wrigley, seattle box, planet bingo

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Shives et al 11223804 - (D) PAK 103 WADDEY & PATTERSON, P.C. RUDE, TIMOTHY L

2871 Ex Parte Shives et al 11167935 - (D) PAK 103 WADDEY & PATTERSON, P.C. RUDE, TIMOTHY L

2871 Ex Parte Shives et al 11225491 - (D) PAK 103 WADDEY & PATTERSON, P.C. RUDE, TIMOTHY L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Disse et al 11468871 - (D) POLLOCK 103 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA CORPORATION SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L

1655 Ex Parte Sun 11726603 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

In other words, Appellant has not demonstrated that the addition of phytoestrogen to the prior art mung bean/Lentinus edodes extract composition resulted in an unexpected improvement in the treatment of NSCLC. See Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Evidence that a combination of known components results in an effect greater than the predicted additive effect of the components can support a finding of nonobviousness.”)(Emphasis added.)

1662 Ex Parte Carozzi et al 10782141 - (D) GRIMES 103 Bayer CropScience LP Athenix Corp. KUBELIK, ANNE R

1662 Ex Parte Carozzi et al 10782096 - (D) GRIMES 103 Bayer CropScience LP Athenix Corp. KUBELIK, ANNE R

1662 Ex Parte Carozzi et al 10783417 - (D) GRIMES 103 Bayer CropScience LP Athenix Corp. KUBELIK, ANNE R

1662 Ex Parte Carozzi et al 10782570 - (D) GRIMES 103 Bayer CropScience LP Athenix Corp. KUBELIK, ANNE R

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte MUELLER et al 12061832 - (D) ROESEL 112(2)/103 Pearne & Gordon LLP CHOI, PETER Y

When a word of degree, such as “substantially,” is used in a claim, we must determine whether the Specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. Seattle Box Company, Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (addressing whether claim term “substantially equal” is indefinite).

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2173.05(b)

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2198 Ex Parte Galli 09870223 - (D) MacDONALD 112(1)/102/103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS KANG, INSUN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Kuraoka et al 11245356 - (D) SAADAT 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. YODICHKAS, ANEETA

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Hackitt et al 11440609 - (D) LEBOVITZ obviousness-type double patenting/102/103 INTEL CORPORATION c/o CPA Global LAURENZI, MARK A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Struecker 12708198 - (D) BAHR 103 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. MATTEI, BRIAN DAVID

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Knight 10861849 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101/112(2) Andrew Knight COBURN, CORBETT B

see also Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claims ineligible even though they “require[d] ‘a computer with a central processing unit,’ ‘a memory,’ ‘an input and output terminal,’ ‘a printer,’ [and] in some cases ‘a video screen’”).16

16 Although nonprecedential, Planet Bingo is persuasive. Fed. Cir. R. 32.1; see Fed. R. App. Pro. 32.1(a).

3714 Ex Parte Knight 10869082 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101/112(2) Andrew Knight COBURN, CORBETT B

3714 Ex Parte Knight 10846544 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101/112(2) Andrew Knight COBURN, CORBETT B

3714 Ex Parte Knight 10722473 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101/112(2) Andrew Knight COBURN, CORBETT B

3746 Ex Parte Wagner 11800092 - (D) GOODSON 102/103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB LETTMAN, BRYAN MATTHEW