REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Bayer et al 10/538,519 OWENS 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER SAAD, ERIN BARRY

1733 Ex Parte Brodt et al 10/527,721 GAUDETTE 102(e)/103(a) PATENT CENTRAL LLC Stephan A. Pendorf EXAMINER YANG, JIE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Pagan 10/602,425 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Chiu 10/180,170 DIXON 103(a) Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K

2481 Ex Parte Nishikawa et al 11/059,808 HAHN 102(e)/103(a) Dickstein Shapiro LLP EXAMINER CHIO, TAT CHI

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Lyon et al 11/284,494 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LABBEES, EDNY

2629 Ex Parte Credelle et al 10/455,925 KRIVAK 103(a) Innovation Counsel LLP EXAMINER XIAO, KE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Ball 10/290,778 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. EXAMINER COOLMAN, VAUGHN

3634 Ex Parte Belokin et al 11/367,741 O’NEILL 103(a) JACK A. KANZ EXAMINER RAMSEY, JEREMY C

In relying on a combination of prior art references, the Examiner’s proposed modification cannot render a prior art reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144.08

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Carstens 11/311,774 SONG 103(a) Hasse & Nesbitt LLC EXAMINER TOMPKINS, ALISSA JILL

3716 Ex Parte Mincey et al 11/129,038 McCARTHY 103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K

3711 Ex Parte Rooney 11/230,208 McCARTHY 103(a) DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC EXAMINER CEGIELNIK, URSZULA M

3761 Ex Parte Van Gompel et al 10/325,500 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER CHAPMAN, GINGER T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Guthrie et al 11/056,721 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. EXAMINER SAVLA, ARPAN P

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Hauer et al 10/684,464 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

REEXAMINATION

REQUEST FOR REHEARING GRANTED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1753 Ex parte CIMA LABORATORIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 90/007,684 and 90/008,133 6,042,981 LEBOVITZ Concurring TIERNEY LANE 102(a,e,b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER RODEE, CHRISTOPHER D

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1615 KV PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. Patent of CIMA LABORATORIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,160 6,221,392 LEBOVITZ Concurring TIERNEY LANE 314(a)/112(1)/112(2)/102(a,e,b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER SPEAR, JAMES M

REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3752 Ex parte RPM SOLUTIONS, INC. 90/007,333 6,659,375 SONG 112/102 CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD. cc Third Party Requester: Edward J. Kondracki MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original EXAMINER EVANS, ROBIN OCTAVIA

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Doyle et al 11/595,530 MILLS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANYEXAMINER GITOMER, RALPH J

1634 Ex Parte Uhlmann et al 10/823,784 GRIMES 103(a) JOYCE VON NATZMER PEQUIGNOT + MYERS LLC EXAMINER SHAW, AMANDA MARIE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Pushpavanam et al 11/019,943 HANLON 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Shepard et al 10/610,534 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER QUELER, ADAM M

2192 Ex Parte Barman et al 10/112,695 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) Charles D. McClung Chernoff, Vilhauer, McClung & Stenzel, LLP EXAMINER DAO, THUY CHAN

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the on-sale bar is triggered if the invention is both (1) the subject of a commercial offer for sale not primarily for experimental purposes, and (2) ready for patenting. Pfaff v. Wells Elec., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 67 (1998); see also MPEP § 2133.03(b), 8th ed., Rev. 7, July 2008. Traditional contract law principles are applied when determining whether a commercial offer for sale has occurred. See Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2001), petition for cert. filed, 71 USLW 3093 (Jul. 03, 2002) (No. 02-39); Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The Federal Circuit in Group One noted that “[o]nly an offer which rises to the level of a commercial offer for sale, one which the other party could make into a binding contract by simple acceptance (assuming consideration), constitutes an offer for sale under §102(b).” 254 F.3d at 1048.

Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 48 USPQ2d 1641 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . 706.02(l)(2), 2133.03(b), 2133.03(c), 2163, 2163.02

Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040, 61 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . .2133.03(b)

Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 59 USPQ2d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2001).. . . . 2133.03(b)

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3737 Ex Parte Kenny 11/134,011 McCARTHY 101/112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Bernard S. Hoffman EXAMINER SMITH, RUTH S

3763 Ex Parte Lebel et al 09/768,196 STAICOVICI 103(a) Foley & Lardner LLP EXAMINER
DESANTO, MATTHEW F

3751 Ex Parte Toscano et al 11/175,661 McCARTHY 103(a) International Truck Intellectual Property Company EXAMINER ARNETT, NICOLAS ALLEN

REHEARING DENIED

2600 Communications

2617 Ex Parte Heidloff et al 10/989,037 RUGGIERO 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER CAI, WAYNE HUU