baxter travenol, Net MoneyIN, atmel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Howard 12135254 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY THOMPSON, CAMIE S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2433 Ex Parte Verma et al 12057950 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Whitham, Curtis, & Christofferson, P.C. ANDERSON, MICHAEL D

2481 Ex Parte Shlissel et al 10498888 - (D) NAPPI 103 Husch Blackwell LLP Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz JONES, HEATHER RAE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Wesson et al 12089764 - (D) PAK 102/103 102/103 CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS GRAY, JILL M

“[E]xtrinsic evidence may be considered [in the anticipation rejection] when it is used to explain, but not expand, the meaning of a reference.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, “differences between the prior art reference and a claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To prevail in an appeal to this Board, Appellant must adequately explain or identify reversible error in the Examiner’s § 102 rejections.

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01 , 2145

Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 88 USPQ2d 1751 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 2152.02(b)

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Renschler et al 12134688 - (D) HORVATH 112(2)/103 112(2)/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED JOHN, CLARENCE

“[I]n order for a claim to meet the particularity requirement of ¶ 2, the corresponding structure(s) of a means-plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the written description in such a manner that one skilled in the art will know and understand what structure corresponds to the means limitation.” Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Device, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). The proper inquiry “asks first whether structure is described in the specification, and if so, whether one skilled in the art would identify the structure from that description.” Id. at 1381 (emphasis in original).

Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 53 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2181

2447 Ex Parte Archer et al 12060508 - (D) MOHANTY obviousness-type double patenting 103 IBM (ROC-BKLS) c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP JOSHI, SURAJ M

2493 Ex Parte Aviles et al 12015197 - (D) MORGAN 103 103 Mahamedi Paradice LLP (NetApp) SHAW, PETER C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Weber et al 11352600 - (D) FREDMAN 103 L'Oreal USA VENKAT, JYOTHSNA A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Hicks et al 11833942 - (D) SMITH 103 Stolowitz Ford Cowger LLP LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Chang et al 11751445 - (D) SILVERMAN 101 103 AT&T Legal Department - HFZ PHUNG, LUAT

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Beachy 12774691 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BELASCO, JACOBS & TOWNSLEY LLP CHIN-SHUE, ALVIN CONSTANTINE