 PER CURIAM 103(a) HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC MUSA, ABDELNABI O
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Srivastava et al 11/301,232 GONSALVES 102(b)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY LEE, SHUN K
2895 Ex Parte Kammler et al 11/550,631 BISK 102/103(a) GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson WITHERS, GRANT S
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lang et al 12/101,555 GRIMES 103(a) PRAXAIR, INC. PARSLEY, DAVID J
3689 Ex Parte Samsky et al 10/941,306 KIM 103(a) Ballard Spahr LLP LONG, FONYA M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Goetz et al 11/590,741 MILLS 103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EL-KAISSI, HIBA CARINE
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2153 Ex parte AVOCENT REDMOND CORP. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,626 09/590,170 6,345,323 SIU 103(a) DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP CHOI, WOO H original DINH, DUNG C
2153 Ex parte AVOCENT REDMOND CORP. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,628 09/683,582 7,113,978 SIU 103(a) DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP CHOI, WOO H original DINH, DUNG C
Showing posts with label o'farrell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label o'farrell. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Thursday, October 20, 2011
o'farrell, wiseman, jung, abele, cybersource
REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Rao et al 11/170,331 ZECHER 103(a) WALTER W. DUFT EXAMINER TRUONG, LOAN
2161 Ex Parte Agrawal et al 11/317,216 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) The Danamraj Law Group, PC/RIM EXAMINER MINCEY, JERMAINE A
2186 Ex Parte Dunshea et al 11/006,127 BARRY 102(b) Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Michaud et al 10/856,534 HORNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) Winston & Strawn LLP EXAMINER PANG, ROGER L
3689 Ex Parte Kruk et al 10/279,188 KIM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN D
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Tak et al 10/837,390 HORNER 103(a) PEACOCK MYERS, P.C. EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Imamatsu 10/705,437 CHEN 102(a) 102(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER YAARY, MICHAEL D
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte McSwiggen et al 10/720,448 FREDMAN 103(a) MERCK EXAMINER BOWMAN, AMY HUDSON
O’Farrell states that “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988). O’Farrell identifies two kinds of error. In some cases, what would have been “obvious to try” would have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful…. In others, what was “obvious to try” was to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.
O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
1633 Ex Parte Subramaniam et al 11/449,125 WALSH 103(a) STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA
There is no dispute that the difference in starting material shape dictates the resulting nanoparticle shape. In the Wiseman case, the discovery of a new function did not render Wiseman’s disc brakes nonobvious, and the inherent difference in shape here is similarly insufficient. “[Appellants] are, in effect, arguing that a structure suggested by the prior art, and, hence, potentially in the possession of the public, is patentable to them because it also possesses an Inherent, but hitherto unknown, function which they claim to have discovered. This is not the law. A patent on such a structure would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art.” In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1023 (CCPA 1979).
Wiseman, In re, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) 2141.02, 2145, 2164.06(c)
1647 Ex Parte Champion et al 11/078,735 FREDMAN 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER WOODWARD, CHERIE MICHELLE
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Cetel et al 11/284,612 TIMM 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER AUSTIN, AARON
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Murray 11/092,866 HOMERE 103(a) TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER EXAMINER QUELER, ADAM M
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Karamchedu et al 10/635,184 COURTENAY 103(a) Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y
See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Jung argues that the Board gave improper deference to the examiner’s rejection by requiring Jung to ‘identif[y] a reversible error’ by the examiner, which improperly shifted the burden of proving patentability onto Jung. Decision at 11. This is a hollow argument, because, as discussed above, the examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation and the burden was properly shifted to Jung to rebut it. . . . ‘[R]eversible error’ means that the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong . . . .”).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Gillaspy et al 10/947,417 HOELTER 101/103(a) Keohane & D'Alessandro EXAMINER CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES
Our reviewing court in In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982) held that a claim directed to the steps of calculating and displaying was not statutory stating that “[t]his claim presents no more than the calculation of a number and display of the result, albeit in a particular format” (Id. at 908-09). Appellants’ claim 1 does not even include the displaying step recited in Abele’s rejected claim. See also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decision Inc., 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[t]he mere collection and organization of data regarding credit card numbers and Internet addresses is insufficient to meet the transformation prong of the test” and that “mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’”)
Abele, In re, 684 F.2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2106.01, 2184
REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Lingle et al 10/453,790 GUEST Concurring WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Rao et al 11/170,331 ZECHER 103(a) WALTER W. DUFT EXAMINER TRUONG, LOAN
2161 Ex Parte Agrawal et al 11/317,216 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) The Danamraj Law Group, PC/RIM EXAMINER MINCEY, JERMAINE A
2186 Ex Parte Dunshea et al 11/006,127 BARRY 102(b) Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Michaud et al 10/856,534 HORNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) Winston & Strawn LLP EXAMINER PANG, ROGER L
3689 Ex Parte Kruk et al 10/279,188 KIM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN D
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Tak et al 10/837,390 HORNER 103(a) PEACOCK MYERS, P.C. EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Imamatsu 10/705,437 CHEN 102(a) 102(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER YAARY, MICHAEL D
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte McSwiggen et al 10/720,448 FREDMAN 103(a) MERCK EXAMINER BOWMAN, AMY HUDSON
O’Farrell states that “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988). O’Farrell identifies two kinds of error. In some cases, what would have been “obvious to try” would have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful…. In others, what was “obvious to try” was to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.
