SEARCH

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

Friday, September 25, 2009

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte NOELLE et al LEBOVITZ 103(a) DARBY & DARBY P.C.


A factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight
bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning. See
Graham, 383 U.S., at 36, 86 S.Ct 684 (warning against a "temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue" and instructing courts to " ‘guard against slipping into the use of hindsight’ " (quoting Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. & Supply Co., 332 F.2d 406, 412 (C.A.6 1964))). Rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).

Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). . . . . . 706.02(j), 706.02(m), 716.01(a), 804, 1504.03, 1504.06, 2106, 2141, 2144.08, 2258

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

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

Ex Parte Cooper et al FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.

The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

Ex Parte Bergsten et al DELMENDO 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Nguyen et al MACDONALD 112(2)/112(1)/102(e) Roger Fulghum Baker Botts L.L.P.

Ex Parte Farrett BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Morthier KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP

Ex Parte Brouwer et al WARREN 103(a) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hillo et al GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Warner BARRETT 103(a) John Buckert

Ex Parte Hancock-Cooke PRATS 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.

BILSKI - 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Sandoval et al FISCHETTI 103(a)/101 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Stiffler FISCHETTI 102(e)/103(a) Timothy M. Farrell IBM Corporation

Ex Parte Theiler FISCHETTI 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP

“[I]f the preamble merely state[s] a purpose or intended use and the remainder of the claim completely defines the invention independent of the preamble,” it does not constitute a limitation. Lipscomb’s Walker on Patents, 3rd Edition, Vol. 3, § 11.11 at p. 361 (citing Marston v. J.C. Penney Co., 353 F.2d 976, 986 (4th Cir. 1965)); see also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (An element initially recited in the preamble is thereafter fully incorporated into the body of the claim so as to breathe life and breath into it by setting forth the complete combination).

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2163

Ex Parte Connor et al MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

“‘The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned, as they are a part of the literature and are relevant for all they contain.’” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983), citing In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968).

Heck, In re, 699 F.2d 1331, 216 USPQ 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123

Lemelson, In re, 397 F.2d 1006, 158 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123

No comments :