REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Gladman et al 11/427,899 GREEN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b)/103(a) CONVATEC INC. EXAMINER SOROUSH, ALI
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Saito et al 11/151,709 PAK 102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ZHANG, RACHEL L
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Murphy et al 11/084,621 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER NGUYEN, LOAN T
2186 Ex Parte Jones et al 11/066,038 JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Berg et al 11/047,000 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER RINEHART, KENNETH
A rejection founded in anticipation cannot be predicated on conjecture as to how the allegedly anticipating structure is constructed and arranged. W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“Anticipation of inventions set forth in product claims cannot be predicated on mere conjecture respecting the characteristics of products that might result from the practice of processes disclosed in references.”) Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference.”)
W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . . . . . . . . . . .2131.01
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Atkin et al 10/388,096 DANG 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER PATEL, MANGLESH M
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Chen 11/327,232 FREDMAN 103(a) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER JOIKE, MICHELE K
1643 Ex Parte Gorlach 11/221,252 FREDMAN 102(b) Jane Massey Licata Licata & Tyrrell P.C. EXAMINER BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Hofmann et al 10/714,800 OWENS 112(2)/103(a) SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC EXAMINER FELTON, AILEEN BAKER
1742 Ex Parte Chevillard et al 10/766,672 OWENS 112(1)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER WOLLSCHLAGER, JEFFREY MICHAEL
1761 Ex Parte CANO et al 11/960,329 SCHEINER 103(a) Shell Oil Company EXAMINER ADMASU, ATNAF S
1763 Ex Parte Finch et al 11/515,112 GREEN 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER USELDING, JOHN E
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Booth et al 10/272,588 BARRY 103(a) Duke Yee Yee Assoicates PC EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R
2185 Ex Parte Allen et al 11/239,597 ZECHER 103(a) IBM (ROC-BLF) C/O BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER CAMPOS, YAIMA
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2471 Ex Parte Frankel et al 11/259,717 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP EXAMINER TRAN, PHUC H
Showing posts with label W.L. Gore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label W.L. Gore. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
marzocchi, langer, W.L. Gore
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Borgers et al 12/108,262 GRIMES 103(a) Glaxo Smith Kline c/o The Nath Law Group EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN
However, the Specification’s disclosure is presumed to be accurate, and the burden is on the Examiner to provide evidence that it is not. Cf. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224 (CCPA 1971) (“[It] is incumbent upon the Patent Office, whenever a rejection on this basis is made, to explain why it doubts the truth or accuracy of any statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up assertions of its own with acceptable evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent with the contested statement.”); In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391 (CCPA 1974) (“[A] specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of § 101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope.”).
Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164.08
Langer, In re, 503 F.2d 1380, 183 USPQ 288 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2107.03, 2124
1641 Ex Parte Gjerde 12/004,726 WALSH 103(a) PHYNEXUS, INC. EXAMINER SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Schneider et al 10/852,927 FRANKLIN 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R
1715 Ex Parte Hass et al 10/489,090 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER GAMBETTA, KELLY M
1713 Ex Parte Shatwell 10/504,204 PAK 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER TRAN, BINH X
See also, W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (“To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention . . ., when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the invention taught is used against its teacher.”).
W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Swank 10/990,891 HORNER 112(2)/103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J
3679 Ex Parte Jamison et al 11/256,596 BARRETT 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DUNWOODY, AARON M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Alholm et al 11/510,320 LEBOVITZ 102(b) TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP EXAMINER HAYMAN, IMANI N
3773 Ex Parte Miles et al 10/186,307 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) HOLLAND & HART EXAMINER EREZO, DARWIN P
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Hovey et al 11/472,556 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Gilmour et al 10/135,254 LUCAS Concurring-In-Part THOMAS 101/103(a) BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, CAM Y T
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Vernon 11/180,796 KIM 102(e) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER SHAAWAT, MUSSA A
3635 Ex Parte Elliott et al 10/773,757 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) JERRY TURNER SEWELL EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHI Q
REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Guthrie 10/816,403 GARRIS 102/103 M. P. Williams EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Borgers et al 12/108,262 GRIMES 103(a) Glaxo Smith Kline c/o The Nath Law Group EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN
However, the Specification’s disclosure is presumed to be accurate, and the burden is on the Examiner to provide evidence that it is not. Cf. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224 (CCPA 1971) (“[It] is incumbent upon the Patent Office, whenever a rejection on this basis is made, to explain why it doubts the truth or accuracy of any statement in a supporting disclosure and to back up assertions of its own with acceptable evidence or reasoning which is inconsistent with the contested statement.”); In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391 (CCPA 1974) (“[A] specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of § 101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope.”).
Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164.08
Langer, In re, 503 F.2d 1380, 183 USPQ 288 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2107.03, 2124
1641 Ex Parte Gjerde 12/004,726 WALSH 103(a) PHYNEXUS, INC. EXAMINER SHIBUYA, MARK LANCE
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Schneider et al 10/852,927 FRANKLIN 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R
1715 Ex Parte Hass et al 10/489,090 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER GAMBETTA, KELLY M
1713 Ex Parte Shatwell 10/504,204 PAK 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER TRAN, BINH X
See also, W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (“To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention . . ., when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the invention taught is used against its teacher.”).
W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Swank 10/990,891 HORNER 112(2)/103(a) Patent Procurement Services EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J
3679 Ex Parte Jamison et al 11/256,596 BARRETT 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DUNWOODY, AARON M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Alholm et al 11/510,320 LEBOVITZ 102(b) TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP EXAMINER HAYMAN, IMANI N
3773 Ex Parte Miles et al 10/186,307 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) HOLLAND & HART EXAMINER EREZO, DARWIN P
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Hovey et al 11/472,556 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Gilmour et al 10/135,254 LUCAS Concurring-In-Part THOMAS 101/103(a) BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, CAM Y T
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Vernon 11/180,796 KIM 102(e) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER SHAAWAT, MUSSA A
3635 Ex Parte Elliott et al 10/773,757 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) JERRY TURNER SEWELL EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHI Q
REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Guthrie 10/816,403 GARRIS 102/103 M. P. Williams EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)