bozek, mintz, perfect web, paperless

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Maguire et al 11876965 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL MOHADDES, LADAN

1734 Ex Parte Eckhardt et al 10257760 - (D) HASTINGS 112(2)/103 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. FELTON, AILEEN BAKER

AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Akimoto et al 11276662 - (D) OBERMANN 103 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. KOCH, GEORGE R

1773 Ex Parte May et al 11838384 - (D) OBERMANN 103 102/103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP LUDLOW, JAN M

An examiner’s reasoning “may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill,” which does “not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” See Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) (examiner may rely on “common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference”). However, “the mere recitation of the words ‘common sense’ without any support adds nothing to the obviousness equation.” Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Giniger 11355500 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Berenbaum Weinshienk PC SUTTON, DARRYL C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Cruickshank et al 09995056 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 ARRIS PATEL, DHAIRYA A

2488 Ex Parte Battles 10859029 - (D) FRAHM 101/102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PERUNGAVOOR, SATHYANARAYA V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2665 Ex Parte Jeon et al 11907460 - (D) FRAHM 112(1)/112(2)/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. AHMED, SAMIR ANWAR

2665 Ex Parte Tu et al 11003229 - (D) EVANS 102/103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. JOHNS, ANDREW W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Russell et al 11581620 - (D) OSINSKI 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD

3651 Ex Parte Hart et al 12115729 - (D) DANIELS 102 BERENATO & WHITE, LLC HESS, DOUGLAS A  

REHEARING  
DENIED Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Zhao-Wilson et al 11378032 - (D) PRATS 102 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN MARTINELL, JAMES

See 35 U.S.C. § 6 (Board’s duty is to review adverse decisions of examiners); see also, Paperless Accounting, Inc. v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 663 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (rejection in final rejection not commented on in examiner’s answer not an adverse decision considered by Board).

Paperless Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 231 USPQ 649 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2133.01