van ornum, fallaux, cybersource

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Gerder-Kallisch et al 11243584 - (D) MILLS 102/103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC LIN, JERRY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Olds et al 10970424 - (D) WINSOR 103 HolzerIPLaw, P.C. LI, ZHUO H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Kim et al 09766473 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP AILES, BENJAMIN A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Woyzichovski 10501310 - (D) SMITH 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP BOCURE, TESFALDET

2617 Ex Parte Moganti 11026498 - (D) CALDWELL 102 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP RAMPURIA, SHARAD K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Tiramani 10653523 - (D) JUNG 103 112(2)/103 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellot, LLC CHAPMAN, JEANETTE E

3676 Ex Parte Vick et al 11409518 - (D) SCANLON 102/103 102/103 SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C. BOMAR, THOMAS S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Bergersen 10447099 - (D) McCARTHY 102 102 PATENTS+TMS, P.C. EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Birnbaum 11523508 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP RIDER, LANCE W

1638 Ex Parte Stomp et al 11590071 - (D) PRATS obviousness-type double patenting MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC ZHENG, LI

We are also not persuaded that the present fact situation, in which the two sets of conflicting claims are separately owned, precludes an obviousness-type double patenting rejection grounded in the possibility of harassment by multiple assignees. It may be true that issuance of the instant application would not result in unjustified timewise extension of patent rights.

However, in In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982), in a fact situation similar to that presented here, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals affirmed an obviousness-type double patenting rejection over a patent with a common inventor, despite a lack of common ownership. The court reasoned there that the concern over potential harassment of an infringer by multiple assignees asserting essentially the same patented invention outweighed the applicant‟s inability to proffer a terminal disclaimer tying together ownership of the application and conflicting patent. Id. at 944-48.

Van Ornum, In re, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . 804, 804.02

In In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313 (2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the Van Ornum rationale:

The harassment justification for obviousness-type double patenting is particularly pertinent here because the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents are not commonly owned. If the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents were commonly owned, the terminal disclaimer filed in this case would have been effective to overcome the double patenting rejection. We note that this defect was of the applicant‟s creation as through assignment it allowed ownership of the applications to be divided among different entities.

Id. at 1319 (footnote omitted).

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Ramachandran et al 11561868 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX CAMPBELL, NATASHA N.

1729 Ex Parte Budinski et al 11227771 - (D) KATZ 103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Frey et al 10040799 - (D) DANG 103 IBM Corporation John R. Pivnichny, Ph.D CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

2179 Ex Parte Celik 10233551 - (D) BLANKENSHIP 103 APPLE INC. c/o BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC HUYNH, BA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Numao et al 10600547 - (D) SMITH 103 LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR) TOLENTINO, RODERICK

2493 Ex Parte Whittaker et al 09952208 - (D) DIXON 112(1) 112(1)/103 IP STRATEGIES COLIN, CARL G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Morton 11876019 - (D) COURTENAY 103 GARLICK & MARKISON ALAM, FAYYAZ

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Cybulski et al 11173955 - (D) RUGGIERO 102 CYMER INC PARK, KINAM

2835 Ex Parte Hanks 09946130 - (D) COURTENAY 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DINH, TUAN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte O'SULLIVAN 11318972 - (D) TURNER 101/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP LAN, TZU-HSIANG

See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding method for verifying the validity of a credit card transaction over the Internet to be non-statutory as an abstract idea capable of being performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.)

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Aranyi et al 11728699 - (D) WALSH 103 Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien SONNETT, KATHLEEN C

3734 Ex Parte Patel et al 11466202 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Roche Diagnostics Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP YABUT, DIANE D

3767 Ex Parte Fitzgerald et al 12181673 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated BOSQUES, EDELMIRA

3775 Ex Parte Roman et al 11402319 - (D) CAPP 103 Harness Dickey & Pierce (Biomet) WAGGLE, JR, LARRY E  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Jensen et al 10723423 - (D) ADAMS 103 VIKSNINS HARRIS & PADYS PLLP KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 GLOBAL LOCATE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant v. SiRF TECHNOLOGY INC. Requester 95001377 6,417,801 09/715,860 COCKS 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. ENGLISH, PETER C original BLUM, THEODORE M