cortright intergraph, ormco, gould2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Futrell et al 12136202 - (D) HILL 101 Cooke Law Firm MENDIRATTA, VISHU K

3744 Ex Parte Swofford 12040154 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP COMINGS, DANIEL C

“Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be
consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.” In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Prior art references may be ‘indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means . . . [and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.’ Accordingly, the PTO's interpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from analogous art.” Id. (Citations omitted).

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111 , 2164.04

3748 Ex Parte Frazier et al 11655268 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 Foley & Lardner LLP BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Fukuda et al 11926504 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC HUANG, MIRANDA M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1671 Ex Parte Keggenhoff et al 12851604 - (D) FREDMAN 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC PUTTLITZ, KARL J

Under the “law of the case” doctrine, a court will generally adhere to a decision in a prior appeal in the same case unless one of three exceptions exist: (1) the evidence in a subsequent trial contains new and different
material evidence; (2) there has been an intervening change of controlling legal authority; or (3) the earlier ruling was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice. Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 253 F.3d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Gould, Inc. v. United States, 67 F.3d 925, 930 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

merck3

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte COCKS et al 11459944 - (D) DILLON 103 GRASSO PLLC SCOTT, RANDY A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2668 Ex Parte MENDONCA et al 11558715 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 101 HINMAN, HOWARD & KATTELL, LLP ABDI, AMARA

The Examiner's interpretation would likewise render the expressly recited claim term "probabilistic" superfluous.  Such an interpretation would be contrary to the canons of claim construction.  "A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so." Merck & Co. v. Teva Phams. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Circ. 2005). We therefore find the Examiner's claim construction of  "a probabilistic model" unreasonable broad.

Merck & Co., Inc., v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 73 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111.01

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Yarovesky 12115967 - (D) OWENS 102/103 103 KELLY & KELLEY, LLP SZEKELY, PETER A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Mythen 11885472 - (D) FREDMAN 112(2)/103 103 LOUIS WOO STUART, COLIN W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Lauffer et al 12078206 - (D) NAGUMO 103 HINMAN, HOWARD & KATTELL, LLP SAWYER, STEVEN T

2851 Ex Parte Hopkins et al 12349289 - (D) GARRIS 101/102/103 Russell Ng PLLC (IBM AUS) LEE, ERIC D

KCJ, harari

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Matusch et al 10942297 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 ProPat, LLC PACKARD, BENJAMIN J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Hsu 10515372 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP WEBB, GREGORY E

1784 Ex Parte Starikov et al 11891429 - (D) OWENS 103 Cooke Law Firm KRUPICKA, ADAM C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Rhee et al 11342003 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN NGUYEN, THAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte RAGHUNATH et al 11622119 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 101 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. THIAW, CATHERINE B

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Ota et al 11718151 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. VAJDA, PETER L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Marquet et al 10846542 - (D) JEFFERY 103 KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. POWERS, WILLIAM S

Turning to claim 1, the claim recites, in pertinent part, that the interface device comprises a smart card connector to which plural smart card execution devices are connected. We emphasize the indefinite article “a” here, for it is well settled that it means “‘one or more’” where, as here, the claim contains the transitional phrase, “‘comprising.’” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To be sure, “[w]hen the claim language and specification indicate that ‘a’ means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That exception is not the case here; nor have Appellants shown as
much on this record.

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP. and RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD. Requesters v. INNOVATIVE SONIC LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte RE40077 et al 11/247,003 95002157 - (D) JEFFERY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 103 Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C. For THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: OBLON, SPIVAK McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP CORSARO, NICK original LY, ANH VU H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 KOHLER CO. Requester and Appellant v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7230345 et al 11/033,579 95001558 - (D) WEINBERG 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original PONOMARENKO, NICHOLAS

kerkhoven, cheese systems

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Bearinger et al 10781582 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC ANDERSON, GREGORY A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Bernstein 12761953 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH) ARNOLD, ERNST V

“It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980).

