REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Wakade et al 12359391 - (D) SMITH 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP ZHU, WEIPING
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Fouquet et al 12059979 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Avago Technologies Limited CHAN, TSZFUNG JACKIE
2884 Ex Parte Petrick et al 12274220 - (D) OWENS 102/103 GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC BRYANT, MICHAEL C
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3681 Ex Parte Agarwal et al 11890957 - (D) FETTING 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/Yahoo! HENRY, RODNEY M
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Uecker et al 12040183 - (D) MURPHY 103 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) JENNISON, BRIAN W
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Inaba et al 12288538 - (D) SMITH 103 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT HERNANDEZ-DIAZ, JOSE
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Pekarsky 12302673 - (D) OWENS 103 103 DIEDERIKS & WHITELAW, PLC LEE, SHUN K
Moreover, even if an element which Maglich desires to detect can have the same decay rate as an interfering element, the Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that Maglich uses energy line strength ratios of at least one interfering elements’ induced gamma rays to calculate an amount of induced gamma rays emitted by the at least one interfering element at an energy line of interest associated with at least one element of interest (final rejection mailed Nov. 25, 2011, pp. 2-3, 5). Hence, we accept that finding as fact. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964).
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte Kang et al 12427689 - (D) SMITH 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP TRINH, THANH TRUC
1765 Ex Parte Jacobine et al 11772843 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Henkel Corporation SERGENT, RABON A
1782 Ex Parte Beckwith et al 11845944 - (D) HOUSEL 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP KASHNIKOW, ERIK
“Synergism, in and of itself, is not conclusive of unobviousness in that synergism might be expected.” In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 55, n.6 (CCPA 1979).
Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(d)
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Huang et al 11880302 - (D) KUMAR 103/ obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RIZK, SAMIR WADIE
2184 Ex Parte Ronkainen et al 10816694 - (D) FISHMAN 102(e)/103 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP PARK, ILWOO
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Kawai 11703174 - (D) BEAMER 112(2)/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP MENDOZA, JUNIOR O
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Jones 11119379 - (D) SAADAT 102(e)/103 Christopher Croft Jones ARMAND, MARC ANTHONY
See also LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Com’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (in quoting with approval from Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. Greenawalt, 27 F.2d 823, 828 (2d Cir. 1928)):
The use for which the [anticipatory] apparatus was intended is irrelevant, if it could be employed without change for the purposes of the patent; the statute authorizes the patenting of machines, not of their uses.
LaBounty Mfg. Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 22 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2004 , 2133.03 , 2133.03(e) , 2133.03(e)(2)
2893 Ex Parte Luk et al 12542796 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP SCHOENHOLTZ, JOSEPH
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3675 Ex Parte Debrody et al 12239869 - (D) MOORE 102/103 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO MERLINO, ALYSON MARIE
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Schaeffer et al 10984417 - (D) FREDMAN 103/ obviousness-type double patenting BGL/Cook - Chicago HUGHES, SAMUEL T
REHEARING
GRANTED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11849148 - (R) KIM 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN DANNEMAN, PAUL
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 SYNQOR, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant v. MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. Requester and Respondent Ex Parte 7558083 et al 11/900,207 95001405 - (D) PERRY 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. For THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER MURATA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD c/o KEATING & BENNETT, LLP HEYMAN, JOHN S original NGUYEN, MATTHEW VAN
No comments :
Post a Comment