remark, demaco, pentec, McLaughlin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Warrier et al 10577754 - (D) SMITH 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC MARKS, JACOB B

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Sperle et al 11284263 - (D) SHIANG 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP RICHARDSON, JAMES E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Cooper et al 11252320 - (D) HUGHES 102 THOMSON Licensing LLC VANCHY JR, MICHAEL J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Peltier et al 12331621 - (D) HOELTER 103 American Air Liquide, Inc. ADAMOS, THEODORE V

3663 Ex Parte Katsumata et al 11476143 - (D) BROWNE 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP TISSOT, ADAM D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Lloyd 12011415 - (D) SMEGAL 103 102/103 Jerrod R. Lloyd AVILA, STEPHEN P

In ex parte proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, an applicant must show that the claimed features were responsible for the commercial success of an article if the evidence of nonobviousness is to be accorded substantial weight. Merely asserting commercial success of an article-alleged to embody an invention that is being offered for sale by another-is not sufficient. See Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1502-03 (BPAI 1990). Compare Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1394 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988). See also Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (commercial success may have been attributable to extensive advertising and position as a market leader before the introduction of the patented product).

Remark, Ex parte, 15 USPQ2d 1498 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) 716.03 , 716.03(b) , 2144.08

Demaco Corp. v. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   716.01(b) ,   716.01(d) ,   716.03 ,  716.03(a) ,  716.03(b)

Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.03(b) , 716.06 , 2141.01(a)


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Ott 11625357 - (D) GOODSON 103 obviousness-type double patenting FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) MAYE, AYUB A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Fukushima et al 11812272 - (D) HASTINGS 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO BOYLE, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Buller et al 12244764 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG SINGH, AMRESH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Swager et al 12268291 - (D) WINSOR 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Lu et al 12502211 - (D) KATZ 103 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. ALROBAIE, KHAMDAN N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Buhamad 12706858 - (D) SMEGAL 103 LOWE HAUPTMAN & HAM, LLP RISIC, ABIGAIL ANNE

See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971(“[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning”).

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) 707.07(f) , 2145

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Kleyne 11599496 - (D) KINDER 103 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. SHEARER, DANIEL R

3777 Ex Parte Cain et al 12569061 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 SHAY GLENN LLP NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC

warner

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Westphal et al 12805950 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC PRAKASH, SUBBALAKSHMI

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Schulz et al 11019606 - (D) FETTING 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP PAPPAS, PETER

2468 Ex Parte Khoo et al 11581980 - (D) FETTING 103 LAW OFFICES OF BARRY N. YOUNG HARLEY, JASON A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Carey 11302725 - (D) FRAHM 103 DOCKET CLERK SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex Parte Salunkhe 12433439 - (D) OWENS 103 GE Power & Water Fletcher Yoder PC GILMAN, ALEXANDER

2858 Ex Parte Chandran et al 12194760 - (D) WILSON 103 HONEYWELL/IFL BROWN, LAMARR A

2894 Ex Parte Woo et al 12297899 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC TRAN, TONY

A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art. In making this evaluation, all facts must be considered. The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it maydoubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.

Application of Warner, 379 F2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967)

Warner, In re, 379 F.2d 1011, 154 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1967) 2142

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Tondra 12284989 - (D) CAPP 102 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. CAZAN, LIVIUS RADU

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte MCCLANAHAN et al 11952591 - (D) BEAMER 103 103 Conley Rose, P.C. HUANG, MIRANDA M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Evans 11762366 - (D) FETTING 103 obviousness-type double patenting FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova GOLDMAN, MICHAEL H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Ulics et al 12405324 - (D) GOODSON 103 103 AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS HOLDINGS LLC C/O MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC FLANIGAN, ALLEN J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1677 Ex Parte Hodges et al 10105050 - (D) FREDMAN 103/obviousness–type double patenting Davis Wright Tremaine LLP/SFO DO, PENSEE T

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte MCCLANAHAN et al 11952586 - (D) BEAMER 103 Conley Rose, P.C. CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 11423946 - (D) JEFFERY 103 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. GUADALUPE CRUZ, AIXA AMYR

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Goldman et al 12169147 - (D) COURTENAY 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT FANG, PAKEE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte LU et al 12201976 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials HAN, JONATHAN