Kerkhoven, In re, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) 2144.06

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Steigelmann et al 12516479 - (D) ROESEL 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) ENG, ELIZABETH

1764 Ex Parte Ganapathiappan 11701040 - (D) ROESEL 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BOYLE, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Lee et al 12025479 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC PATEL, NIMESH G

Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems, 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

2114 Ex Parte Weiberle et al 11990251 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102 KENYON & KENYON LLP IQBAL, NADEEM

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte CHOI et al 11777829 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

2649 Ex Parte Sylvain 10824662 - (D) HORVATH 103 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple) LU, ZHIYU

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Cooke 11932729 - (D) HOELTER 103 Cooke Law Firm THOMPSON, KENNETH L

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2601 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant Ex Parte 4930150 et al 07/260,104 90012136 - (D) CHEN 103 COOLEY LLP Third Party Requester: LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD. RALIS, STEPHEN J

montgomery, MEHL halliburton, nautilus

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Willison et al 10187666 - (D) FREDMAN 102(e)/103 WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP ROBERTS, LEZAH

“The keystone of the inherency doctrine is inevitability. For anticipation by inherency, a later-claimed invention must have necessarily resulted from the practice of a prior art reference. Our precedent has been steadfast in this strict requirement of inevitability.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Muthiah et al 11605167 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 GERALD K. WHITE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. RAUDENBUSH, ELLEN SUZANNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Smith et al 12024176 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. HOEY, ALISSA L

Our reviewing court instructs us that an applicant “is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.” Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Supreme Court recently instructed us that claims must at least “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the [claimed subject matter] with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instrs., Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Kouhi et al 11999586 - (D) KRIVAK 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT HITT GAINES, PC HUYNH, AN SON PHI

2491 Ex Parte Bomma 11935758 - (D) CHUNG 103 IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Pildner 11521707 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 TYCO FIRE PROTECTION JAMAL, ALEXANDER

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte OSULLIVAN et al 11948458 - (D) PAULRAJ 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG TAN, ALVIN H

kahn

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Lundquist 12778015 - (D) CHERRY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Hemingway & Hansen, LLP OYEBISI, OJO O

See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).

Kahn, In re, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2143.01 , 2144

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Skala 11669922 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC YANCHUK, STEPHEN J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Neubauer et al 12201040 - (D) McGRAW 103 ALVIN T. ROCKHILL FISCHER, JUSTIN R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Lyndem 12174284 - (D) NAPPI 112(2)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BANSAL, GURTEJ

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11590568 - (D) FETTING 102 AlbertDhand LLP HAQ, NAEEM U

sanofi-aventis, pozen

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2844 Ex Parte LEE et al 12837805 - (D) KAISER 103 H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC CHEN, JIANZI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte PATEL et al 11834315 - (D) McCOLLUM 102 102 PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. IBM-RSW SONG, DAEHO D

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte OCONNOR et al 11903362 - (D) KRATZ 103 WIGGIN AND DANA LLP SERGENT, RABON A

1765 Ex Parte OCONNOR et al 12211217 - (D) KRATZ 112(2)/103 103/obviuosness-type double patenting WIGGIN AND DANA LLP SERGENT, RABON A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Cohen et al 12364226 - (D) KAISER 102/103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED BEHM, HARRY RAYMOND

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Lake et al 11005529 - (D) BAHR 103 101 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG HUSSAIN, FARRUKH

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Gee 10602404 - (D) JENKS 112(2)/103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC WARE, DEBORAH K

With respect to the obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), Appellant contends that the “obvious to try” rationale is not applicable in cases that do not present a finite and selectively small number of options to choose from citing Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Glenmark Pharmaceutical, 748 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Req. Reh’g 4.) Specifically, Appellant argues that in Sanofi “the Court found the claim for a combination of a known ACE inhibitor with a known calcium antagonist to be non-obvious” (Req. Reh’g 4). In Sanofi-Aventis, our reviewing Court has held that the “obvious to try” rationale does not apply when a combination of known components “was found to have longer-lasting efficacy than either component separately” See Sanofi-Aventis 748 F.3d at 1361, citing Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 696 F.3d 1151, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In Sanofi-Aventis the combination of known products into a single unit produced longer lasting hypertension treatment which was unexpected “because of the widespread belief [by those of skill in the art] that double-ring inhibitors would not fit the pocket structure of the ACE.” See Sanofi-Aventis at 1361. The present Specification, however, provides insufficient evidence in the form of data to establish any unexpected result with the mixture of coffee grounds and honey.

therasense, schering, continental can, chester bancorp

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Curtis et al 12050233 - (D) CHUNG 103 LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE David A. Dagg, Esq. OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE

2156 Ex Parte Carter et al 12125485 - (D) FRAHM 102 IBM RALEIGH IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC LIAO, JASON G

2161 Ex Parte Hamada et al 10543565 - (D) HUME 102 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ACOB, AJITH

Anticipation of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 occurs when each claimed element and the claimed arrangement or combination of those elements is disclosed, inherently or expressly, by a single prior art reference. Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A reference inherently discloses an element of a claim “if that missing characteristic is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373,
1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Therasense, 593 F.3d at 1332 (citing Cont'l Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264,1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).

Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2112 , 2152.02(b)

Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01

2169 Ex Parte Kar et al 11675392 - (D) BRANCH 112(1)/102(e) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP ROBINSON, GRETA LEE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Boleyn et al 10211047 - (D) DANG 103 Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt ZHANG, SHIRLEY X

The prima facie burden has not been met and the rejection does not adhere to the minimal requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 132 “when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.” Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3683 Ex Parte Schoen et al 10784719 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M

In regard to the claims that recite the additional steps of computing, monitoring, signaling, notifying, etc., these steps relate to only ordinary functions of a computer and do not confer patent eligibility to the claims.
See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11471289 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Zhang et al 12133766 - (D) HOFF 112(2)/103 112(2)/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP CHOI, YUK TING

2166 Ex Parte Peskin 11668368 - (D) WORMMEESTER 112(2)/101 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LIN, SHEW FEN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Dominique et al 11139693 - (D) FRAHM 102(e) 102(e)/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. NGUYEN, HAI V

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Hilger et al 10415201 - (D) TIMM 103 Quinn Law Group, PLLC LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11272583 - (D) Per Curiam 103 IBM CORPORATION ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte LEIGH 11554294 - (D) BRANCH 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WYLLIE, CHRISTOPHER T

2468 Ex Parte Flanagan et al 11445103 - (D) HUGHES 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED CHU, WUTCHUNG

2492 Ex Parte Schiller 11799217 - (D) DANG 102(e)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Hunt et al 11570080 - (D) DANG 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP CASCHERA, ANTONIO A

2643 Ex Parte Ahn 11773192 - (D) STRAUSS 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. HTUN, SAN A

2646 Ex Parte Yang et al 11789446 - (D) DANG 103 Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP - Ruckus IQBAL, KHAWAR

2651 Ex Parte Self 11332581 - (D) KINDER 103 ROBERT M. SCHWARTZ, P.A. GAY, SONIA L

2657 Ex Parte Bangalore et al 11646983 - (D) DIXON 102 AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Slusky ROBERTS, SHAUN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Wong et al 11185031 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP SAYADIAN, HRAYR

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Maier-Hunke 11992443 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 Mark P. Stone KIM, SHIN H

3695 Ex Parte Lundquist 11989449 - (D) CHERRY 103 Hemingway & Hansen, LLP OYEBISI, OJO O

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex parte EXMARK MFG. CO., INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 5987863 et al 09/135,926 90012406 - (D) BROWN 103 JAMES W. MILLER, ATTORNEY Arnold & Porter LLP FETSUGA, ROBERT M original BATSON, VICTOR D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 MEDTRONIC, INC. Requester, Respondent v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES AG Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7789909 et al 12/557,458 95001615 - (D) SONG 112(1) EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original WILLSE, DAVID H

porter, caveney

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Nagano et al 10488804 - (D) HASTINGS 103 FASSE PATENT ATTORNEYS, P.A. FELTON, AILEEN BAKER

1756 Ex Parte BOITNOTT et al 11669763 - (D) DELMENDO 103 LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES GUENZER ATTN: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte VENKATESWARAN et al 11559470 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102 McDermott Will & Emery LLP (GTH) BROWN, SHEREE N

2167 Ex Parte Jung et al 11487595 - (D) LEE 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC UDDIN, MOHAMMED R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Mazzochette 11445611 - (D) BUI 103 Cantor Colburn LLP-LSG SAYADIAN, HRAYR

2837 Ex Parte Aas et al 12234345 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RO, BENTSU

2881 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12384478 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE

2884 Ex Parte Kalveram et al 11838950 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 KRIEG DEVAULT/ROCHE IGYARTO, CAROLYN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Daimer 12202957 - (D) GREENHUT 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP NGUYEN, HUNG D

“Of course, the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.” Porter v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 663 F. 3d 1242, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (O’Malley, J., concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part)(internal quotations and citations omitted). The Examiner’s rejections, being unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence, cannot be sustained. In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674, (Fed.Cir.1985) (A preponderance of the evidence must show nonpatentability before the PTO may reject the claims of a patent application).

