REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Jackson et al 10/392,342 GREEN 103(a) ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC EXAMINER FISHER, ABIGAIL L
Ex Parte Molla et al 11/043,294 WALSH 103(a) QUARLES & BRADY LLP EXAMINER SKOWRONIK, KARLHEINZ R
Ex Parte West et al 11/211,174 GREEN 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER TON, THAIAN N
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Nakakado et al 11/180,170 OWENS 103(a) MARK D. SARALINO (GENERAL) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP Examiner Name: MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL
Ex Parte Lemmon et al 10/268,420 COLAIANNI 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K
Ex Parte Martin et al 10/940,327KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) MOSSMAN, KUMAR AND TYLER, PC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K
Ex Parte Heller 11/199,488OWENS 112(1) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER WALLENHORST, MAUREEN
Ex Parte Taniguchi et al 11/685,894 WARREN 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C
See, e.g., KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”); In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“hindsight” is inferred when the specific understanding or principal within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the modification of the prior art in order to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention has not been explained); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.”).
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04
Rouffet, In re, 149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . 1216.01
Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144.08
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Unger 09/835,991 HAIRSTON 103(a) Jonathan O OwensHaverstock & Owens LLP Examiner Name: LONSBERRY, HUNTER B
Ex Parte Cromer et al 10/742,500 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) Drigg, Hoag, Dauherty & Del Zoppo Co., L.P.A. EXAMINER MAIS, MARK A
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Henry 10/455,002 HAIRSTON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MCLEAN, NEIL R
Ex Parte Ellison 10/719,771 HAIRSTON 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER JAMAL, ALEXANDER
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Mauthe et al 10/746,854 LORIN 103(a) CHRISTOPHER M. GOFF (27839)ARMSTRONG TEASDALE Examiner Name: JEANTY, ROMAIN LLP
Ex Parte Szymbor et al 10/104,337 O’NEILL 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. Examiner Name: BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J
Ex Parte Beier 10/975,358 KERINS 112(1) CROWELL & MORING LLP Examiner Name: FENSTERMACHER, DAVID MORGAN
Where application drawings are contended to provide the written descriptive support for a claim element, “the proper test is whether the drawings [convey] with reasonable clarity to those of ordinary skill that [the inventor] had in fact invented the [invention] recited in [the] claims.” Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1566. See also Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”). Consideration of what the drawings convey to persons of ordinary skill in the art is essential. Ralston-Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
A patent drawing teaches all that it reasonably discloses and suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979).
Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181
Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 227 USPQ 177 (Fed. Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2163.02
Aslanian, In re, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2125
Ex Parte Gatta 11/559,099 BAHR, O’NEILL concurring 102(b) BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD.
Examiner Name: DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Chatenever et al 10/923,389 KERINS 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC
Examiner Name: LEUBECKER, JOHN P
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Lautenbach et al 10/502,697 WARREN 103(a) BASF CORPORATION
Examiner Name: KHAN, AMINA S
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Norsworthy et al 10/382,297 HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.
Examiner Name: BURD, KEVIN MICHAEL
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3714
BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Requester, Appellant v. Patent of IGT2 Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,279 6,832,958 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) APPELLANT / THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP RESPONDENT / PATENT OWNER: WEAVER, AUSTIN, VILLENEUVE & SAMPSON, LLP
Examiner Name: ENGLISH, PETER C
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3406
Ex parte GARY E. RHINE, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/005,694 4,910,652 LANE 103(a)
James F. Porcello, Jr. Emch Schaffer, Schaub and Porcello Co LPA Third Party Requester Scott Simpson Sills, Cummis & Gross, P.C.
Examiner Name: HUSAR, STEPHEN F
Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Wyers v. Master Lock Co., App. No. 2009-1412, 2010 WL 2901839, at *4 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2010).
Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.08
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3763
Ex parte VENETEC INTERNATIONAL, INC. (a subsidiary of C.R. BARD, INC.),Appellant 90/010,167 6,213,979 DELMENDO 102(b) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
Examiner Name: FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, a structure in the prior art (or infringing product) is “equivalent” to a structure described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed means if it “performs the claimed function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result as the corresponding structure . . .” Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “[S]tructures with different numbers of parts may still be equivalent under § 112, ¶ 6, thereby meeting the claim limitation.” Odetics, 185 F.3d at 1268.
Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 51 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2183, 2184
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Borthakur et al
Ex Parte Finkelshtain et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Samra et al
Ex Parte Schembri et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Alpert et al
Ex Parte Herrington et al
Ex Parte Bohm et al
Ex Parte Barreto et al
Ex Parte Corstjens et al
Ex Parte Creamer et al
Ex Parte Crombez et al
Ex Parte Edwards et al
Ex Parte Futa et al
Ex Parte Kalra
Ex Parte Nelson
Ex Parte Nye et al
Ex Parte Pierpont et al
Ex Parte Rader et al
Ex Parte Rosenbaum et al
Ex Parte Sako
Ex Parte Schluckwerder et al
Ex Parte Surjaatmadja et al
Ex Parte Todd
Ex Parte Yoneda et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Valint et al
No comments :
Post a Comment