SEARCH

Showing posts with label trans texas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trans texas. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

trans texas, dealertrack

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Shen et al 10621637 - (D) FITZPATRICK 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. OLSEN, KAJ K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Krieg et al 10444817 - (D) HOFF 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

2465 Ex Parte Chen et al 11701311 - (D) HOFF 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HSU, ALPUS

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Vandanapu et al 10741304 - (D) BUSCH 102/103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN JEANGLAUDE, JEAN BRUNER

2857 Ex Parte Kantzes et al 10435819 - (D) MOORE 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. LE, TOAN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Mahler et al 10588183 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Striker Striker & Stenby GALT, CASSI J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Gobush 10898584 - (D) SCANLON 103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL WONG, JEFFREY KEITH

3742 Ex Parte Benjamin et al 11001219 - (D) BAHR 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC PAIK, SANG YEOP

3777 Ex Parte Keglovich et al 11562753 - (D) GREEN 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP DON W. BULSON (BRAI) REMALY, MARK DONALD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Shen et al 10621999 - (D) FITZPATRICK 251/103 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. OLSEN, KAJ K

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Forlenza et al 11034549 - (D) DIXON 102 102/103 IBM CORPORATION JOHNSON, JOHNESE T

2167 Ex Parte Zinda 10440281 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 JEANNE E. LONGMUIR WILSON, KIMBERLY LOVEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Matthews et al 11054638 - (D) HOFFMANN 112(1)/102/103 112(1)/112(2) Paul C. Matthews PARSLEY, DAVID J

3646 Ex Parte Wazybok et al 11940434 - (D) BROWNE 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. BURKE, SEAN P

3679 Ex Parte Hoggan 11214705 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 102/103 Thompson E. Fehr MACARTHUR, VICTOR L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 Ex Parte Ish 10913132 - (D) HOELTER 103 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC GINSBERG, OREN ISAAC

3777 Ex Parte Sherman et al 11323537 - (D) GREEN 103 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (IN) REARDON, ROCHELLE D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Zimmer et al 10498167 - (D) GREEN 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP KRASS, FREDERICK F

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Napolitano et al 10879696 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 ADDMG - 27975 WANG, EUGENIA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Cox et al 11460461 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. HOCKER, JOHN P

2159 Ex Parte Bender 11508567 - (D) BENOIT 103 Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC CASANOVA, JORGE A

2161 Ex Parte Fink et al 10376982 - (D) HOFF 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP NGUYEN, CINDY

2175 Ex Parte Cook et al 10792662 - (D) PETTIGREW 103 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP DISTEFANO, GREGORY A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Belimpasakis et al 10098848 - (D) HOFF 103 Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. NASH, LASHANYA RENEE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2636 Ex Parte Schiaffino et al 10954091 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Maschoff Brennan CURS, NATHAN M

2641 Ex Parte Cole 11537509 - (D) SMITH 103 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C. COSME, NATASHA W

2677 Ex Parte AGUERA y ARCAS 11737001 - (D) DESHPANDE 102/103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. TUNG, KEE M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Gallagher et al 12070514 - (D) MOORE 102/103 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION CAROC, LHEIREN MAE ANGLO

In Trans Texas Holdings, the Federal Circuit provided a clear description of how to construe claims, noting:

In Phillips, we held that while “the specification [should be used] to interpret the meaning of a claim,” courts must not “import[ ] limitations from the specification into the claim.” Id. at 1323. We specifically noted that it is improper to “confin[e] the claims to th[e] embodiments” found in the specification, as Trans Texas asks us to do. Id.

In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The Federal Circuit noted that “[u]nder Phillips, dictionary definitions are also pertinent. See id. at 1318 (‘[T]he court has observed that dictionaries … can be useful in claim construction.’).” Id. at 1299. The Federal Circuit expressly commented that there were multiple dictionary definitions for the term “directly” but chose the “broadest” definition. See Trans Texas Holdings, 489 F.3d at 1299. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Board decision in which the Board selected a dictionary definition that was broader than the examples disclosed in the Specification and was the broader dictionary definition. See Trans Texas Holdings, 489 F.3d at 1298-1299.

Trans Texas Holdings Corp., In re, 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2286, 2686.04

2877 Ex Parte Patel et al 11256377 - (D) HUME 103 Cislo & Thomas LLP BRYANT, REBECCA CAROLE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Schinke et al 11596450 - (D) WOOD 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP PEDDER, DENNIS H

3677 Ex Parte Cox et al 10775746 - (D) ASTORINO 103 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP MILLER, WILLIAM L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Webb 11011373 - (D) GREENHUT 103 112(2)/101/103 MORISHITA LAW FIRM, LLC LAYNO, BENJAMIN

Thus, the machine-or-transformation test remains a useful tool for determining whether a claim covers an abstract idea. See e.g., Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F. 3d 1315, 1331 et seq. (Fed. Cir. 2012).

