boon, bozek

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Agarwal et al 12015160 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC SHAW, PETER C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
3715 Ex Parte Alsaud 11502710 - (D) MORRISON 102 102 Wolff & Samson PC CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Fay 11489177 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 JOHNS MANVILLE SYKES, ALTREV C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2194 Ex Parte Sen et al 11336231 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP JORDAN, KIMBERLY L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Barrus et al 10816602 - (D) LORIN 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

“Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the [E]xaminer could then properly rely . . . on a conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’” In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). It is the Appellants’ burden to traverse the Examiner’s notice. “We did not mean to imply . . . that a bald challenge, with nothing more, would be all that was needed. . . .We feel it to be perfectly consistent with the principles governing procedural due process to require that a challenge to judicial notice by the board contain adequate information or argument so that on its face it creates a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying the judicial notice.” In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). That has not been done here by the bald assertion that “the Examiner has erred in taking Official Notice without any substantial evidence” (App. Br. 15).

bozek DONNER 8: 339

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Behr et al 10573273 - (D) IPPOLITO 103 PATENT CENTRAL LLC TAOUSAKIS, ALEXANDER P