Thursday October 21, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Whiteman 10/395,424 FREDMAN 103(a) JONATHAN P. TAYLOR, PH.D. BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER BARNHART, LORA ELIZABETH

It is improper to base a conclusion of obviousness upon facts gleaned only through hindsight. “To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction— an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc, v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).

W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Anderson 10/801,756 HUGHES 102(b) V. Gerald Grafe, esq. The Grafe Law Office, P.C. EXAMINER PARKER, BRANDON

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gould 10/261,245 McCARTHY 102(a)/103(a) THE MARBURY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER LEIVA, FRANK M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Eino 10/150,945 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER VO, TUNG T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Fitzgerald et al 10/247,980 MOHANTY 103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER RANGREJ, SHEETAL

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2785
Ex parte GraphOn, Inc. 90/009,059 6,061,798 LEE 102(b) Patent Owner LEWIS AND ROCA LLP Third Party Requester: David C. McPhie IRELL & MANELLA LLP EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original EXAMINER ELMORE, STEPHEN C

During prosecution before the USPTO, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (reexamination). Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the USPTO should only limit the claim based on the specification when it expressly disclaims the broader definition. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325.

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2141.01(a)

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . .715, 2106, 2111.01, 2111.03, 2138, 2171, 2173.05(a), 2181, 2286, 2686.04

Yamamoto, In re, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir.1984) . . . . . . . . . . . .2258

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Dinh et al 10/631,057 EXAMINER TRAN, QUOC A
Ex Parte Feiste et al 11/252,410 EXAMINER VICARY, KEITH E
Ex Parte Hyser 10/638,008 EXAMINER PATEL, NIRAV B
Ex Parte McGurk et al 10/246,751 EXAMINER CORDERO GARCIA, MARCELA M
Ex Parte Odedra 11/443,601 EXAMINER LU, FRANK WEI MIN
Ex Parte Stanford et al 11/252,547 EXAMINER THOMAS, LUCY M