3773 Ex Parte Carrison 10093264 - (D) O’HEARN 112(1)/103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP MASHACK, MARK F  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Williams 10679088 - (D) OSINSKI 103 W. Edward Johansen HALE, GLORIA M

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Wednesday December 1, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Adkesson et al 10/839,188 PRATS GRIMES GREEN 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER KEYS, ROSALYND ANN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1723 Ex Parte Muhs et al 10/824,291 COLAIANNI GARRIS HANLON 103(a) ORNL-UTB-LUEDEKA, NEELY & GRAHAM EXAMINER MOWLA, GOLAM

"[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3736 Ex Parte Segner et al 10/632,145 GRIMES ADAMS GREEN 102(b)/103(a) POPOVICH, WILES & O'CONNELL, PA EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte MacNeil et al 11/797,365 6,550,486 COLAIANNI KIMLIN TIMM 103(a)VERMETTE & CO. EXAMINER STINSON, FRANKIE L

The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Pearson et al 10/080,479 LORIN CRAWFORD FISCHETTI 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J

A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) involves two analytical steps. FN6 First, the Board must interpret the claim language, where necessary. Because the PTO is entitled to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, our review of the Board's claim construction is limited to determining whether it was reasonable. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed.Cir.1997). Secondly, the Board must compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference." Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . 2123, 2131.05

Crish, In re, 393 F.3d 1253, 73 USPQ2d1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.03, 2112

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Dlugos 11/182,070 STAICOVICI KERINS SILVERBERG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER LACYK, JOHN P

3754
Ex Parte Lassota 10/819,828 LEE TORCZON LANE 103(a) JAMES W. POTTHAST LAW OFFICES OF POTTHAST & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER CARTAGENA, MELVIN A

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED


3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1755 ICE BAN AMERICA, INC. & EARTH FRIENDLY CHEMICALS, INC. Requesters v. Patent of SEARS ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS CO., LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,136 6,299,793 DELMENDO TORCZON LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) For Patent Owner: MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP For Third Party Requesters: JAMES J. KELLY OBLON SPIVAK MCCELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER GREEN, ANTHONY J

“In civil litigation, a challenger who attacks the validity of patent claims must overcome the presumption of validity [under 35 U.S.C. § 282] with clear and convincing evidence that the patent is invalid.” In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “If this statutory burden is not met, “‘[c]ourts do not find patents ‘valid,’ only that the patent challenger did not carry the ‘burden of establishing invalidity in the particular case before the court.’’” Id. (quoting Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1429 n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). By contrast, “[i]n PTO examinations and reexaminations, the standard of proof – a preponderance of the evidence – is substantially lower than in a civil case.” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377 (citation omitted). Also, “unlike in district courts, in reexamination proceedings ‘[c]laims are given ‘their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification . . . .’’” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377-78 (internal citations omitted). Thus, “[t]he two forums take different approaches in determining validity and on the same evidence could quite correctly come to different conclusions.” Ethicon, 849 F.2d at 1428. Moreover, the PTO was not a party to the patent infringement action and thus cannot be estopped by its holdings. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297-98 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 7 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . .1442.02, 2242,2286, 2642, 2686.04

Trans Texas Holdings Corp., In re, 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2286, 2686.04

AFFIRMED

1612 Ex Parte Buck et al 11/328,247 MILLS EXAMINER SUTTON, DARRYL C
3612
Ex Parte Compton et al 11/202,793 BAHR EXAMINER BLACK, MELISSA ANN
1633
Ex Parte Cosenza 10/735,203 WALSH EXAMINER WEHBE, ANNE MARIE SABRINA
1628
Ex Parte Ebens et al 11/141,344 MILLS EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
1782
Ex Parte Elder et al 10/931,021 LANE EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A
1785
Ex Parte Hansson et al 10/440,317 TIERNEY EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L
3686
Ex Parte Hartlaub 10/002,669 FETTING EXAMINER I NAJARIAN, LENA
2456
Ex Parte Huynh et al 10/611,698 DANG EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
2123
Ex Parte Kalley 09/983,597 BARRY EXAMINER PROCTOR, JASON SCOTT
1627
Ex Parte Levy et al 11/529,199 GREEN EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN
2193
Ex Parte MacInnis et al 10/786,195 J. THOMAS EXAMINER MALZAHN, DAVID H
1618
Ex Parte Pandey et al 11/431,275 GREEN EXAMINER JONES, DAMERON LEVEST
3731
Ex Parte Simonson 10/899,707 McCARTHY EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANH TUAN TUONG
1656
Ex Parte Williams et al 11/360,284 WALSH EXAMINER DESAI, ANAND U

REHEARING DENIED

1729 Ex Parte Fujikawa et al 11/437,328 FRANKLIN EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG
2174
Ex Parte Hackbarth et al 09/886,876 BLANKENSHIP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F
1742
Ex Parte Klotz 10/403,545 FRANKLIN EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D
3621
Ex Parte Marcon 10/266,660 LORIN EXAMINER FISCHER, ANDREW J
1649
Ex Parte Schenk 10/777,792 WALSH EXAMINER KOLKER, DANIEL E
3732
Ex Parte Shluzas et al 10/926,579 PATE III EXAMINER MAI, HAO D
1746
Ex Parte Sjoberg et al 11/129,497 KIMLIN EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L
1781
Ex Parte Zeller 10/919,472 KRATZ EXAMINER HEGGESTAD, HELEN F