chu, nash, olson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Belanoff 10519008 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Pazos et al 10788066 - (D) KRATZ 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC COONEY, JOHN M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Famolari et al 10144717 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Woods et al 11470060 - (D) NAPPI 103 DAVID PRESSMAN, ESQ. KHAN, SUHAIL

2646 Ex Parte Brown et al 10882389 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. TAYLOR, BARRY W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Ujhazy et al 10467601 - (D) MORRISON 102/103 LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2188 Ex Parte Nishihara et al 11251867 - (D) BUI 103 103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC ROJAS, MIDYS

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Stolyar 11073513 - (D) FISHMAN 103 103 PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN, PLLC SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Burgermeister et al 11172527 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 Dergosits & Noah LLP OU, JING RUI

See In re Nash, 230 F.2d 428, 431 (CCPA 1956) (“[I]t is well settled that the drawings of patent applications are not necessarily scale or working drawings....”); In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954) (“Ordinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability.”) ...

See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function).

Chu, In re, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 201.11, 716.02(f), 1504.20, 2145,

3777 Ex Parte Field et al 10803882 - (D) GRIMES 103 102/103 LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO ROY, BAISAKHI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Wallen 10991878 - (D) HOMERE 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC YU, LIHONG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Moffatt 11326887 - (D) HOMERE 112(2)/103 Bryan Cave LLP THOMAS, LUCY M

2887 Ex Parte Singleton et al 11455936 - (D) Per Curiam 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP FRECH, KARL D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Colburn et al 11473285 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 Covidien LP SKORUPA, VALERIE LYNN  

REHEARING  

GRANTED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Kawakami 10711702 - (R) RICE 103 103 DELAND LAW OFFICE LUONG, VINH

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte Bentwich 10536560 - (D) WALSH 102 ROSETTA-GENOMICS c/o POLSINELLI SHUGHART PC CALAMITA, HEATHER