nix, Phillips, boon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Chappa et al 12109139 - (D) OWENS 103 PAULY, DEVRIES SMITH & DEFFNER, L.L.C. BOWMAN, ANDREW J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2681 Ex Parte Campagne et al 12145793 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. NGUYEN, HUNG T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Hawkins et al 12756788 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 HENRICKS SLAVIN AND HOLMES LLP CHENEVERT, PAUL A

3693 Ex Parte Paulsen et al 11609792 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP AMELUNXEN, BARBARA J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Karve et al 12541760 - (D) KATZ 103 103 F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC (IBM) NGUYEN, PHUOC H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11972232 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 102/103 ALCON WILSON, LARRY ROSS

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2144 Ex Parte Kohar et al 12531157 - (D) COURTENAY 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS AMIN, MUSTAFA A

2144 Ex Parte Fux et al 11694361 - (D) WINSOR 103 BLACKBERRY (Finnegan) TAPP, AMELIA L

2157 Ex Parte LeTourneau 11007139 - (D) SAADAT 103 BERKELEY LAW & TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLP LE, JESSICA N

2159 Ex Parte Boroczky et al 12747615 - (D) MCMILLIN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS REYES, MARIELA D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Du 12744461 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 Oppedahl Patent Law Firm, LLC- China Pat LIU, JUNG

2487 Ex Parte Iddan et al 11295491 - (D) NAPPI 103/double patenting Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP DIEP, NHON THANH

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2673 Ex Parte Price et al 11469833 - (D) TROCK 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP HUNTSINGER, PETER K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Bruch 11819233 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP KING, BRADLEY T

3683 Ex Parte OSULLIVAN 12631431 - (D) FETTING 103 BAINWOOD HUANG & ASSOCIATES LLC LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE WALKER III, GEORGE H

3695 Ex Parte Feinstein et al 12425282 - (D) KIM 102/103 112(2) Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. PUTTAIAH, ASHA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Davis et al 13368677 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M

3741 Ex Parte Porte et al 12307881 - (D) JESCHKE 103 Dickinson Wright PLLC MEADE, LORNE EDWARD

3752 Ex Parte Strong 11077273 - (D) MURPHY 112(1)/112(2) 112(1)/102 FLETCHER YODER KIM, CHRISTOPHER S

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 WINEGARD CO. Requester and Respondent v. ELECTRONIC CONTROLLED SYSTEMS d/b/a KING CONTROLS Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7679573 et al 12/004,099 95000560 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Skaar Ulbrich Macari, P.A. For THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P TON, MY TRANG original MANCUSO, HUEDUNG XUAN CAO

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Requester and Cross Appellant v. VOLTSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7960648 et al 12/251,882 95002378 - (D) BAUMEISTER 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 Schneider Rothman IP Law Group Third Party Requester: Snell & Wilmer MENEFEE, JAMES A original MAYO III, WILLIAM H

Unlike the two newly-cited Abdelatti Ali and Ikeda patent documents, which we refuse to consider, we will consider the two dictionary definitions. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.30 (“Evidence means something (including testimony, documents and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact, except that for the purpose of this subpart Evidence does not include dictionaries, which may be cited before the Board.” See also the explanatory comments regarding new Rule § 41.30 (2011): 

Final Bd.R. 41.30 adopts the definition of ‘‘Evidence’’ from Black’s Law Dictionary to provide clarity regarding the use of that term in Subpart B. Toward that end, final Bd.R. 41.30 makes clear that for the purposes of Subpart B, ‘‘Evidence’’ does not encompass dictionaries. Excluding dictionaries from the definition of ‘‘Evidence’’ thus allows appellants to refer to dictionaries in their briefs, which would otherwise be precluded under final Bd.R. 41.33(d)(2) (absent existence of one of the enumerated exceptions). It further allows examiners to refer to dictionaries in the examiner’s answers without automatically rendering a rejection a new ground under final Bd.R. 41.39(a)(2). Treating dictionaries in this manner is consistent with Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent, which contemplate that such materials may be consulted by tribunals “at any time.” See, e.g., Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 307 (1893) (citations omitted) (admitting dictionaries to understand the ordinary meaning of terms “not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[J]udges are free to consult dictionaries and technical treatises at any time in order to better understand the underlying technology and may also rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.”) (citation omitted); In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 727–28 (CCPA 1971) (holding citation to dictionary was not tantamount to the assertion of a new ground of rejection “where such a reference is a standard work, cited only to support a fact judicially noticed and, as here, the fact so noticed plays a minor role, serving only to fill in the gaps which might exist in the evidentiary showing made by the Examiner to support a particular ground for rejection.” (emphasis and internal quotations omitted)). Thus, the Office feels it is logical to permit the applicant and examiner to submit them to the Board during the briefing stage. 

