Wednesday June 30, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Link et al 10/850,075 GREEN 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP EXAMINER SACKEY, EBENEZER O

Ex Parte Lyng et al 10/744,607 GREEN 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J

Ex Parte Choo et al 10/198,677 MILLS 103(a) ROBINS & PASTERNAK EXAMINER DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN

Ex Parte Drasner et al 10/174,055 PRATS Concurring McCOLLUM 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO

Applying KSR, the Federal Circuit has stated that “in cases involving new chemical compounds, it remains necessary to identify some reason that would have led a chemist to modify a known compound in a particular manner to establish prima facie obviousness of a new claimed compound.” Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Ex Parte Yuan et al 11/110,967 WALSH 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Wang et al 10/385,834 COLAIANNI 102(b) H.B. FULLER COMPANY EXAMINER FERGUSON, LAWRENCE D

Ex Parte Arzadon et al 10/158,251 HANLON 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP EXAMINER KASTLER, SCOTT R

Ex Parte Bartko 11/100,655 WALSH non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting/102(a/e)/103(a) WILLIAM J. DAVIS, ESQ INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS EXAMINER SANDERS, KRIELLION ANTIONETTE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Cameron et al 10/094,373 JEFFERY 103(a) ACCENTURE INDY 33391 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Anderson et al 10/044,555 HAIRSTON 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC. EXAMINER ORTIZ, BELIX M

Ex Parte Bardsley et al 09/917,368 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) Duke Yee Yee & Associates, P. C. EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D

Ex Parte Norton et al 10/686,741 BAUMEISTER 102(b) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R

Ex Parte Proudler 09/920,554 MARTIN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DAVIS, ZACHARY A

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Gilmour et al 11/501,066 MARTIN 103(a) DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP EXAMINER BURD, KEVIN MICHAEL

Ex Parte Walker et al 10/501,771 HAHN 102(e)/103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Zlokovic et al 10/451,917 WALSH 112(1)/102(b)/102(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN

Assuming there is sufficient reason to think undue experimentation would be needed to use an invention, a rejection for failure to teach how to use would be proper. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 (CCPA 1971). “The PTO cannot make this kind of rejection, however, unless it has reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained in the written description.” In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164.08

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

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Wolrich et al 10/039,289 COURTENAY 103(a) INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Bellotti et al 09/683,532 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC. EXAMINER CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Campagnolo 10/980,693 HORNER 112(1)/103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, MATTHEW A

Ex Parte Littrell 10/739,599 CRAWFORD 112(2)/102(b) AT&T Legal Department EXAMINER LEVINE, ADAM L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte English et al 10/719,613 O’NEILL 103(a) CHRISTOPHER M. GOFF (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

ex parte

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte PepperBall Technologies, Inc. 90/008,731 7,194,960 ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: PEPPERBALL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JAMES A. PINTO, ESQ. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, P.C. EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R

Long-Felt Need

Establishing long-felt need requires objective evidence showing existence of a persistent problem recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art for which a solution was not known. In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539 (CCPA 1967). In addition, the long-felt need must not have been satisfied by another before the invention by applicant. Newell Co. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Hence, the appellant must present affidavits or other factual evidence of “a failure of others to provide a feasible solution to [a] long-standing problem” and evidence “that experts did not foresee” the solution claimed. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Finally, the invention must satisfy the long-felt need. In re Cavanagh, 436 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1971).

Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 9 USPQ2d 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.01(d), 716.04

Piasecki, In re, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . 716.01(d), 2107.02, 2142, 2145

Cavanagh, In re, 436 F.2d 491, 168 USPQ 466 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04

Commercial Success

If evidence of commercial success is relied upon, the Appellant must offer proof “that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention – as opposed to other economic and commercial factors unrelated to the quality of the patented subject matter.” In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The evidence must also demonstrate commercial success in the relevant market. See Id. In addition, there must be a nexus between the commercial success and merits of the claimed invention. Cable Electric Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . 716.03(b), 716.06, 150

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte PepperBall Technologies, Inc. 90/008,728 6,393,992 ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: PEPPERBALL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JAMES A. PINTO, ESQ. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, P.C. EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R