kao, crocs, GPAC

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Kjellin 12744773 - (D) PRAISS 112(1)/102 MYERS BIGEL, P.A. SHAH, SAMIR

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Miller et al 13653785 - (D) HOMERE 103 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP TO, BAOQUOC N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Birnbaum et al 13104129 - (D) BAHR 102/103 NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY TRAN, THIEN S

3754 Ex Parte Matz et al 13636140 - (D) KNIGHT 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. (UTC) GRUBY, RANDALL A

3788 Ex Parte Wauters et al 12449488 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 41.50 112(2) Levy & Grandinetti DESAI, KAUSHIKKUMAR A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Howard et al 12724947 - (D) O’HANLON 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 103 LAW OFFICES OF MARK L. BERRIER LINFORD, JAMES ALBERT

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte KOCH 13044167 - (D) BROWN 103 112(2) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC HO, TAN-UYEN THI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte Yao et al 13869479 - (D) HAGY 103 BGL/Huawei VLAHOS, SOPHIA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Lehmann et al 13722342 - (D) BUSCH 112(1) 112(1)/101/103 Jones Day For SAP YESILDAG, MEHMET

3744 Ex Parte BRUNNER et al 13457974 - (D) CAPP 103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. FLANIGAN, ALLEN J

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Morinville 13244610 - (D) DANG 103 LAW OFFICES OF MARK L. BERRIER BOYCE, ANDRE D

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex parte HANS RUDOLF MILLER, MARTIN ULMANN, and RUDOLF MOSER Ex Parte 6011040 et al 90013445 - (D) DERRICK 102 102/103 MILLEN WHITE ZELANO & BRANIGAN THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PABST PATENT GROUP LLP JOSEPH E. CWIK, AMIN TALATI & UPADHYE, LLC DIAMOND, ALAN D

Appellants must establish a nexus between the proffered objective evidence and the merits of the claimed invention for the objective evidence to be accorded substantial weight.  In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).  “A prima facie case of nexus is made when the patentee shows both that there is commercial success, and that the product that is commercially successful is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.”  Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1310‒11 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).  “Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.”  Kao, 639 F.3d at 1068. 

Kao, In re, 639 F.3d 1057, 98 USPQ2d 1799 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2111.05 , 2112.01 , 2153.02

GPAC, In re, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 716.03 , 2145

okajima, litton, GPAC, custom accessories

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2412 Ex Parte Hsu et al 12055353 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 41.50 103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP JAVAID, JAMAL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2619 Ex Parte Posa et al 12197635 - (D) SHAW 102/103 41.50 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C HARRISON, CHANTE E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Szczypinski et al 12061812 - (D) KATZ 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP ALMO, KHAREEM E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Campbell et al 11985088 - (D) GUIJT 102 Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. SY, MARIANO ONG

3661 Ex Parte Perkins 12409657 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 DIEDERIKS & WHITELAW, PLC NELSON, SARA J

3692 Ex Parte McCoppin et al 10747612 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) BAIRD, EDWARD J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Johnson et al 11132035 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Spyros J. Lazaris HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE

3762 Ex Parte Salo 11316123 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC LAVERT, NICOLE F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1647 Ex Parte Hunter et al 10768744 - (D) JENKS 102 102 Saul Ewing LLP (Philadelphia) STANFIELD, CHERIE MICHELLE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Atanasoska et al 11231583 - (D) HULSE 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. KASSA, TIGABU

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Narendra et al 11870636 - (D) HUME 112(2)/103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS

2198 Ex Parte Fredrickson et al 11380754 - (D) MOORE 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG AGUILERA, TODD

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Roberts 12111785 - (D) JURGOVAN 102/103 Jason P. Webb MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

2451 Ex Parte Florkey et al 11769153 - (D) NAPPI 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP TIV, BACKHEAN

2452 Ex Parte Sylvain et al 12334202 - (D) MacDONALD 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. GOLABBAKHSH, EBRAHIM

An express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required in all situations, as the level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references.  See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350,1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); In re GPAC Inc. 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed.Cir. 1995).   Beyond a bald assertion of error (reproduced above), Appellants have provided no proposal regarding an alternative level of ordinary skill and no explanation as to how an alternative level of ordinary skill changes the analysis in this case.

Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 59 USPQ2d 1795 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 2141.03

GPAC, In re, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 716.03 , 2145

2484 Ex Parte HARDACKER et al 12573629 - (D) THOMAS 101/103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES ZHAO, DAQUAN

2494 Ex Parte Proulx 12404023 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 Kramer & Amado, P.C. PARSONS, THEODORE C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Swenson et al 11033457 - (D) BUI 103 Clariphy Communications/Fenwick LEUNG, WAI LUN

2647 Ex Parte Rofougaran 12041723 - (D) DEJMEK 103 GARLICK & MARKISON YUN, EUGENE

2682 Ex Parte ALRABADY et al 12263029 - (D) BUI 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) OBINIYI, PAULSON IDOWU

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Ahearn 12346991 - (D) BROWN 103 BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD. HAWN, PATRICK D

3653 Ex Parte Zimmermann 12350356 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP MATTHEWS, TERRELL HOWARD

3696 Ex Parte Kochansky et al 10323133 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 Locke Lord LLP NORMAN, SAMICA L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Irving et al 11422754 - (D) STEPINA 103 BRIGGS AND MORGAN P.A. KLAYMAN, AMIR ARIE

Though the Examiner did not make a specific explicit finding regarding the level of skill in the art, Appellants do not make any specific proposal regarding what the level of ordinary skill in the art is, or that it is other than what the applied art connotes. We consider the applied prior art, i.e., Meltzer, Tsui, Vallance, and Jennings to be reflective of the level of skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to know the relevant prior art.”) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (emphasis added)). See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”’) (citation omitted).

GPAC, In re, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 716.03 , 2145

Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962, USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2141.03

Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 59 USPQ2d 1795 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 2141.03

3726 Ex Parte Frost et al 13018559 - (D) HOELTER 103 MILLER & MARTIN OMGBA, ESSAMA

unigene, GPAC, ruff

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Lorens et al 10696909 - (D) PRATS 103 Klarquist Sparkman, LLP REDDIG, PETER J

Thus, even post-KSR, “[o]bviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Instead, “[i]n determining whether obviousness is established by combining the teachings of the prior art, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted).

GPAC, In re, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 716.03, 2145

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Eickmeyer et al 11812443 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC LEONG, NATHAN T

1716 Ex Parte Mahoney et al 11066520 - (D) PAK 112(2)/103 JOSHUA D. ISENBERG DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR

1734 Ex Parte Kim et al 12192024 - (D) HASTINGS 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP LEE, REBECCA Y

In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant's disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 596-96 (CCPA 1958); In re Lam, 35 Fed. Appx. 889, 894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

Ruff, In re, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) 2144.06

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 Ex Parte Maitland et al 11588384 - (D) DANG 102/103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT TAYLOR, BROOKE JAZMOND

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Kjellstrom et al 11045571 - (D) SCHEINER 102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) HELLER, TAMMIE K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Straccia et al 11609501 - (D) GARRIS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL GAMBETTA, KELLY M

1763 Ex Parte Nodelman et al 12002435 - (D) GARRIS 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC LEONARD, MICHAEL L

1791 Ex Parte Jolly et al 11486423 - (D) SCHAFER 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP BADR, HAMID R

1792 Ex Parte Nietling et al 11255330 - (D) KRATZ 103 WARNER, NORCROSS & JUDD IN RE: ALTICOR INC. CHAWLA, JYOTI

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Blair 11783909 - (D) KUMAR 103 Lawrence Harbin MAHMOOD, REZWANUL

2168 Ex Parte Bruce et al 11263224 - (D) NEW 103 Baker Botts LLP MACKES, KRIS E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Muth 10517246 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 112(2) 37 CR 41.50(b) 102/103 NXP B.V. NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Park et al 11454505 - (D) DIXON 102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE ARENDT, PAISLEY L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Tower et al 11432838 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Medtronic, Inc. HUGHES, SAMUEL T

3731 Ex Parte Tower et al 10127969 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/103 Medtronic CardioVascular SEVERSON, RYAN J

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 LTS SCALE COMPANY, LLC Requester and Appellant v. ACME SCALE COMPANY INC. Patent Owner 95001401 7,757,946 11/108,271 WEINBERG 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102/103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH THIRD  PARTY R EQUESTER:  ECKERT  EAMANS  CHERIN  &  MELLOTT TON, MY TRANG original LE, THIEN MINH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1753 Guardian Industries Corp. Requester and Appellant v. Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. and AGC Plat Glass Patent Owner and Respondent 90009782 6,193,856 09/011,749 LEBOVITZ 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP Third Party Requester: Nixon & Vanderhye P.C. original OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. DIAMOND, ALAN D original VERSTEEG, STEVEN H