Federal Register (Vol. 76; No. 225; 72270 at 72272–73).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

boon

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Fourcand 11735604 - (D) DILLON 103 102/103 Futurewei Technologies, Inc. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. HOANG, THAI D

An adequate traverse must contain adequate information or argument to create on its face, a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying notice of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Raymond et al 11531592 - (D) DELMENDO 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP THAKUR, VIREN A

1792 Ex Parte Raymond et al 11531585 - (D) DELMENDO 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP THAKUR, VIREN A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Benco et al 11818070 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Volpe and Koenig, P.C. and Wi-LAN Inc. BEHNAMIAN, SHAHRIAR

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1797 LEICA BIOSYSTEMS MELBOURNE PARTY LTD. Requester and Respondent v. DAKO DENMARK A/S Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,553,672 et al 11/803,545 95001671 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester: LEICA BIOSYSTEMS RICHMOND, INC. DAWSON, GLENN K original GORDON, BRIAN R

boon, bozek

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Agarwal et al 12015160 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC SHAW, PETER C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
3715 Ex Parte Alsaud 11502710 - (D) MORRISON 102 102 Wolff & Samson PC CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Fay 11489177 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 JOHNS MANVILLE SYKES, ALTREV C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2194 Ex Parte Sen et al 11336231 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP JORDAN, KIMBERLY L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Barrus et al 10816602 - (D) LORIN 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

“Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the [E]xaminer could then properly rely . . . on a conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’” In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). It is the Appellants’ burden to traverse the Examiner’s notice. “We did not mean to imply . . . that a bald challenge, with nothing more, would be all that was needed. . . .We feel it to be perfectly consistent with the principles governing procedural due process to require that a challenge to judicial notice by the board contain adequate information or argument so that on its face it creates a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying the judicial notice.” In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). That has not been done here by the bald assertion that “the Examiner has erred in taking Official Notice without any substantial evidence” (App. Br. 15).

bozek DONNER 8: 339

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Behr et al 10573273 - (D) IPPOLITO 103 PATENT CENTRAL LLC TAOUSAKIS, ALEXANDER P

chevenard, boon

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Mandigo et al 11/246,966 PER CURIAM 103(a) WIGGIN AND DANA LLP EXAMINER IP, SIKYIN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Cochran et al 10/981,005 HOMERE 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Bruna 10/532,961 BROWN 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Keller et al 10/498,863 GARRIS 102(e)/103(a) 103(a) ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. EXAMINER DICUS, TAMRA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Noguchi 11/153,085 KEFFERY 101/103(a) 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER YEN, SYLING

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Wetherall et al 09/825,139 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) HOUSTON ELISEEVA EXAMINER BARQADLE, YASIN M

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Brough 10/586,072 FREDMAN 103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER SHEN, WU CHENG WINSTON

1653 Ex Parte Szeles et al 10/200,939 FREDMAN 103(a) COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY EXAMINER DRISCOLL, LORA E BARNHART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Aeling et al 10/868,679 PER CURIAM 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER WATKINS III, WILLIAM P

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Gaur et al 10/790,966 SMITH 103(a) Driggs, Hogg, Daugherty & Del Zoppo Co., L.P.A. EXAMINER ZECHER, CORDELIA P K

2444 Ex Parte Allen et al 10/726,457 SMITH 103(a) HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC EXAMINER CHEEMA, UMAR

2453 Ex Parte Salmi et al 10/099,853 POTHIER 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 103(a) Ditthavong Mori & Steiner, P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUONG

2453 Ex Parte Coon et al 10/773,649 THOMAS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NAJEE-ULLAH, TARIQ S

2492 Ex Parte Gilbert et al 10/181,598 SMITH 103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, ZACHARY A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Herner et al 10/955,549 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) DUGAN & DUGAN, PC EXAMINER GOODWIN, DAVID J

2885 Ex Parte Wang 11/500,094 MacDONALD 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER MACCHIAROLO, LEAH SIMONE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Darmer et al 10/754,975 PER CURIAM 103(a) TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A. EXAMINER KWIECINSKI, RYAN D
 
3643 Ex Parte Peinetti et al 12/170,275 McCOLLUM 103(a) PITTS & LAKE P C EXAMINER NGUYEN, SON T

3652 Ex Parte McGurn 11/373,347 SAINDON 103(a) Thomas & Karceski, P.C. EXAMINER KEENAN, JAMES W

See In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 711, 712-13 (CCPA 1943) (declining to consider the belated challenge by an appellant to an examiner’s assertion as to “common knowledge” in the art “in the absence of any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement”); In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971) (requiring “a challenge to judicial notice … contain adequate information or argument so that on its face it creates a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying the judicial notice”).