O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
1633 Ex Parte Subramaniam et al 11/449,125 WALSH 103(a) STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA
There is no dispute that the difference in starting material shape dictates the resulting nanoparticle shape. In the Wiseman case, the discovery of a new function did not render Wiseman’s disc brakes nonobvious, and the inherent difference in shape here is similarly insufficient. “[Appellants] are, in effect, arguing that a structure suggested by the prior art, and, hence, potentially in the possession of the public, is patentable to them because it also possesses an Inherent, but hitherto unknown, function which they claim to have discovered. This is not the law. A patent on such a structure would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art.” In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1023 (CCPA 1979).
Wiseman, In re, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) 2141.02, 2145, 2164.06(c)
1647 Ex Parte Champion et al 11/078,735 FREDMAN 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER WOODWARD, CHERIE MICHELLE
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Cetel et al 11/284,612 TIMM 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER AUSTIN, AARON
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Murray 11/092,866 HOMERE 103(a) TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER EXAMINER QUELER, ADAM M
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Karamchedu et al 10/635,184 COURTENAY 103(a) Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y
See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Jung argues that the Board gave improper deference to the examiner’s rejection by requiring Jung to ‘identif[y] a reversible error’ by the examiner, which improperly shifted the burden of proving patentability onto Jung. Decision at 11. This is a hollow argument, because, as discussed above, the examiner established a prima facie case of anticipation and the burden was properly shifted to Jung to rebut it. . . . ‘[R]eversible error’ means that the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong . . . .”).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Gillaspy et al 10/947,417 HOELTER 101/103(a) Keohane & D'Alessandro EXAMINER CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES
Our reviewing court in In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982) held that a claim directed to the steps of calculating and displaying was not statutory stating that “[t]his claim presents no more than the calculation of a number and display of the result, albeit in a particular format” (Id. at 908-09). Appellants’ claim 1 does not even include the displaying step recited in Abele’s rejected claim. See also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decision Inc., 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[t]he mere collection and organization of data regarding credit card numbers and Internet addresses is insufficient to meet the transformation prong of the test” and that “mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’”)
Abele, In re, 684 F.2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2106.01, 2184
REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Lingle et al 10/453,790 GUEST Concurring WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T
Thursday, June 2, 2011
giacomini, kubin, o'farrell, rolls-royce
REVERSED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Batke et al 09/967,742 MacDONALD 103(a) ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./BF EXAMINER SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Vayssiere 11/024,094 COURTENAY 102(e) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP EXAMINER LY, ANH
“[A]n applicant is not entitled to a patent if another’s patent discloses the same invention, which was carried forward from an earlier U.S. provisional application or U.S. non-provisional application. . . . An important limitation is that the provisional application must provide written description support for the claimed invention.” In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
The 35 U.S.C. 102(e) critical reference date of a U.S. patent or U.S. application publications and certain international application publications entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is the filing date of the provisional application with certain exceptions if the provisional application(s) properly supports the subject matter relied upon to make the rejection in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
MPEP § 2136.03 (III.)(bold in original).