2824 Ex Parte Kau et al 12082137 - (D) DERRICK Dissenting WARREN 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. BYRNE, HARRY W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 Ex Parte Morris 10913071 - (D) FETTING 102/103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC WEISS, JOHN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Tholen et al 11648932 - (D) HOFFMAN 112(1)/102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY WIEHE, NATHANIEL EDWARD

rose, chu

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Baker 10260107 - (D) BEST 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. THOMPSON, CAMIE S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 Ex Parte Chan et al 12135079 - (D) FINK 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/NVIDIA LEE, CHUN KUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Clark et al 11529656 - (D) HILL 112(2)/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent LIM, KRISNA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2695 Ex Parte Anderson et al 12362432 - (D) DIXON 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TZENG, FRED

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Gianesello 12876595 - (D) KRATZ 103 Slater & Matsil, LLP - ST-EP CHAN, TSZFUNG JACKIE

2894 Ex Parte Yu et al 11524000 - (D) HANLON 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. TRAN, TONY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Carney et al 11055521 - (D) MOHANTY 103 Scully, Scott, Murphy & Presser LAN, TZU-HSIANG

3643 Ex Parte Boyle et al 12493651 - (D) FREDMAN 103 ALTMAN & MARTIN POON, PETER M

We are also not persuaded by the Examiner's design choice argument relying on In re Rose.  In Rose, the invention was drawn to lumber packages formed into bundles with encircling bands, which could be lifted by hand in the prior art, but where the claimed packages required a lift truck.  In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 463 (CCPA 1955) ("the size of the article under consideration ... is not ordinarily a matter of invention.")...

We therefore agree with the Appellants that because "replacing the bendable tube of Nunley with the ball of the present invention changes how Nunley operates, the modification proposed by the Examiner cannot render claim 1 obvious" (App. Br. 6). See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 299 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding of "obvious design choice" precluded where the claimed structure and the function it performs are different from the prior art).

Rose, In re, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) 2144.04

Chu, In re, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 211.05 , 716.02(f) , 1504.20 , 2145 ,

3656 Ex Parte Welsh 10685215 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. JOHNSON, VICKY A

3657 Ex Parte Deferme 11897351 - (D) DANIELS 103 Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC (Tenneco) NGUYEN, VU Q

3664 Ex Parte McCrary 11560981 - (D) OSINSKI 102 CENTRAL COAST PATENT AGENCY, INC HOLWERDA, STEPHEN

3665 Ex Parte Wallace 11801092 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Sterchi et al 11077202 - (D) GREENHUT 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC JONES, MARCUS D

3771 Ex Parte Corbacho 11713335 - (D) FREDMAN 103 GLYNNTECH, INC. YOUNG, RACHEL T

AFFIRMED−IN−PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte SINGH 11693130 - (D) SMEGAL 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) Sanjeev Kumar Singh AFOLABI, MARK O

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Wang et al 12253152 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2)/103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NADAV, ORI

2854 Ex Parte Milliken 11893674 - (D) WILSON 103 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC SIMMONS, JENNIFER E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Alcock et al 12327710 - (D) POLLOCK 102 102/103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC NEGRELLIRODRIGUEZ, CHRISTINA

3788 Ex Parte Butler et al 10912990 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP POON, ROBERT

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte den Boer et al 12068119 - (D) TIMM 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC CHERN, CHRISTINA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Garudadri et al 12118583 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED DANG, KHANH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Choi et al 11329979 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Holland & Hart LLP/Qualcomm CROMPTON, CHRISTOPHER R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Bersenev et al 11053012 - (D) HUME 103 Borden Ladner Gervais LLP LAM, VINH TANG

2644 Ex Parte Valo et al 12111643 - (D) WORMMEESTER 103/obviousness-type double patenting FOLEY & LARDNER LLP LEE, JUSTIN YE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Schemmann 12746770 - (D) ROESEL 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS KING, JOSHUA

2842 Ex Parte Abbott et al 12490863 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Jordan IP Law, LLC c/o CPA Global JONES, STEPHEN E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Heiden et al 12277757 - (D) BAYAT 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. CLARK, DAVID J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Jones 12277320 - (D) HOELTER 103 MANELLI SELTER PLLC CHAMBERS, MICHAEL S

