REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte SHINOHARA 11/682,188 HANLON 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER CAMERON, ERMA C
1733 Ex Parte Asahi et al 10/410,014 HASTINGS 103(a)/112(2) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL
Furthermore, a lack of antecedent basis is not per se a reason for finding a claim indefinite. “In Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) the court held that despite the absence of explicit antecedent basis, ‘[i]f the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.”’ Energizer Holdings Inc. v. International Trade Com’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Antecedent basis can be present by implication. See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 61 USPQ2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . 2173.05
Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . 2173.05(e)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Freund et al 11/220,015 SILVERBERG 102(b)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER PAYER, HWEI SIU CHOU
3737 Ex Parte Davis et al 10/942,115 O’NEILL 103(a) Bell & Manning, LLC EXAMINER LAURITZEN, AMANDA L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Buchalter 11/237,438 FREDMAN 103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER BECKHARDT, LYNDSEY MARIE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Viviano 11/453,657 SAINDON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) FLOYD B. CAROTHERS CAROTHERS AND CAROTHERS EXAMINER CAJILIG, CHRISTINE T
Because a dependent claim includes all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends, the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 9 is obvious is also a conclusion that claim 1 is obvious for the same reasons. See Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (when a dependent claim is “found to have been obvious, the broader claims . . . must also have been obvious”).
3637 Ex Parte Becke et al 10/816,371 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER WILKENS, JANET MARIE
3663 Ex Parte Blaudin De The 10/583,626 BROWN 112(2)/103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Srinivasan 10/997,338 O’NEILL 103(a) Mark D. Sarallno Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP EXAMINER LAURITZEN, AMANDA L
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2656; 3711 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 EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER GORDEN, RAEANN EXAMINER GRAHAM, MARK S
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2301 Ex parte Clear With Computers, LLC Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,185 5,367,627 TURNER 102(b) Hershkovitz & Associates, LLC EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER BAYERL, RAYMOND J
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Ikawa et al 10/377,799 WALSH 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER NAFF, DAVID M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Hargett 10/249,011 GARRIS 103(a) SUMMA, ADDITON & ASHE, P.A. EXAMINER HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA
1796 Ex Parte CREWS et al 12/039,205 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC EXAMINER FIGUEROA, JOHN J
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Shear 10/042,260 DESHPANDE 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R
2185 Ex Parte Brown et al 11/002,560 DANG 103(a) DILLON & YUDELL LLP EXAMINER AYASH, MARWAN
2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Hatin et al 11/225,558 SAADAT 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER LIANG, REGINA
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Imundo et al 09/853,945 CHEN 103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER COZART, JERMIE E
[A]n admission of prior art can be relied upon for an obviousness determination, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 66 USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . .706.02, 2129, 2141.01
3769 Ex Parte Knopp et al 10/124,891 CHEN 103(a)/judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER SHAY, DAVID M
REHEARING
DENIED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte DelRegno et al 10/860,803 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER AHMED, SALMAN
NEW
REVERSED
3753 Ex Parte Lang et al 10/487,330 STAICOVICI 103(a) American Air Liquide, Inc. EXAMINER RIVELL, JOHN A
3744 Ex Parte Mayer et al 11/074,682 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 102(b) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3765 Ex Parte Franke et al 10/954,656 SILVERBERG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER TOMPKINS, ALISSA JILL
3735 Ex Parte Guenst et al 10/804,391 SILVERBERG 103(a) Medtronic CardioVascular EXAMINER LACYK, JOHN P
AFFIRMED
1628 Ex Parte Arduini 10/343,626 FREDMAN 102(b) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R
1628 Ex Parte Liversidge et al 11/376,553 GREEN 103(a) Fox Rothschild, LLP EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L
3652 Ex Parte Weiss 10/610,545 STAICOVICI 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER FOX, CHARLES A
No comments :
Post a Comment