skoner, baxter travenol

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Etesse 12568205 - (D) WARREN 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY HUSON, MONICA ANNE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Khitun et al 12049040 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Vista IP Law Group LLP SHERIF, FATUMA G

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Schiene et al 12879562 - (D) FREDMAN 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP KANTAMNENI, SHOBHA

"Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention.  Just as unexpected beneficial results are evidence of unobviousness."  In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950 (CCPA 1975). ...

"[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art."  In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed.Cir. 1991).

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01 , 2145

wesslau, burroughs, coleman, hybritech, sewall, skoner

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Qiu et al 10891407 - (D) WALSH 103 CIBA VISION CORPORATION ALAWADI, SARAH

“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965).

1621 Ex Parte JOHNSEN et al 12621551 - (D) SNEDDEN 112(2)/103/obviousnesstype double patenting 37 CFR § 41.50(b) obviousnesstype double patenting GE HEALTHCARE, INC. PUTTLITZ, KARL J

1621 Ex Parte HOMESTAD 12621571 - (D) SNEDDEN 112(2)/103/obviousnesstype double patenting 37 CFR § 41.50(b) obviousnesstype double patenting GE HEALTHCARE, INC. PUTTLITZ, KARL J

1621 Ex Parte JOHNSEN et al 12621556 - (D) SNEDDEN 112(2)/102/103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 CFR § 41.50(b) obviousness-type double patenting GE HEALTHCARE, INC. PUTTLITZ, KARL J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Grube et al 11755452 - (D) BEST 103 GAF WILLIAM J. DAVIS, ESQ. JOHNSON, JENNA LEIGH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Zine 12368494 - (D) WALSH 103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC PARSLEY, DAVID J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Habash et al 11815440 - (D) WALSH 112(1)/103 102/103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 102 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP TOWNSLEY, SARA ELIZABETH

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2186 NVIDIA CORPORATION Respondent v. RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001189 7287119 11/681,384 SIU 103 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CHOI, WOO H original BATAILLE, PIERRE MICHE

3504 NVIDIA CORPORATION Respondent v. RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001205 7360050 SIU 103 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CHOI, WOO H original SAFAVI, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Leonard 11757764 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC BADIO, BARBARA P

See In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950 (CCPA 1975) (“Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention. Just as unexpected beneficial results are evidence of unobviousness.”)

1647 Ex Parte Champion et al 11188417 - (D) FREDMAN 103/obviousness-type double patenting FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG BUNNER, BRIDGET E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Meiere 11063638 - (D) GAUDETTE 103/obviousness-type double patenting PRAXAIR, INC. HORNING, JOEL G

1777 Ex Parte Arpaia et al 10556803 - (D) DELMENDO 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. XU, XIAOYUN

1792 Ex Parte Barnett et al 11669580 - (D) KRATZ 103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP WILLIAMS, LELA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 Ex Parte Battaglia et al 10994271 - (D) MCKONE 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LEWIS-TAYLOR, DAYTON A.

2181 Ex Parte Sakiyama et al 10775080 - (D) THOMAS 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC LEE, CHUN KUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Olchanski et al 09996475 - (D) THOMAS 103 WILMERHALE/DC TANG, KAREN C

For starters, we focus on the issue of conception. As comprehensively set forth by the Federal Circuit in Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (Fed. Cir. 1994):

Conception is the touchstone of inventorship, the completion of the mental part of invention. Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415, 30 USPQ2d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1994). It is “the formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.” Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376, 231 USPQ 81, 87 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Conception is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor's mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation. Sewall, 21 F.3d at 415, 30 USPQ2d at 1359; see also Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359, 224 USPQ 857, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (conception must include every feature of claimed invention). Because it is a mental act, courts require corroborating evidence of a contemporaneous disclosure that would enable one skilled in the art to make the invention. Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d at 359, 224 USPQ at 862.

Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 32 USPQ2d 1915 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2138.04, 2163

Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 231 USPQ 81 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 716.03(b), 2138.04, 2145, 2163, 2164.01, 2164.05(a), 2173.05(a), 2182, 2184

Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 224 USPQ 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2138.04

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Kirke 11422638 - (D) CURCURI 103 GARLICK & MARKISON OBAYANJU, OMONIYI

2682 Ex Parte McEwan 10419274 - (D) CALDWELL 103 NIXON PEABODY, LLP NGUYEN, NAM V

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Smith et al 10899656 - (D) TURNER 103 WILLIAM L. PARADICE, III ANDERSON, FOLASHADE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Clough 11961936 - (D) OSINSKI 112(2)/103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. FIDEI, DAVID  

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2783 Ex parte MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC. Patent Owner & Appellant 90010889 5958006 08/574,541 BLANKENSHIP 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. RYMAN, DANIEL J original COLEMAN, ERIC

skoner, boston scientific

custom search

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kleinwaechter 11225949 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY PURDY, KYLE A

1612 Ex Parte Guilford et al 11163979 - (D) JENKS 112(2)/103 Daneker, McIntire, Schumm, Prince, Manning & Widmann, P.C. Kishore, Gollamudi

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12004094 - (D) KIM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 IV - SUITER SWANTZ PC LLO ABDI, KAMBIZ

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Greene et al 11383513 - (D) WOOD 112(1)/103 MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC MCCALISTER, WILLIAM M

3761 Ex Parte Tomes et al 11557423 - (D) GRIMES 103 COX SMITH MATTHEWS INCORPORATED HANRAHAN, BENEDICT L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Sturley 10977592 - (D) PRAISS 112(1) 103 Michael D. Wiggins KHATRI, PRASHANT J

