SEARCH

PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Thursday, May 5, 2011

oetiker, unique concepts, texas instruments, paulsen, intellicall

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Baumann et al 09/819,462 KIM 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER MILEF, ELDA G

See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (during examination, the examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness); Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). ... See Texas Instr. Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (claim language cannot be mere surplusage. An express limitation cannot be read out of the claim); Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d at 1563.

Oetiker, In re, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .707.07(f), 716.01(d), 1504.01(a), 2106, 2107.02, 2142, 2145, 2164.07

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . 716.04

3694 Ex Parte Zhang 09/895,690 KIM 112(1)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MERCHANT, SHAHID R

See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” and, if done, must “set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).

Paulsen, In re, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . .716.03, 2106, 2144.08

Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 21 USPQ2d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1992). . . . . . . .2111.01, 2181

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 Ex Parte Bendall et al 10/768,761 ZECHER 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP EXAMINER SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART REVERSED-IN-PART 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3735 ABBOTT DIABETES CARE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of DEXCOM, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,038 7,276,029 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Third-Party Requester: JACKSON & CO., LLP EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSEN & BEAR, LLP original EXAMINER MALLARI, PATRICIA C
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Scarpelli et al 10/873,870 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Joglekar et al 11/292,770 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) Caven & Aghevli LLC c/o CPA Global EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Borrego Bel et al 10/707,922 FRAHM 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION EXAMINER PARRIES, DRU M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Ampunan et al 11/062,404 HOELTER 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER MUSTAFA, IMRAN K

3685 Ex Parte Drummond et al 10/980,209 KIM 103(a) RALPH E. JOCKE Walker & Jocke EXAMINER KIM, STEVEN S


NEW

AFFIRMED

2165 Ex Parte Tang et al 10/705,932 BLANKENSHIP 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HICKS, MICHAEL J

3652 Ex Parte Wright et al 10/611,167 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER ADAMS, GREGORY W

No comments :