REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Lisa et al 10999580 - (D) POLLOCK 103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA
“[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Such a finding shifts the burden to the Applicant to show that the claimed invention is non-obvious in view of the cited art, for example, by showing that the claimed range is critical and achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. Id.; see also Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Applicant can rebut a presumption of obviousness based on a claimed invention that falls within a prior art range by showing “(1) [t]hat the prior art taught away from the claimed invention . . . or (2) that there are new and unexpected results relative to the prior art.”)
Peterson, In re, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 716.02(d) , 2144.05
Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2144.05
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Graser et al 12094858 - (D) HUGHES 103 WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. IBM CORP. (WIP) HOLDER, BRADLEY W
2473 Ex Parte Allan et al 12259560 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 Daniels IP Services LTD. LIU, JUNG
2619 Ex Parte Smith 11829453 - (D) DIXON 102 CRAIN, CATON & JAMES HARRISON, CHANTE E
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Sasamoto et al 11676510 - (D) MURPHY 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 James W. Judge JENNISON, BRIAN W
3752 Ex Parte Shanklin et al 11252347 - (D) GREENHUT 102/obviousness-type double patenting MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION KIM, CHRISTOPHER S
The PTO has a statutory obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to provide timely notice to the applicant of all “matters of fact and law asserted.” See In re Stepan Co., 660 F. 3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(citing 5 U.S.C. § 554(b)). 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) provides that “[a]n appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection.” When this appeal was taken on April 3, 2012, “the rejection” for purposes of § 41.31(c) was that set forth in the Final Office action of January 3, 2012. By failing to designate the rejection set forth in the Examiner’s Answer as a “new ground” under 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(2) the Examiner failed to comply with our rules and, potentially, the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
AFFIRMED–IN–PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Caligiuri et al 11629638 - (D) POLLOCK 103 102 Yankwich & Associates, P.C. RICCI, CRAIG D
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Fornage 12804017 - (D) SHIANG 103 103 MOSER TABOADA YANG, JAMES J
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Braedt 11689466 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 103 SRAM, LLC MOMPER, ANNA M
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Kristen et al 12799184 - (D) MURPHY 103 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC LOPEZ, MICHELLE
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Todd 12443830 - (D) Per Curiam 112(2)/102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG KUDDUS, DANIEL A
2198 Ex Parte Novak 12249423 - (D) HUME 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WU, DAXIN
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Brown et al 12242216 - (D) HORVATH 101 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG VAUGHAN, MICHAEL R
2447 Ex Parte Tierney et al 12005985 - (D) HUME 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY JOSHI, SURAJ M
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Sela 11161051 - (D) THOMAS 103 YOSSY SELA HUYNH, CHUCK
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 MOVEA SA. Patent Owner and Appellant v. HILLCREST LABORATORIES, INC. Requester and Respondent Ex Parte 8010313 et al 09/989,011 95000645 - (D) BRANCH 103 DERGOSITS & NOAH LLP Third Party Requester: FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original BHAT, NINA NMN
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 INTEGRATED MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. Requester, Respondent v. KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8,029,437 B2 et al 12/413,891 95002301 - (D) SONG 112(1)/120 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC Third Party Requester: Troutman Sanders LLP WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN
No comments :
Post a Comment