3715 Ex Parte McCarthy et al 11391839 - (D) GREENHUT 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY YIP, JACK

3732 Ex Parte Wen et al 11404643 - (D) WIEKER 103 WSGR / Align Technology , Inc. EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

3737 Ex Parte Viswanathan et al 11685664 - (D) FREDMAN 103 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C SIRIPURAPU, RAJEEV P

3744 Ex Parte Perkins 11853206 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL RUBY, TRAVIS C

3762 Ex Parte Chen et al 12836784 - (D) GRIMES 103/obviousness-type double patenting SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC GETZOW, SCOTT M

3777 Ex Parte Becker et al 10599306 - (D) LaVIER 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS GUPTA, VANI

ricoh, fulton, gurley

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Kajmowicz et al 12259156 - (D) NAPPI 112(2)/103 Mahamedi Paradice LLP (NetApp) STEVENS, ROBERT

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte Greenfield 11832941 - (D) FRAHM 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Desai et al 10999325 - (D) MOHANTY 103 AT&T Legal Dept. GGGV GOLDMAN, MICHAEL H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Park et al 11646597 - (D) TROCK 103 102/103 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP STEINBERG, JEFFREY S

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Bleumer et al 11229466 - (D) STRAUSS 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP NGUY, CHI D

“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations and quotations omitted). A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, “[a] known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2123 , 2141.02 , 2143.01 , 2145

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2123 , 2145

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Zimmer et al 12386572 - (D) McGRAW 103 KLAUS J. BACH & ASSOCIATES BATSON, VICTOR D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Kovacevich et al 12108432 - (D) GREENHUT 102 TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC WALKER, NED ANDREW

cruciferous, robertson

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Prasad et al 11572236 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS KRUER, STEFAN

3687 Ex Parte Weidlich et al 12162644 - (D) MOORE 103 American Air Liquide, Inc. PARIKH, HARSHAD R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Stopek et al 12544444 - (D) WOODS 103 Covidien LP NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA

3731 Ex Parte Jaeger et al 11270035 - (D) ADAMS 102/103 Stryker - Vista IP Law Group SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

“It is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless inherent in it. Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “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.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
In sum, Examiner failed to establish an evidentiary basis...

Cruciferous Sprout Litig., In re, 301 F.3d 1343, 64 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02

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

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Rasmussen et al 12336900 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 112(2)/102/103 102/103 Walder Intellectual Property Law PC YEN, SYLING

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Brooks 12025320 - (D) OSINSKI 103 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP REIS, RYAN ALEXANDER

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte VENEZIA et al 12053756 - (D) KUMAR 103 ADDMG - Harris MA, TIZE

2648 Ex Parte de La Chapelle et al 11440300 - (D) HUGHES 103 The Boeing Company TSVEY, GENNADIY

2675 Ex Parte Borchers et al 10254060 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 SHARP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC PEREN, VINCENT ROBERT

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Weichmann et al 12446472 - (D) ROESEL 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS CARTER, MICHAEL W

2868 Ex Parte Alexander 11086933 - (D) THOMAS 103 FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP NATALINI, JEFF WILLIAM

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Little et al 12044017 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION MCDOWELL, LIAM J

texas instruments

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2886 Ex Parte Wang 12298762 - (D) ROESEL 103 HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP PAJOOHI GOMEZ, TARA S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Gray et al 11280021 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102 103/112(2) BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD. MARKOFF, ALEXANDER

We identified where Gray discloses creating a vacuum to produce vapor bubbles as recited in the claim. It is true that the result of “transferring said chemical agent to the surface of said object while said chemical agent is in a vapor state” is not expressly described in Gray. However, this is simply a recitation of the result of “creating a vacuum.” A clause that “merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.” Texas Instruments Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 11 as obvious in view of Gray is affirmed. Claims 12, 14–16, 18–19, and 21 were not argued separately and fall with claim 11.

