belkin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1785 Ex Parte Shkedi et al 12121025 - (D) KIMLIN 103 Zvi Shkedi RUMMEL, IAN A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Gunther 11995056 - (D) BROWNE 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP KOTTER, KIP T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Hunnicutt et al 12265428 - (D) KIMLIN 103 CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE GRAY, LINDA LAMEY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Derrenberger et al 11047180 - (D) MORGAN 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC DUBASKY, GIGI L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Stanford 11847775 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Nuance Communications, Inc. c/o Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. GODBOLD, DOUGLAS

2667 Ex Parte Golden et al 10841926 - (D) SMITH 103 COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC ROSARIO, DENNIS

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte YAO et al 11867948 - (D) SHIANG 103 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. ANWARI, MACEEH

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE INC. Requester v. PRAGMATUS AV LLC Patent Owner 95001648 7,730,132 11/737,723 DILLON 103 103 37 C.F.R. 41.77(b) 103 Reed Smith LLP Third Party Requester: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. WORJLOH, JALATEE original STRANGE, AARON N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 AVERY DENNISON CORP. Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. CONTINENTAL DATALABEL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001720 6364198 09/550,345 SONG 102/103 102/103/SNQ PAULEY PETERSEN & ERICKSON Third Party Requester: NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC DOERRLER, WILLIAM CHARLES original PASCUA, JES F

In particular, in Belkin Int’l Inc. v. Kappos, the court stated:

The statutory framework thus requires that an issue must raise a 'substantial new' question of patentability, as determined by the Director, with respect to cited prior art before it can be considered during inter partes reexamination. . . . Inter partes reexamination is not totally limited to those issues suggested by the requester that present a substantial new question of patentability. Indeed, the PTO may make any new rejection, as long as that rejection also meets the substantial new question of patentability requirement. … Thus, the scope
of reexamination may encompass those issues that raise a substantial new question of patentability, whether proposed by the requester or the Director, but, unless it is raised by the Director on his own initiative, it only includes issues of patentability raised in the request under § 311 that the Director has determined raise such an issue.

Belkin, 696 F.3d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

belkin, american permahedge

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Yong 11/191,300 GARRIS 103(a) WALTER A. HACKLER, Ph.D. EXAMINER XU, XIAOYUN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Huang 10/787,597 PETRAVICK 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HU, KANG

3721 Ex Parte Wenchell et al 10/490,790 ADAMS 102(b) Paul R Audet U.S. Surgical, a division of Tyco Healthcare Group EXAMINER CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

3745 Ex Parte Cunha et al 11/339,921 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER EDGAR, RICHARD A
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Rai et al 11/091,560 DANG 103(a) 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent EXAMINER CHO, UN C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Dorn 10/552,886 ADAMS 103(a) 103(a) C. R. Bard, Inc. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. EXAMINER BLATT, ERIC D
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2875 Ex Parte 6543911 et al VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. Requester and Appellant v. LIGHT TRANSFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,410 COCKS 102(b) PATENT OWNER: Harold McGurk The Law Office of Clay McGurk THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER ALAVI, ALI

The determination by an Examiner that a given prior art reference does not raise a substantial new question of patentability is a non-appealable determination which does not represent a final decision on the patentability of a claim in conjunction with the particular involved prior art reference. See Belkin Int’l, Inc. v. OptimumPath, LLC, Appeal No. 2011-3697 (BPAI Mar. 30, 2011) (informative opinion).
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Kafrissen et al 11/466,504 PRATS 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER CHOI, FRANK I

1635 Ex Parte WILLIAMS et al 09/410,462 McCOLLUM 102(e) ONYX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. EXAMINER ANGELL, JON E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte HOWARD 12/013,337 KATZ 103(a) GABLE & GOTWALS EXAMINER SMITH, PRESTON

See American Permahedge, Inc. v. Barcana, Inc., 105 F.3d 1441, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Claims, not the specific embodiments, define the scope of protection.”).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Belknap et al 09/986,248 HOMERE 103(a) SUGHRUE MION PLLC USPTO CUSTOMER NO WITH IBM/SVL EXAMINER BONSHOCK, DENNIS G