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10705481 - (D) JENKS 103 K&L Gates LLP ROBERTS, LEZAH

1643 Ex Parte Karbassi et al 11694370 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM Holleran, Anne

“Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention. Just as unexpected beneficial results are evidence of unobviousness.” In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950 (CCPA 1975).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Corrigan 11650285 - (D) GARRIS 112(2)/112(1)/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY KING, FELICIA C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Eerd et al 11358597 - (D) WINSOR 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PATEL, SHAMBHAVI K

2174 Ex Parte Retlich 10954128 - (D) DIXON 103 Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY KUMAR, ANIL N

2179 Ex Parte Ahlert et al 11138689 - (D) KOHUT 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP HASSAN, RASHEDUL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Kessler et al 09841140 - (D) ZECHER 103 THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC. CZEKAJ, DAVID J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Roohparvar 11127619 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/103 LEFFERT JAY & POLGLAZE, P.A. KING, DOUGLAS

“Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte MacKouse 11104959 - (D) TURNER 112(1)/103 FOLEY & LARDNER NORMAN, SAMICA L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte D'ADDARIO et al 12144932 - (D) PRATS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

steele, boon, klosak, skoner

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kang et al 11/410,757 SMITH 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O

1782 Ex Parte Jester et al 10/404,787 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) FERRELLS, PLLC EXAMINER MIGGINS, MICHAEL C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Atkins 11/128,543 DILLON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ITURRALDE, ENRIQUE W

2186 Ex Parte Ruckerbauer et al 11/011,466 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP Gero McClellan / Qimonda EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Colasurdo et al 10/166,299 STEPHENS 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK

A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of the claim language. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d
859, 862-863 (CCPA 1962).

Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06

2452 Ex Parte Malik 10/165,831 STEPHENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER DOAN, DUYEN MY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte SHIMOE et al 11/457,356 COCKS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

3763 Ex Parte Diemunsch 11/038,359 KERINS Dissenting STAICOVICI 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Piggush 11/823,699 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Cherkasova et al 10/801,793 JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3993 PlaSmart, Inc. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Jar Chen Wang and Hong Jiun Gu Patent Owners and Appellants 95/000,355 6,722,674 ROBERTSON 103(a) MORRIS MANNING MARTIN LLP EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3991 Ex parte TAKASHI YASUKOCHI, TOSHIRO YAMAGUCHI, TETSURO TATEISHI, and NARUHITO HIGO 90/008,491 7,034,083 SCHAFER 103(a) THE HARRIS FIRM EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Eun et al 10/946,326 HANLON 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P

1746 Ex Parte Stadele 10/805,337 GUEST 103(a) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC EXAMINER MUSSER, BARBARA J

1775 Ex Parte Tang et al 11/458,668 COLAIANNI 103(a) COOLEY LLP EXAMINER EDWARDS, LYDIA E

1785 Ex Parte Watanabe et al 11/297,792 GUEST 103(a) Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP EXAMINER RICKMAN, HOLLY C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Barrenscheen et al 09/883,817 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP FOR INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG EXAMINER KNOLL, CLIFFORD H

2168 Ex Parte Alvarado et al 11/362,488 DANG 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER MORRISON, JAY A

2179 Ex Parte Iwema et al 10/144,256 DANG 103(a) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER HUYNH, BA

Our reviewing court has held that an adequate traverse to such a finding of official notice must “contain adequate information or argument” to create on its face “a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances
justifying the . . . notice” of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). “To adequately traverse such a finding [of official notice], an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b).” MPEP § 2144.03(C). “If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, . . . the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art . . . .” Id.

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Birks et al 10/386,152 BAUMEISTER 112(1)/103(a) Merchant & Gould - Cox EXAMINER LEWIS, JONATHAN V

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Spector 10/949,987 HAHN 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER BROWN, VERNAL U

2617 Ex Parte Chen et al 09/932,842 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) Frank C. Nicholas Cardinal Law Group EXAMINER PEACHES, RANDY

2628 Ex Parte Billingsley et al 10/863,609 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EXAMINER WASHBURN, DANIEL C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Hengsbach 10/454,333 OWENS 103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. EXAMINER BATTULA, PRADEEP CHOUDARY
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Barnes et al 10/899,452 COLAIANNI 103(a) AUTOLIV ASP, INC Attn: Sally J. Brown ESQ EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

It is well settled that Appellants have the burden of showing that the claimed invention imparts not just any improvement, but an unexpected improvement. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972); see also In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 948 (CCPA 1975) (Expected results are evidence of obviousness just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness).

DENIED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Apps et al 10/340,315 BARRETT 103(a) Konstantine J. Diamond EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Cronley
Ex Parte Dimitrova et al
Ex Parte Ferderer
Ex Parte Geerits et al
Ex Parte Grove et al
Ex Parte Luo
Ex Parte Mezo et al
Ex Parte Virji et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Hahnle et al
Ex Parte Kulkarni

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Dooley et al
Ex Parte Fritz et al
Ex Parte Futamura et al
Ex Parte Gabrius et al
Ex Parte Goebel et al
Ex Parte Hagiya et al
Ex Parte King et al
Ex Parte Kok et al
Ex Parte Lais et al
Ex Parte Lloyd
Ex Parte Mandel et al
Ex Parte Postupack et al
Ex Parte Rauma et al