REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Murthy 11/400,384 GRIMES 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER KARPINSKI, LUKE E
1653 Ex Parte Metters et al 11/034,437 GREEN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER SINGH, SATYENDRA K
In addition, “[u]nless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Hasegawa et al 11/221,853 TIMM 103(a) CLARK & BRODY EXAMINER LUK, VANESSA TIBAY
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Wolfe et al 10/662,683 McCARTHY 103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP EXAMINER PHAN, THIEM D
3734 Ex Parte Szabo 10/985,800 SAINDON 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Malik et al 10/264,393 PAK 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER SONG, MATTHEW J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Woltman et al 11/408,324 SAINDON 103(a) 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M
see also Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”); Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”).
3788 Ex Parte Goodrich et al 11/027,066 SILVERBERG dissenting-in-part BARRETT 102(a)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3742 Ex Parte 6,501,906 et al 95/000,372 09/994,032 ZOBELE ESPANA, S.A. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of C.T.R. CONSULTORIA TECNICA E REPRESENTACOES LDA Patent Owner and Appellant LEBOVITZ 103(a) MCCRACKEN & FRANK LLC EXAMINER WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3747 Ex Parte 6511509 et al 90/009,348 09/073,877 Ex parte DEPUY MOTECH ACROMED, INC. and LIFENET HEALTH Appellants, Patent Owners SONG 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 102(b)/102(e) For Patent Owner: Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP For Third Party Requester: Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN original EXAMINER HIRSCH, PAUL J
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Weeks et al 11/557,037 PAK 103(a) Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP EXAMINER DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR
1746 Ex Parte Broberg et al 10/722,575 KRATZ dissenting-in-part NAGUMO 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L
When the phrase “consisting of” occurs in the body of the claim, it limits only the element set forth in that
clause. Mannesmann DeMag Corp. v. Engineered Metal Products Co., Inc., 793 F.2d 1279, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Mannesmann Demag Corp. v. Engineered Metal Products Co., 793 F.2d 1279, 230 USPQ 45 (Fed. Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03
1762 Ex Parte Drzal et al 11/435,471 GAUDETTE concurring NAGUMO 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS
1777 Ex Parte Antwiler 11/769,579 SMITH 103(a) CaridianBCT, Inc. EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S
1798 Ex Parte Wang et al 11/287,788 OWENS dissenting NAGUMO 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Schaefer 10/806,868 SMITH 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER VO, TED T
2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Walls et al 11/135,815 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHAUHAN, ULKA J
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Park et al 10/872,495 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC EXAMINER SNOW, COLLEEN ERIN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Kempe 10/682,083 SAINDON 103(a) OYEN, WIGGS, GREEN & MUTALA LLP EXAMINER MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE
REHEARING
GRANTED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,501 HOFF obviousness-type double patenting obviousness-type double patenting SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C
SEARCH
PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Li & Cai
Friday, October 28, 2011
interactive gift, medichem, winner int'l, mannesmann
Labels:
interactive gift
,
mannesmann
,
medichem
,
winner int'l
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
No comments :
Post a Comment