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Page et al 10/095,413 DIXON 102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q

2476 Ex Parte Vesuna et al 10/837,439 SAADAT 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER HO, CHUONG T

2836 Ex Parte Sedlak et al 10/701,058 KRIVAK 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER PARRIES, DRU M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Chiappetta et al 10/431,723 FETTING 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte SHAH 09/403,796 KAUFFMAN 103(a) EDWIN D. SCHINDLER EXAMINER PRONE, JASON D

3733 Ex Parte Yuksel et al 09/983,537 FREDMAN 102(b) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER PHILOGENE, PEDRO

3734 Ex Parte Sekine et al 11/375, 946 FREDMAN 103(a) SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC EXAMINER BLATT, ERIC D

3737 Ex Parte Lee et al 10/454,786 ADAMS 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER KISH, JAMES M

3754 Ex Parte Salemme 11/012,560 GREENHUT 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER JACYNA, J CASIMER

3762 Ex Parte Guzman et al 11/191,740 ADAMS 103(a) CYBERONICS, INC. EXAMINER MANUEL, GEORGE C

3772 Ex Parte Michelson 11/410,609 BAHR 102(b) MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP EXAMINER BROWN, MICHAEL A

capon, vaidyanathan, belkin

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Skraly 10/661,939 FREDMAN 112(1) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, IQBAL HOSSAIN

“It is not necessary that every permutation within a generally operable invention be effective in order for an inventor to obtain a generic claim, provided that the effect is sufficiently demonstrated to characterize a generic invention.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Kreyenschmidt et al 10/512,081 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

see also, In re Vaidyanathan, 381 Fed.Appx. 985, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (nonprecedential) (“KSR did not free the PTO’s examination process from explaining its reasoning. In making an obviousness rejection, the examiner should not rely on conclusory statements that a particular feature of the invention would have been obvious or was well known. Instead, the examiner should elaborate, discussing the evidence or reasoning that leads the examiner to such a conclusion.”).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Genske et al 09/847,811 MacDONALD 102(e)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M

2467 Ex Parte Davis et al 11/962,558 MacDONALD 112(1)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/101 Driggs, Hogg, Daugherty & Del Zoppo Co., L.P.A. EXAMINER SCHEIBEL, ROBERT C

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2863 ABBOTT DIABETES CARE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of DEXCOM, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,039 6,931,327 ROBERTSON 102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner: MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Third-Party Requester: JACKSON & CO., LLP EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original EXAMINER NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

In Belkin International, Inc. et al v. Optimumpath, LLC, an expanded panel recently considered whether the Board has jurisdiction to decide SNQ matters in the context of inter partes reexamination. ... In essence, Belkin held that an SNQ attaches to a particular rejection. Accordingly, the determination that an SNQ exists with respect to a particular rejection does not necessarily permit a third party requestor to pursue proposed rejections not found to raise an SNQ outside of the attached rejection, regardless of whether or not the additional rejections are directed to the same claims. Appeal 2011-003697 (BPAI March 29, 2011) (Reexamination Control 95/001,089, Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,035,281 B1, Panel expanded for consideration of substantial new question of patentability jurisdictional issue).

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Gaudiana et al 11/302,634 OWENS obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER TAI, XIUYU

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Kwon et al 11/163,313 NAPPI 102(e) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER MANDALA, VICTOR A

2893 Ex Parte Bhattacharya et al 10/195,527 NAPPI 102(e) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Bogl 10/517,711 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER MCDONALD, SHANTESE L
REHEARING

GRANTED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Kajita 11/237,909 NAPPI 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER ALMO, KHAREEM E

NEW

REVERSED

1717 Ex Parte Skszek et al 11/140,752 OWENS 103(a)/112(1) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PADGETT, MARIANNE L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3751 Ex Parte Harris 11/000,121 TIERNEY 103(a)/112(1) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

AFFIRMED

1781 Ex Parte Chou et al 11/375,675 FREDMAN 103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

3782 Ex Parte Schneider 10/154,221 GARRIS 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP EXAMINER PASCUA, JES F