thibault, clay, dunn, innovention toys

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Tam et al 11393218 - (D) GARRIS 103 HONEYWELL/DLA PIPER ROGERS, MARTIN K

1772 Ex Parte Wohltjen 11474532 - (D) METZ 112(1)/112(2)/103 LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP KILPATRICK, BRYAN T

1791 Ex Parte Lykomitros et al 12021959 - (D) GARRIS 103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP DEGUIRE, KATHERINE E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Thiessen et al 10607892 - (D) WEINBERG 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LIANG, LEONARD S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Herrmann 11735253 - (D) TORCZON 103 112(a) GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC CULLEN, SEAN P

In Thibault, the board explained that

If the apparatus as claimed is not fully described in [the prior art], it differs so little therefrom as to be obvious to the designer of apparatus. The purpose to which the apparatus is to be put and the numerous expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.

Thibault does not reproduce the apparatus claim in question, but expressly finds that it is very closely the same as the prior art. Thibault, thus, does not create a per se rule that contents and mode of operation never count, but rather simply holds that when disclosed structures are essentially the same and the contents and use would have been obvious from the prior-art structure, the lack of an express teaching of content and use will not prevent anticipation. In short, Thibault's holding cannot be abstracted from its context. Today, we might say that the prior art apparatus was capable of containing and operating as claimed.

Thibault, Ex parte, 164 USPQ 666 (Bd. App. 1969) 2115

1729 Ex Parte Owens et al 11643392 - (D) TIMM 103 103 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC DAVIS, PATRICIA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2485 Ex Parte Gordon 10871657 - (D) JEFFERY 102 102 Broadcom/BHGL LEE, Y YOUNG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Petereit et al 10532831 - (D) BONILLA 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. WESTERBERG, NISSA M

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Albright 12290333 - (D) KIMLIN 103 Robert W. Mulcahy, Esq. SCHIFFMAN, BENJAMIN A

1762 Ex Parte Zhou et al 11260749 - (D) McKELVEY 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY REDDICK, MARIE L

1789 Ex Parte Dumond 11741266 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 O'Shea Getz P.C. ORTIZ, ANGELA Y

Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting a reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness analysis only when it is analogous to the claimed invention (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992))). If a reference is in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is still considered analogous art if it deals with a matter which logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2655 Ex Parte Disange et al 11014063 - (D) HOMERE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. PAUL, DISLER

Teaching an alternative or equivalent method, however, does not teach away from the use of a claimed method. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 438 (CCPA 1965).

Dunn, In re, 349 F.2d 433, 146 USPQ 479 (CCPA 1965) 804.02

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 Ex Parte Schippers et al 11753368 - (D) KOHUT 103 Trop, Pruner & Hu, P.C. RADKE, JAY W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Burgdorf et al 11182303 - (D) ASTORINO 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F