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Benz et al 10/791,432 KAUFFMAN 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER LE, DAVID D
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Song 10/638,920 GRIMES 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER VU, JAKE MINH
1633 Ex Parte Blanche et al 11/582,427 FREDMAN 103(a) WILEY REIN LLP EXAMINER KAUSHAL, SUMESH
We are not persuaded. Kubin stated that “[r]esponding to concerns about uncertainty in the prior art influencing the purported success of the claimed combination, this court [in O’Farrell] stated: ‘[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success … all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”’ In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-904 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01
O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1776 Ex Parte Louis Schupp 11/145,205 NAGUMO 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER ORLANDO, AMBER ROSE
1781 Ex Parte Chaudhry et al 11/127,714 GAUDETTE 112(1)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER BADR, HAMID R
Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Technologies Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“If a person of ordinary skill, before the time of invention and without knowledge of that invention, would have found the invention merely an easily predictable and achievable variation or combination of the prior art, then the invention likely would have been obvious.”).
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/191,469 DANG 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOI, YUK TING
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Wee et al 10/245,892 GONSALVES 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D
NEW
AFFIRMED
06/01/2011 1767 Ex Parte Gong et al 10/518,127 GAUDETTE 103(a) EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F
06/01/2011 1764 Ex Parte Guenther et al 12/008,740 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER HUHN, RICHARD A
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Batke et al 09/967,742 MacDONALD 103(a) ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./BF EXAMINER SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Vayssiere 11/024,094 COURTENAY 102(e) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP EXAMINER LY, ANH
“[A]n applicant is not entitled to a patent if another’s patent discloses the same invention, which was carried forward from an earlier U.S. provisional application or U.S. non-provisional application. . . . An important limitation is that the provisional application must provide written description support for the claimed invention.” In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
The 35 U.S.C. 102(e) critical reference date of a U.S. patent or U.S. application publications and certain international application publications entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is the filing date of the provisional application with certain exceptions if the provisional application(s) properly supports the subject matter relied upon to make the rejection in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
MPEP § 2136.03 (III.)(bold in original).
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Benz et al 10/791,432 KAUFFMAN 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER LE, DAVID D
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Song 10/638,920 GRIMES 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER VU, JAKE MINH
1633 Ex Parte Blanche et al 11/582,427 FREDMAN 103(a) WILEY REIN LLP EXAMINER KAUSHAL, SUMESH
We are not persuaded. Kubin stated that “[r]esponding to concerns about uncertainty in the prior art influencing the purported success of the claimed combination, this court [in O’Farrell] stated: ‘[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success … all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”’ In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-904 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01
O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1776 Ex Parte Louis Schupp 11/145,205 NAGUMO 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER ORLANDO, AMBER ROSE
1781 Ex Parte Chaudhry et al 11/127,714 GAUDETTE 112(1)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER BADR, HAMID R
Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Technologies Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“If a person of ordinary skill, before the time of invention and without knowledge of that invention, would have found the invention merely an easily predictable and achievable variation or combination of the prior art, then the invention likely would have been obvious.”).
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/191,469 DANG 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOI, YUK TING
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Wee et al 10/245,892 GONSALVES 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D
NEW
AFFIRMED
06/01/2011 1767 Ex Parte Gong et al 10/518,127 GAUDETTE 103(a) EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F
06/01/2011 1764 Ex Parte Guenther et al 12/008,740 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER HUHN, RICHARD A
Friday, May 7, 2010
o'farrell, life techs, bicon, stumbo
REVERSED
Ex Parte Wells et al 10/153,207 SPIEGEL 112(1)/102(e) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER SAOUD, CHRISTINE J
Ex Parte Childress et al 11/144,464 ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS INC. C/O DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP EXAMINER BALASUBRAMANIAN, VENKATARAMAN
Ex Parte Kleinsek 11/711,921 SPIEGEL 102(b)/103(a) DON A. KLEINSEK, PH.D. EXAMINER SCHUBERG, LAURA J
For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success." In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Expectation of success is assessed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made. Life Techs., Inc. v. Clontech Labs., Inc. , 224 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Holmstrom et al 10/832,180 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) ADVANTEDGE LAW GROUP, LLC EXAMINER STRIMBU, GREGORY J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Jankoski et al 10/364,705 SILVERBERG 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER MAI, TRI M
Ex Parte Wasylucha 10/872,256 SILVERBERG 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE
Claims are construed with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim. Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions which render phrases in claims superfluous).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)