REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte FARAM 11748907 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 41.50 103 HITCHCOCK EVERT LLP LYDDANE, KATHRYNN M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte VEERASAMY et al 13188897 - (D) DELMENDO 103 103 41.50 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC SAWHNEY, HARGOBIND S
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Thaning et al 11572679 - (D) SCHNEIDER 101 103 GE Healthcare, IP Department RIDER, LANCE W
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Howland 13263757 - (D) DENNETT 103 HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC BROOKS, KREGGT
Appellant’s argument that the end uses of the products in Cleaver II and Tada are “completely different” is unpersuasive. “One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.” Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1992). There is no need for Cleaver II to require improved solvent resistance in order for the Examiner to find improved solvent resistance as motivation for the combination.
Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 76 USPQ2d 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2144
Oetiker, In re, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 707.07(f) , 716.01(d) , 1504.01(a) , 2107.02 , 2142 , 2145 , 2164.07
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 INPHI CORPORATION Requester and Appellant v. NETLIST, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7636274 et al 12/408,652 95001337 - (D) JEFFERY 103 MASCHOFF BRENNAN THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP PEIKARI, BEHZAD original SOFOCLEOUS, ALEXANDER
No comments :
Post a Comment