kao, dillon

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Graf 11/192,938 MORGAN 102(b)/102(a) SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC EXAMINER FLEURANTIN, JEAN B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Schlecht 10/892,390 PETRAVICK 102(b)/103(a) VINSON & ELKINS, L.L.P. EXAMINER MAGUIRE, LINDSAY M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Gorelik 10/725,116 MORGAN 103(a) Dr. Victor Gorelik EXAMINER LOUIE, OSCAR A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Ging et al 11/080,446 SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
ACUSHNET COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. Patents of CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,122; 95/000,120; 95/000,121; & 95/000,123 6,506,130 B2; 6,210,293 B1; 6,503,156 B1; & 6,595,873 B2 DELMENDO 103(a) Patent Owner: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH & RICHARDSON PC Third-Party Requester: CLINTON H. BRANNON MAYER BROWN LLP

In re Kao, 2011 WL 1832537 * 10 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“This is not a case where the Board relied on an unknown property of prior art for a teaching. Rather, Maloney’s express teachings render the claimed controlled release oxymorphone formulation obvious, and the claimed ‘food effect’ adds nothing of patentable consequence.”). Further on this point, we think that the following guidance from In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), is instructive:

This court, in reconsidering this case in banc, reaffirms that structural similarity between claimed and prior art subject matter, proved by combining references or otherwise, where the prior art gives reason or motivation to make the claimed compositions, creates a prima facie case of obviousness, and that the burden (and opportunity) then falls on an applicant to rebut that prima facie case. Such rebuttal or argument can consist of a comparison of test data showing that the claimed compositions possess unexpectedly improved properties or properties that the prior art does not have . . . . There is no question that all evidence of the properties of the claimed compositions and the prior art must be considered in determining the ultimate question of patentability, but it is also clear that the discovery that a claimed composition possesses a property not disclosed for the prior art subject matter, does not by itself defeat a prima facie case.

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145
REHEARING

DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
PENTEL CO., LTD. and PENTEL OF AMERICA, LTD. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of BENJAMIN J. KWITEK Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,399 6,447,190 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ADAMS AND WILKS EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Gentle 10/667,110 DANG 103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Park et al 10/662,406 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP EXAMINER SHERMAN, STEPHEN G

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Jaranson et al 11/530,067 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) EXAMINER DUNN, DAVID R

3687 Ex Parte Watson et al 10/555,914 KIM 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER CRAWLEY, TALIA F

NEW

REVERSED

1767 Ex Parte Borke et al 11/717,944 MILLS 103(a) LyondellBasell Industries EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2812 Ex Parte Tsakalakos et al 10/273,926 HAHN 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER MULPURI, SAVITRI

AFFIRMED

2816 Ex Parte Chan et al 11/054,310 SAADAT 103(a) Richard Lau INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER TRA, ANH QUAN

1644 Ex Parte Goldenberg et al 11/534,124 FREDMAN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP EXAMINER SCHWADRON, RONALD B

1761 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/957,759 MILLS 103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

2629 Ex Parte Kambayashi 11/068,144 SAADAT 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER PERVAN, MICHAEL

2182 Ex Parte Klein 10/424,206 HUGHES 102(e) Dorsey & Whitney LLP-IP Dept.-MTI EXAMINER PARK, ILWOO

1641 Ex Parte Rosenstein et al 11/117,825 FREDMAN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DO, PENSEE T

DISMISSED

2117 Ex Parte Dubey 11/437,420 Shaw new ground of rejection SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, STEVE N