1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Imaizumi et al 10/862,424 SCHEINER 103(a) CERMAK NAKAJIMA LLP ACS LLC Examiner Name: PROUTY, REBECCA E.
Ex Parte KABBANI et al 11/522,566 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) RATNERPRESTIA Examiner Name: KRISHNAN, GANAPATHY
1700 Chemical & Materials EngineeringEx Parte Berg et al 10/495,396 GAUDETTE 102(b) Gregory A Coury Bachman & LaPointe Examiner Name: KERNS, KEVIN P
Ex Parte Carvill et al 10/958,943 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, LLP Examiner Name: HAIDER, SAIRA BANO
Ex Parte Goldsmith et al 11/758,200 COLAIANNI 103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC Examiner Name: MENON, KRISHNAN S
As stated by the Federal Circuit,
[o]bviousness is determined as a matter of foresight, not hindsight. KSR did not free the PTO's examination process from explaining its reasoning. In making an obviousness rejection, the examiner should not rely on conclusory statements that a particular feature of the invention would have been obvious . . . Instead, the examiner should elaborate, discussing the evidence or reasoning that leads the examiner to such a conclusion. In re Vaidyanathan, 2010 WL 2000682, * 9 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (nonprecedential).
As stated in In re Herrick,
The form of the rejections would seem to indicate that many of the references were considered merely cumulative. . . . Are we to choose one individual rejection for each claim and turn the entire appeal on the correctness of those rejections? Or are we to work our way step-by-step through each rejection in the hope of finding one we can sustain? Neither alternative is satisfactory from the standpoint of the public interest. . . . We decline to substitute speculation as to the rejection for the greater certainty which should come from the Patent Office in a more definite statement of the grounds of the rejections. To the extent the references are truly cumulative, the examiner . . . can so indicate. If, on the other hand, all or most of the references are really necessary to meet the claims, the rejection can be made specific as to particular references.
344 F.2d 713, 716 (CPPA 1965).
See also, Ex parte Blanc, 13 USPQ2d 1383, 1384-85 (BPAI 1989) (Relying on Herrick for the proposition that the Examiner’s statement of the rejection was unclear because the number of rejections were too numerous and the Examiner failed to explain any one of the numerous rejections with any specificity, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences procedurally reversed the Examiner).
Blanc, Ex parte, 13 USPQ2d 1383 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . 716.02(c),2143.02
Ex Parte Merdan 10/190,975 TIMM 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CROMPTON, SEAGER & TUFTE, LLC Examiner Name: KERNS, KEVIN PEx Parte NG et al 10/017,488 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) Mark G. Bocchetti Eastman Kodak Company Examiner Name: Burney, Rachel L
Ex Parte Schmid et al 10/696,394 COLAIANNI 103(a) HEWLETT-PACHARD COMPANY Examiner Name: SHAH, MANISH S.
Ex Parte Williams et al 10/604,790 COLAIANNI 103(a) MCGARRY BAIR CO. Examiner Name: DOUYON, LORNA M.
Ex Parte Witty et al 11/287,841 PAK 103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC Examiner Name: D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P
Ex Parte Zeuner et al 11/151,153 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
Examiner Name: MCDONOUGH, JAMES E
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Gregory 10/749,525 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Examiner Name: KASSA, HILINA S.
Ex Parte Ahmavaara 10/874,424 MARTIN 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP Examiner Name: CAI, WAYNE HUU
Ex Parte Belk 10/694,074 HAIRSTON 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P Examiner Name: YENKE, BRIAN P.
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Lee et al 10/874,144 KRIVAK 103(a) ELLIOT B. ARONSON Examiner Name: SAWHNEY, HARGOBIND S
Ex Parte GARDINER et al 11/226,829 HANLON 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY Examiner Name: VALENTIN, JUAN D
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Cognigni et al 11/227,027 CRAWFORD 102(b) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC Examiner Name: LE, LOAN T.
Ex Parte Delago 10/786,202 PATE III 103(a) Stuart R. Hemphill, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP Examiner Name: BRAHAN, THOMAS J
Ex Parte Hope 10/033,518 PATE III 112(2)/103(a) Kenneth J. LuKacher, Esq. Examiner Name: REDMAN, JERRY E
Ex Parte Jollie et al 09/974,377 CRAWFORD 102(e)/103(a) FREDERICK W. GIBB, III Gibb Intellectual Property Law Firm, LLC Examiner Name: BOYCE, ANDRE D.
Ex Parte Pirro et al PATE III 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC Examiner Name: KRAMER, JAMES A
Ex Parte Smith et al 11/031,457 PATE III 103(a) ROBERT PLATT BELL Examiner Name: PIPALA, EDWARD J.
