Wednesday July 21, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Delaney 11/165,564 MILLS 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP
Examiner Name:
SOROUSH, ALI

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Imori et al 10/482,092 KIMLIN non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS
Examiner Name:
BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Barsness et al 11/082,925 COURTENAY 112(2)/103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
Examiner Name:
RADTKE, MARK A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Yoneya et al 10/070,908 BAUMEISTER 102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
NGUYEN, HOAN C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hirose 10/860,762 PATE III 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN
Examiner Name:
KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Gardner et al 10/727,779 GRIMES 112(1)/102(e)/102(a)/103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC
Examiner Name:
BERTAGNA, ANGELA MARIE

Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lenk 10/887,438 COURTENAY 102(b) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE ASSOCIATES PC
Examiner Name:
PARK, ILWOO

“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, "each claim does not necessarily cover every feature disclosed in the specification. When the claim discloses only some of the features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the claim to other, unclaimed features." Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenics Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

REEXAMINATION

ex parte

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte Charak, LLC,Appellant 90/009,162 6,537,976 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: PRICE, HENEVELD, COOPER, DEWITT & LITTON, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WAYNE S. BREYER DEMONT & BREYER, LLC
Examiner Name:
HUANG, EVELYN MEI

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Alkazemi
Ex Parte Bensussan et al
Ex Parte Brundage et al
Ex Parte Morooka et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Archie
Ex Parte Jalil et al
Ex Parte Lin-Hendel

REEXAMINATION

Ex parte BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Aquino et al
Ex Parte Babic et al
Ex Parte Clark et al
Ex Parte Crawford et al
Ex Parte FISHER et al
Ex Parte Hayashi
Ex Parte Miller et al
RUHOFF.pdf
Ex Parte Seghatol et al
Ex Parte Takayama et al
Ex Parte Vishik et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Ayala et al
Ex Parte Hayashi
Ex Parte Lin-Hendel