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Nacey 11221418 - (D) STRAUSS 103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC TRIEU, VAN THANH

thorpe, baxter travenol, merck

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Bostick et al 12723121 - (D) HUDALLA 101 IBM Corp. (END/RCR) c/o Rolnik Law Firm, P.C. LOTTICH, JOSHUA P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Weaver et al 11926470 - (D) McCOLLUM 112(1)/112(2)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. KIM, YUNSOO

“The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 706.02(m) , 2113

“[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

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Angell et al 11862294 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. BROWN, ALVIN L

See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually where the rejection is based on the teachings of a combination of references”).

Merck & Co., Inc., In re, 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 707.07(f) ,  716.02 ,  2143.02 ,  2144.08 ,  2144.09 ,  2145

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Cunha et al 12349620 - (D) HOSKINS 112(1)/103 103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. WIEHE, NATHANIEL EDWARD

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte LA FOREST et al 12536924 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 HONEYWELL/S&S MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT

1729 Ex Parte Chowdhury 12336144 - (D) MCMILLIN 102/103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION CHMIELECKI, SCOTT J

1771 Ex Parte Gray et al 11775247 - (D) MCMILLIN 103 INFINEUM USA L.P. GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN

1791 Ex Parte Cross et al 12195264 - (D) TIMM 103 112(2) Hovey Williams LLP GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Choyi et al 11819832 - (D) HUME 112(2) 103 Kramer & Amado, P.C. HAILU, TESHOME

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Friend et al 12168138 - (D) DERRICK 103 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION CHANG, JOSEPH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Sato et al 11215611 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY QUINN, RICHALE LEE

applied materials, aller, antonie nautilus, orthokinetics

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Brust et al 12234753 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY HUHN, RICHARD A

“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)). Nonetheless, “[t]his rule is limited to cases in which the optimized variable is a ‘result-effective variable.’” Id (citing In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).

Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) 2144.05

Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) 2141.02 , 2144.05

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Smolucha 11124411 - (D) GUIJT 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP MYHR, JUSTIN L

3742 Ex Parte Graillat et al 11377947 - (D) STEPINA 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. MATHEW, HEMANT MATHAI

A claim is indefinite if “read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, [it] fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2123 (2014). The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).

Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2173.02 , 2173.05(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Bodine et al 12840127 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 102/103 103 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION PANG, ROGER L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Okuniewicz 11033610 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 103 BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP DUFFY, DAVID W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1756 Ex Parte Shah et al 11397543 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Minimed CARLSON, KOURTNEY SALZMAN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Hoyte et al 12756585 - (D) GARRIS Concurring NAGUMO 103 Dority & Manning, PA and General Electric Company FAYYAZ, NASHMIYA SAQIB

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Breed et al 12020684 - (D) CAPP 112(b) BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ TISSOT, ADAM D

barbed wire, cyclobenzaprine, tiffin, artsana, murata

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Lange et al 12153158 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP WANG, SHENGJUN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Arjomand 11474530 - (D) STEPINA 103 103 RICHARD L HUFF ABDUR RAHIM, AZIM

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Scheer et al 11694963 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP (TOKYO ELECTRON) WEDDLE, ALEXANDER MARION

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Love et al 12435145 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 GOOGLE C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP CHENG, DIANA

2844 Ex Parte Ning et al 11711131 - (D) KATZ 112(1)/103 BLANK ROME LLP TANINGCO, ALEXANDER H

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2825 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD Requester and Respondent v. TELA INNOVATIONS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7441211 et al 11/145,025 95001832 - (D) Per curiam 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester: HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP CABRERA, ZOILA E original DOAN, NGHIA M

Secondary considerations, including satisfaction of a long-felt need and commercial success can have a significant impact on an obviousness analysis. See, e.g., The Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U.S. 275, 282 (1892); In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litigation, 676 F.3d 1063, 1075-1080 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (long-felt need and commercial success should be considered before ultimate decision made on obviousness); In re Tiffin, 443 F.2d 394 (CCPA 1971), modified on reh’g, 448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 1971); Ex parte Artsana USA, Inc., 2014 WL 4090808 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2014) (finding commercial success to be entitled to considerable weight); Murata Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Synqor, Inc., 2014 WL 1397381 *11-14 (PTAB Apr. 10, 2014) (same).

Tiffin, In re, 443 F.2d 394, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971) 716.04 , 2142

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) 716.03(a)