Tuesday October 26, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Kim 11/033,707 GARRIS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER RIGGLEMAN, JASON PAUL

Ex Parte Konishi et al 10/854,238 GARRIS 103(a) HAUPTMAN KANESAKA & BERNER EXAMINER BAND, MICHAEL A

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Irby et al 10/404,468 HAIRSTON 103(a) MARY M. LEE, P.C. EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Apps et al 11/475,315 BAHR 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gunder 11/648,463 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER ROSE, ROBERT A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Fowler et al 09/935,884 FISCHETTI 103(a) OGILVY RENAULT LLP EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D

Appellants argue that “the Examiner has been engaged in piecemeal examination of the Application” (Appeal Br. 27). This argument relates to a petitionable matter and not to an appealable matter, because it relates to the manner in which examination has been conducted. See In re Schneider, 481 F.2d 1350, 1356-57 (CCPA 1973) and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967). See also the MPEP § 1003 (“All unusual questions of practice may be referred to the Technology Center Directors”) and MPEP §§ 1002.02(c)(3) and 1201.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hasse et al 10/653,836 SONG 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3736
Ex parte ARTEMIS MEDICAL, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,995 6,699,205 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: THOMPSON HINE, L.L.P. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOUGLAS R. HANSCOM JONES, TULLAR & COOPER, P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER SZMAL, BRIAN SCOTT

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2811
Ex parte SEMICONDCUTOR ENERGY LABORATORY CO., LTD., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,872 6,424,008 TURNER 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C. EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER MUNSON, GENE M

Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly crossed through citations of a properly submitted Information Disclosure Statement (Br. 28-29). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s decision to cross out specific citations was not related to the Rules, but instead is concerned with the subsequent publication (id.).

We do not find this line of argument, however, to raise any issue that can be decided on appeal. The actions of the Examiner in such a matter are not within our purview. In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 232-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The Board has no jurisdiction for matters within the discretion of the examiner and not tantamount to a rejection of claims).

Watkinson, In re, 900 F.2d 230, 14 USPQ2d 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . .1201, 1412.01, 1457

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Black 10/761,088 EXAMINER GILLIS, BRIAN J
Ex Parte Cherkas et al 09/900,485 EXAMINER CHENCINSKI, SIEGFRIED E
Ex Parte Cooper 11/901,091 EXAMINER LAIOS, MARIA J
Ex Parte Gabriel et al 10/627,002 EXAMINER NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A
Ex Parte Kim et al 10/727,714 EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D
Ex Parte Ling et al 10/802,199 EXAMINER HASSAN, AURANGZEB
Ex Parte Needham et al 09/878,023 EXAMINER COULTER, KENNETH R
Ex Parte Silverstein 10/698,926 EXAMINER VIEAUX, GARY C
Ex Parte Travelute et al 10/813,893 EXAMINER VO, HAI
Ex Parte Weigert et al 11/012,982 EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P