Friday August 6, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Zimmerman et al 11/485,945 ADAMS 103(a) BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON & LIONE Examiner Name: SOROUSH, LAYLA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Porter et al 10/429,533 LORIN 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG Examiner Name: ANDERSON, FOLASHADE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Alexander et al 10/835,482 COURTENAY 101/102(b) IBM CORP. (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC Examiner Name: RIAD, AMINE

Ex Parte Day et al 10/860,403 BARRY 103(a) MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC Examiner Name: GOFMAN, ALEX N

"The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In determining obviousness, furthermore, a reference "must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). Regarding the prior art as a whole, "'[e]very patent application and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that [which is] disclosed . . . .'" In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons "must be presumed to know something" about the art "apart from what the references disclose." In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962).

Young, In re, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145

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

Wiggins, In re, 488 F.2d 538, 179 USPQ 421 (CCPA 1973) . . . . .2121.02, 2131.04, 2173.02, 2173.05(b)

Ex Parte Lora et al 10/784,605 COURTENAY 101/103(a) IBM CORPORATION IPLAW SHCB/40-3 Examiner Name: SAEED, USMAAN

Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.”).

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . 2131.01, 2145

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Lancaster et al 11/473,391 EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. Examiner Name: BARBEE, MANUEL L
The material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit an apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) (“Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”).

Thibault, Ex parte, 164 USPQ 666 (Bd. App. 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Sachs 10/967,795 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION Examiner Name: BASTIANELLI, JOHN

REEXAMINATION

DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1308
Ex parte RF DELAWARE, INC., Appellant 90/006,832 5,198,124 DELMENDO 305 FOR PATENT OWNER: MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: HUGHES LAW FIRM, PLLC Examiner Name: DIAMOND, ALAN D

Cf. Clarification on the Procedure for Seeking Review of a Finding of a Substantial New Question of Patentability in Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings, 75 Fed. Reg. 36357 (June 25, 2010) (delegating Director’s authority to review issues related to an examiner’s determination that a reference raises a substantial new question of patentability to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, who may further delegate such authority to a panel of administrative patent judges, and explaining that petitions to vacate an ex parte reexamination order as ultra vires are not decided by the Board).

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1308
Ex parte RF DELAWARE, INC., Appellant 90/006,844 5,314,630 DELMENDO 305
FOR PATENT OWNER: MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: HUGHES LAW FIRM, PLLC Examiner Name: DIAMOND, ALAN D

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Presley
Ex Parte Seaman et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Eo et al
Ex Parte Konya et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Balogh et al
Ex Parte Fuchs et al
Ex Parte Maurer
Ex Parte Poltorak