Chevenard, In re, 139 F.2d 71, 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.03 

3688 Ex Parte Avissar 11/372,407 TURNER 102(e) Naomi Assia Law Offices C/O Landon IP Inc. EXAMINER WEISS, JOHN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Bales et al 11/343,294 GREEN 103(a) MAYBACK & HOFFMAN, P.A. EXAMINER LLOYD, EMILY M
 
3761 Ex Parte Frye et al 10/874,409 McCOLLUM 103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1775 Ex Parte 6623846 et al Guardian Industries Corporation Patent Owner and Appellant v. Cardinal CG Company Requester and Respondent 95/000,424 09/797,903 ROBERTSON 103(a) MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Chi) EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER KOPPIKAR, VIVEK D

steele, boon, klosak, skoner

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kang et al 11/410,757 SMITH 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O

1782 Ex Parte Jester et al 10/404,787 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) FERRELLS, PLLC EXAMINER MIGGINS, MICHAEL C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Atkins 11/128,543 DILLON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ITURRALDE, ENRIQUE W

2186 Ex Parte Ruckerbauer et al 11/011,466 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP Gero McClellan / Qimonda EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Colasurdo et al 10/166,299 STEPHENS 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK

A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of the claim language. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d
859, 862-863 (CCPA 1962).

Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06

2452 Ex Parte Malik 10/165,831 STEPHENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER DOAN, DUYEN MY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte SHIMOE et al 11/457,356 COCKS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

3763 Ex Parte Diemunsch 11/038,359 KERINS Dissenting STAICOVICI 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Piggush 11/823,699 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Cherkasova et al 10/801,793 JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3993 PlaSmart, Inc. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Jar Chen Wang and Hong Jiun Gu Patent Owners and Appellants 95/000,355 6,722,674 ROBERTSON 103(a) MORRIS MANNING MARTIN LLP EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3991 Ex parte TAKASHI YASUKOCHI, TOSHIRO YAMAGUCHI, TETSURO TATEISHI, and NARUHITO HIGO 90/008,491 7,034,083 SCHAFER 103(a) THE HARRIS FIRM EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Eun et al 10/946,326 HANLON 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P

1746 Ex Parte Stadele 10/805,337 GUEST 103(a) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC EXAMINER MUSSER, BARBARA J

1775 Ex Parte Tang et al 11/458,668 COLAIANNI 103(a) COOLEY LLP EXAMINER EDWARDS, LYDIA E

1785 Ex Parte Watanabe et al 11/297,792 GUEST 103(a) Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP EXAMINER RICKMAN, HOLLY C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Barrenscheen et al 09/883,817 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP FOR INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG EXAMINER KNOLL, CLIFFORD H

2168 Ex Parte Alvarado et al 11/362,488 DANG 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER MORRISON, JAY A

2179 Ex Parte Iwema et al 10/144,256 DANG 103(a) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER HUYNH, BA

Our reviewing court has held that an adequate traverse to such a finding of official notice must “contain adequate information or argument” to create on its face “a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances
justifying the . . . notice” of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). “To adequately traverse such a finding [of official notice], an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b).” MPEP § 2144.03(C). “If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, . . . the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art . . . .” Id.

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Birks et al 10/386,152 BAUMEISTER 112(1)/103(a) Merchant & Gould - Cox EXAMINER LEWIS, JONATHAN V

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Spector 10/949,987 HAHN 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER BROWN, VERNAL U

2617 Ex Parte Chen et al 09/932,842 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) Frank C. Nicholas Cardinal Law Group EXAMINER PEACHES, RANDY

2628 Ex Parte Billingsley et al 10/863,609 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EXAMINER WASHBURN, DANIEL C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Hengsbach 10/454,333 OWENS 103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. EXAMINER BATTULA, PRADEEP CHOUDARY
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Barnes et al 10/899,452 COLAIANNI 103(a) AUTOLIV ASP, INC Attn: Sally J. Brown ESQ EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

It is well settled that Appellants have the burden of showing that the claimed invention imparts not just any improvement, but an unexpected improvement. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972); see also In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 948 (CCPA 1975) (Expected results are evidence of obviousness just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness).

DENIED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Apps et al 10/340,315 BARRETT 103(a) Konstantine J. Diamond EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Cronley
Ex Parte Dimitrova et al
Ex Parte Ferderer
Ex Parte Geerits et al
Ex Parte Grove et al
Ex Parte Luo
Ex Parte Mezo et al
Ex Parte Virji et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Hahnle et al
Ex Parte Kulkarni

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Dooley et al
Ex Parte Fritz et al
Ex Parte Futamura et al
Ex Parte Gabrius et al
Ex Parte Goebel et al
Ex Parte Hagiya et al
Ex Parte King et al
Ex Parte Kok et al
Ex Parte Lais et al
Ex Parte Lloyd
Ex Parte Mandel et al
Ex Parte Postupack et al
Ex Parte Rauma et al