soni, baxter travenol, applied materials

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2126 Ex Parte Hsu et al 12731348 - (D) THOMAS 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP GARLAND, STEVEN R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Clark et al 11983091 - (D) BAYAT 103 JELD-WEN, Inc. c/o Stoel Rives LLP RAMSEY, JEREMY C

We next turn to Appellants’ attempt to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness by evidence “of ‘unexpected results,’ i.e., to show that the claimed invention exhibits some superior property or advantage that person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have found surprising or unexpected.” In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The unexpected results must be “different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Soni, In re, 54 F.3d 746, 34 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 707.07(f) , 2145

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

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. MEDTECH CAPITAL VENTURES, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,749,585 et al 10/688,292 95001484 - (D) GUEST 102/103 Hershkovitz and Associates, PLLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP TILL, TERRENCE R original JACKSON, MONIQUE R