SEARCH

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

Showing posts with label thorner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thorner. Show all posts

Monday, April 9, 2012

thorner, ellis, leimkuhler, ksr

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Selvamanickam et al 11/324,511 DELMENDO 103(a) LARSON NEWMAN, LLP EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2191 Ex Parte Sattler et al 11/026,056 WINSOR 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER RAMPURIA, SATISH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3736 Ex Parte Tuma et al 10/701,367 McCOLLUM 102(b) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Miller et al 10/530,922 PER CURIAM 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(B) 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER GANEY, STEVEN J

See, e.g., Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[W]e do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that. To constitute disclaimer, there must be a clear and unmistakable disclaimer.”).


AFFIRMED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Jackson 10/958,743 BONILLA 103(a) John C. McMahon EXAMINER HOFFMAN, MARY C

In any event, patent classification is not dispositive to the issue of whether Reese relates to non-analogous art. See In re Ellis, 476 F.2d 1370, 1372 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (stating that while USPTO classification may provide “some evidence of ‘non-analogy,’ … the similarities and differences in structure and function of the inventions disclosed in the references to carry far greater weight.”) (emphasis in original).

Ellis, In re, 476 F.2d 1370, 177 USPQ 526 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141.01(a)


As pointed out by our colleagues in Ex parte James K. Leimkuhler, 2012 WL 684058 (B.P.A.I. February 28, 2012), the KSR Supreme Court decision is relevant to the analogous prior art inquiry.

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

Thursday, February 23, 2012

thorner

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Takigawa et al 11/707,008 WALSH 102(b)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Evans et al 11/823,993 LORIN 112(2)/103(a) MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP HARTFORD EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1763 Ex Parte Krause et al 12/009,873 SMITH 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L

1778 Ex Parte Rosenblatt et al 11/625,397 SMITH 103(a) JOEL I. ROSENBLATT EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2192 Ex Parte LaFontaine 10/333,655 POTHIER 102(e)/103(a) ARTHUR G. SCHAIER CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP EXAMINER DAO, THUY CHAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Ferri et al 10/718,064 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. EXAMINER TRAN, ELLEN C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Nyland 10/848,829 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) Merchant & Gould P.C. EXAMINER POON, PETER M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Howland et al 10/145,840 WALSH 103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER SZMAL, BRIAN SCOTT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Takigawa et al 11/383,889 SMITH 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) LAUBSCHER & LAUBSCHER, P.C. EXAMINER JUSKA, CHERYL ANN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Brunedal et al 11/907,965 BARRETT 103(a) 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER WENDELL, MARK R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Warkentine et al 11/752,105 FREDMAN 101/102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER HOBAN, MELISSA A

3774 Ex Parte LAZZARA et al 09/237,605 HORNER 103(a) 103(a) NIXON PEABODY, LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B


REEXAMINATION

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2603 Ex Parte 5388101 et al Ex parte EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,383 TURNER 103(a) DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER CHIN, WELLINGTON

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2172 Ex Parte 6,253,216 et al Ex parte Tele-Publishing, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,792 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original EXAMINER KINDRED, ALFORD W


AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Fisch 10/381,225 MILLS 103(a) Ira J Schaefer , Esq. Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P. EXAMINER JAGOE, DONNA A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Blacker et al NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 11/482,103 SMITH 103(a) EXAMINER BURKHART, ELIZABETH A

1774 Ex Parte McCLANAHAN et al 11/954,281 SMITH 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BASF CORPORATION EXAMINER JANCA, ANDREW JOSEPH

1777 Ex Parte Beplate 10/387,854 SMITH 103(a) Thompson E. Fehr EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

3723 Ex Parte Dilger et al 10/858,654 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER REDDING, DAVID A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Witecha 11/043,179 PER CURIAM 103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER BATTULA, PRADEEP CHOUDARY

And even assuming that were so, this mere description of Appellant’s preferred embodiment would not be a clear and unmistakable disclaimer of the plain meaning of “mailer” given above.

See
Thorner v. Sony Computer, No. 2011-1114, slip op. at 7 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2012) (“It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation. We do not read limitations from the specification into claims; we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that. To constitute disclaimer, there must be a clear and unmistakable disclaimer.”).

3764 Ex Parte Osborn et al 11/651,746 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

3764 Ex Parte Wheeler et al 11/800,343 ADAMS 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L