fallaux, ochiai, torpharm

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Yamka et al 13274597 - (D) POLLOCK 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY ZAREK, PAUL E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Hertel et al 11651327 - (D) WILSON 112(1)/103 DAVID M. QUINLAN, P.C. STULII, VERA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Duerdodt et al 12014641 - (D) DIXON 103 ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES LLC PATEL, JAY P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1643 Ex Parte Houghton et al 12622087 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 103/double patenting Larson & Anderson, LLC RAWLINGS, STEPHEN L

We find this argument unpersuasive because “harassment justification for obviousness-type double patenting is particularly pertinent here because the . . . application and the . . . patents are not commonly owned. If the . . . application and the . . . patents were commonly owned, the terminal disclaimer filed in this case would have been effective to overcome the double patenting rejection.” In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2009).  We note that this defect was of Appellants creation as through assignment it allowed ownership of the applications to be divided among different entities, because the original assignment received on May 7, 2003 was to the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and it was only in the later July 23, 2003 assignment that The Animal Medical Center was added to the assignment.

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Castellanos et al 12889805 - (D) JIVANI 103 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise MACKES, KRIS E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Lifson et al 12280840 - (D) COCKS 102/103 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. GONZALEZ, PAOLO

3788 Ex Parte Kindig 12111638 - (D) CALVE 103 103 HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN DESAI, KAUSHIKKUMAR A

The Examiner's reliance on a per se rule of obviousness does not provide the necessary analysis. see In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("section 103 requires a fact-intensive comparison of the claimed process with the prior art rather than the mechanical application of one or another  per se rule."), TorPharm, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharms., Inc., 336 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Ochiai)

Ochiai, In re, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 706.02(n) , 2116.01 , 2158

TorPharm., Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, 336 F.3d 1322, 67 USPQ2d 1511 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2116.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte SUCK et al 12167712 - (D) GRIMES double patenting MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. ROONEY, NORA MAUREEN

1674 Ex Parte Bennett et al 12064330 - (D) POLLOCK 103 BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP MCGARRY, SEAN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte MIZUSHIMA et al 13033338 - (D) BEST 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. RODEE, CHRISTOPHER D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Childress et al 13478951 - (D) STRAUSS 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. TRAN, JIMMY H

2484 Ex Parte JOHNSON et al 14155956 - (D) WINSOR 103/double patenting THOMSON Licensing LLC DANG, HUNG Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2621 Ex Parte KIMURA et al 13550855 - (D) DANG 103 Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C. SHERMAN, STEPHEN G

2683 Ex Parte Vader 11566468 - (D) MARGOLIES 103 CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP NGUYEN, AN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3696 Ex Parte Hofman et al 13454670 - (D) HILL 103/double patenting BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. BERONA, KIMBERLY SUE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte George et al 12272093 - (D) WIEDER 102/103 Brake Hughes Bellermann LLP LOPEZ, LESLIE ANN