Caveney, In re, 761 F.2d 671, 226 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2133.03(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Maghoul et al 11838850 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/Yahoo! HOSSEINI, REZA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Falk et al 12322897 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 102 ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES, LLC GBLENDE, JEFFREY A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11241868 - (D) GRIMES 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Danielson et al 11652964 - (D) WARREN 103 CORNING INCORPORATED SNELTING, ERIN LYNN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Boydstun et al 11673982 - (D) DIXON 102(e)/103 Siemens Corporation WONG, HUEN

2163 Ex Parte Chang et al 12132783 - (D) COURTENAY 102(e)/103 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. VY, HUNG T

2185 Ex Parte Berger et al 11861814 - (D) FINK 102/103 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION DILLON, SAMUEL A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Ha et al 11411915 - (D) DIXON 103 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) MOORAD, WASEEM

2646 Ex Parte Trujillo 11272291 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP AJAYI, JOEL

2657 Ex Parte Bennett et al 11932250 - (D) HUGHES 112(1)/112(2) 103 Holland & Knight LLP LERNER, MARTIN

2673 Ex Parte Li et al 12151803 - (D) POLLOCK 103 InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely ZIMMERMAN, MARK K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Kim et al 12212021 - (D) OWENS 102(e)/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL CHAN, KAWING

2883 Ex Parte Minkovich et al 11989289 - (D) GARRIS 103 ROSENBERG, KLEIN & LEE TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH

2899 Ex Parte Di Cioccio et al 10519406 - (D) HANLON 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. SNOW, COLLEEN ERIN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Munn et al 12482097 - (D) GREENHUT 103 ULMER & BERNE, LLP DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex parte MATRIX ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 5874001 et al 08/710,091 90009965 - (D) PAK 102/103 Harter Secrest & Emery LLP JOHNSON, JERRY D original HOEY, BETSEY MORRISON

playtex, robertson

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Dhindsa et al 11363703 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 MPG, LLP and Lam Research Corp. ALEJANDRO MULERO, LUZ L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Cattell et al 11393163 - (D) MEDLOCK 102(e)/103 MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP HOFFLER, RAHEEM

2184 Ex Parte Circello 12032286 - (D) DIXON 103 FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. ROCHE, JOHN B

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2462 Ex Parte Ngo 10227201 - (D) CHUNG 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MURPHY, RHONDA L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Kettlewell et al 10911378 - (D) BAHR 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Wagener et al 12222754 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 WALTER OTTESEN CHAPEL, DEREK S

2885 Ex Parte Van As et al 12441588 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 HILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS MACCHIAROLO, LEAH SIMONE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Brößke et al 12095566 - (D) HILL 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) PROSKAUER ROSE LLP EKIERT, TERESA M

Although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that the term “substantially” is a word that is used as a modifier to imply “approximately” rather than “precisely,” nonetheless, we agree with Appellants that a blank bent at a 90 degree angle does not constitute a “substantially” flat blank. See App. Br. 5; see also Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Proctor and Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, Roper’s bent blank that is introduced between coreless halves 31, 32 of a die is simply not “substantially flat” as recited in claim 1.

3746 Ex Parte Frank et al 11256717 - (D) SMEGAL 103 Kelly, Holt & Christenson, P.L.L.C. COMLEY, ALEXANDER BRYANT

When a claim requires two separate elements, using one element construed as performing two separate functions will not suffice to meet the terms of the claim. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir.
1999).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2112 , 2114 , 2163 , 2163.07(a)

3781 Ex Parte Blake 11815943 - (D) WOODS 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON ALLEN, JEFFREY R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Swaak 11811665 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1) 112(1)/112(2) TRASKBRITT, P.C. EWOLDT, GERALD R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2621 Ex Parte HOPE 11463739 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 102(e)/103 SNYDER, CLARK, LESCH & CHUNG, LLP MATTHEWS, ANDRE L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Fortney et al 11805921 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 103 GRIGGS BERGEN LLP FERENCE, JAMES M

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Stopek 12298602 - (D) PAULRAJ 102 Covidien LP LONG, SCOTT

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Bondeson et al 11267450 - (D) WARREN 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP (NORDSON) DYE, ROBERT C

1767 Ex Parte Li 12156897 - (D) HANLON 112(1)/103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Chou 11166526 - (D) HILL 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC C/O CPA Global MAI, KEVIN S

2464 Ex Parte Mahany et al 11419565 - (D) DANG 102(e)/103 BGL/Broadcom NGUYEN, PHUONGCHAU BA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Phan-Anh 11691417 - (D) JEFFERY 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L

2694 Ex Parte Ritter et al 11222134 - (D) NEW 103 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD HORNER, JONATHAN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3681 Ex Parte Nicholson 12080184 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP CHAMPAGNE, DONALD

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Cromm et al 11977629 - (D) HOELTER 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB KRAMER, DEVON C

3772 Ex Parte Chen et al 12255840 - (D) SMEGAL 103 Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC NELSON, KERI JESSICA

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2197 Ex Parte Clemm et al 11139403 - (D) EVANS 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG COYER, RYAN D