merck3, dulberg

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Kolandavelu et al 12106918 - (D) KAISER 103 41.50 101 HONEYWELL/IFL PATEL, PARTHKUMAR

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2682 Ex Parte Abe et al 11570094 - (D) FRAHM 112(1)/103 KEATING & BENNETT, LLP SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA LABBEES, EDNY

We must, if possible, treat the term "human" as specifying the detection; whereas the Examiner's claim construction does not. See Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms in a claim is preferred over one that does not do so.").

Merck & Co., Inc., v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 73 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111.01

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Sadi 10547121 - (D) GREENHUT 103 FROST BROWN TODD LLC VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M

3746 Ex Parte Bedell et al 12684386 - (D) ABRAMS 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. KASTURE, DNYANESH G

3772 Ex Parte Skov et al 11192809 - (D) SCHOPFER 102 Moldex-Metric, Inc. PATEL, NIHIR B

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1675 Ex Parte Trinnaman et al 11949438 - (D) ADAMS 103 103 LICATA & TYRRELL P.C. BRADLEY, CHRISTINA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Gisser et al 11680270 - (D) MURPHY 112(1)/102/103 112(1)/103 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO MORGAN, EMILY M

The Examiner contends that, according to In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522 (CCPA 1961), “constructing a formerly integral structure [into] various elements involves only routine skill in the art.” (Final Act. 6–7.)

We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the Examiner does not establish why one of ordinary skill in the art would have an apparent reason to cut Lu’s rubber pad into separate parts. (See Appeal Br. 18–25.) In the Dulberg case cited by the Examiner, the claimed lipstick holder had a removable cap. (Dulberg, 289 F.2d at 523.) The court held that “[i]f it were considered desirable for any reason” to allow access to the capped area of the prior art lipstick holder, “it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.” ( Id. at 523 (emphases added).) Here, the Examiner does not explain, sufficiently, why it would be “considered desirable for any reason” to cut Lu’s rubber pad into separate pieces.

Dulberg, In re, 289 F.2d 522, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) 2144.04

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Sadaka et al 12874087 - (D) GARRIS 103 Lowe Graham Jones Boston Scientific Corporation MURATA, AUSTIN

1715 Ex Parte Zhong et al 11259391 - (D) ROESEL 103 BrooksGroup TALBOT, BRIAN K

1733 Ex Parte Rose 11661164 - (D) PAK 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB MCGUTHRY BANKS, TIMA MICHELE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2195 Ex Parte Blanding et al 11411045 - (D) WEINBERG 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LEE, TAMMY EUNHYE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2696 Ex Parte Ha et al 11297341 - (D) FINK 103 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) FRY, MATTHEW A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Murray 13013519 - (D) McKELVEY 102 Delio, Peterson & Curcio, LLC BRADFORD, JONATHAN