Ex Parte Stefanic et al 10/998,147 PATE III 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. Examiner Name: LUGO, CARLOS
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Bodmeier 10/192,575 McCARTHY Concurring BAHR 102(e)/102(b) INNOVAR, L.L.C. Examiner Name: WITCZAK, CATHERINE
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Barry et al 11/127,499 SPIEGEL nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP Examiner Name: BROWN, COURTNEY A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Satlow 10/078,780 DIXON 102(e) HOWARD IP LAW GROUP Examiner Name: PHAM, KHANH B
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Rajsic 10/814,330 HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. Examiner Name: MOORE JR, MICHAEL J
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Bez et al 11/045,170 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Gerbera/BSTZBlakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP Examiner Name: GOODWIN, DAVID J
Ex Parte Wahlstrom 11/281,031 BAUMEISTER 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC Examiner Name: PAYNE, SHARON E
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Cowelchuk et al 10/904,010 CRAWFORD 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP (LEAR) Examiner Name: BLANKENSHIP, GREGORY A
Ex Parte Hansen 11/114,911 CRAWFORD 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP Examiner Name: MAGUIRE, LINDSAY M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Weber 10/084,857 PATE III 102(e)/103(a) BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC Examiner Name: BUI, VY Q
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3615
Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant 90/010,106 5,921,855 ROBERTSON 103(a)
Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant2 90/010,107 6,520,847 ROBERTSON 103(a)
Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant3 90/010,108 6,699,115 ROBERTSON 103(a)
Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant4 90/010,109 6,824,455 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER:APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORGAN S. HELLER, II DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN, PLLC Examiner Name: ENGLISH, PETER C
REMANDED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3712
Ex parte MUZZY PRODUCTS CORPORATION Appellant 90/008,081 6,780,079 SONG 103(a) For the Patent Owner: BRIGGS AND MORGAN P.A. For the Third Party Requester: HOLLAND & HART, LLP Examiner Name: CLARKE, SARA SACHIE
"[A]n 'argument already decided by the Office, whether during the original examination or an earlier reexamination' cannot raise a new question of patentability . . . . As [the Federal Circuit] explained in In re Recreative Technologies Corp., the substantial new question requirement 'guard[s] against simply repeating the prior examination on the same issues and arguments' and bars 'a second examination, on the identical ground that had previously been raised and overcome.'" Id. (Citations omitted). "Determining the scope of an examiner's previous consideration of a reference will generally require an analysis of the record of the prior proceedings to determine if and how the examiner used the reference in making his initial decisions . . . . While the standard is more flexible than before [the 2002 amendment to § 303], we are mindful that Congress intended that the courts continue to 'judiciously interpret the 'substantial new question' standard to prevent cases of abusive tactics and harassment of patentees through reexamination.'" Id. at 1380-81 (citing H.R.Rep.No. 107-120, at 3).
Recreative Technologies, In re, 83 F.3d 1394, 38 USPQ2d 1776 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 2242, 2246, 2642, 2646
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Bruckner et al
09/859,114 HOFF 102(e)/103(a)
Ex Parte King et al
11/225,601 PATE III 103(a) MOTOROLA INC
Ex Parte Lillie et al
10/334,521 MARTIN 102(e) MOTOROLA, INC.
Ex Parte Ng et al
11/417,488 OWENS 102(b)/103(a)
3693
Ex Parte Pirro et al
10/893,396 PATE III 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MICHAEL C. POPHAL
EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC EXAMINER
KRAMER, JAMES A
Ex Parte Stearns et al
11/439,758 SMITH 103(a)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Singh et al
11/455,671 COLAIANNI 103(a)
Ex Parte Yoon
10/667,383 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a)
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Blamires et al
10/620,364 SAADAT 103(a)
1716
Ex Parte Chen et al
10/770,737 WARREN 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER
HILTON, ALBERT
1611
Ex Parte Focht et al
10/665,670 PRATS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER
CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA
Ex Parte Galligan et al
10/376,836 KIMLIN 103(a)
2626
Ex Parte Helbing
10/496,548 HOFF 103(a) Philips Electronics North America Corporation EXAMINER
LERNER, MARTIN
Ex Parte Henning et al
10/117,655 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C
Ex Parte Hofrichter et al
Ex Parte Hoy
Ex Parte Jeddeloh
Ex Parte Jelenc
Ex Parte Kajiya et al
Ex Parte Kozubal et al
Ex Parte Kruse
Ex Parte Lewis
Ex Parte Matzdorf et al
Ex Parte Matzdorf et al
Ex Parte Mekala et al
Ex Parte McElray et al
Ex Parte Naud et al
Ex Parte Nickerson et al
Ex Parte O'DONNELL
Ex Parte Penna et al
Ex Parte Persky
Ex Parte Raikar
Ex Parte Rees
Ex Parte Reisinger
Ex Parte SANTHOFF et al
Ex Parte Shah et al
Ex Parte Stoiber et al
Ex Parte Ting et al
Ex Parte Tucker et al
Ex Parte Walter
Ex Parte Watts et al
Ex Parte Yanagita et al
Ex Parte York
Ex Parte Zetterholm et al
No comments :
Post a Comment