tokai, ormco

REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/15/2011 2836 Ex Parte Henderson 10/925,759 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/15/2011 3628 Ex Parte Bowman et al 10/998,834 MOHANTY 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SALIARD, SHANNON S

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/15/2011 3992 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. 90/008,150 6,020,942 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner: MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP Third party Requester: Bruce K. Lagerman LAGERMAN AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H

Under these circumstances, any commercial success stems from what was known in the prior art so that there can be no nexus. Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If commercial
success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.”); Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[I]f the feature that creates the commercial success was known in the prior art, the success is not pertinent.”).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/15/2011 3991 Ex parte PFIZER, INC. Appellant 90/008,751 6,846,477 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: PFIZER, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MERIAL LIMITED EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/15/2011 1727 Ex Parte Sienkowski et al 11/764,074 TIMM 102(e)/103(a)/provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EXAMINER ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

2600 Communications
07/18/2011 2618 Ex Parte Kinoshita 10/225,289 SMITH 112(1)/103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/15/2011 2821 Ex Parte Gibboney 11/269,994 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) NEXSEN PRUET, LLC EXAMINER VU, JIMMY T