borden

US 2006/0040011 A1

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Signaoff et al 11403548 - (D) GONSALVES 103 FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P POPHAM, JEFFREY D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Schade et al 12184550 - (D) CRUMBLEY 103 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. ROGERS, MARTIN K

1793 Ex Parte Newsom 11561015 - (D) BEST 103 112(2) HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP MUKHOPADHYAY, BHASKAR

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a Reply Brief unless the Appellant establishes good cause for not presenting the argument earlier.  See Ex Parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Bi et al 10854019 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC MILLER, MICHAEL G

1745 Ex Parte Reuter 11618050 - (D) PRAISS 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EFTA, ALEX B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2878 Ex Parte Harville et al 11455148 - (D) BUI 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LE, BAO-LUAN Q

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Sarbo et al 11899066 - (D) PLENZLER 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. KUMAR, RAKESH

NTP, medichem, woodland trust, borden, optivus

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Hansen 11/595,141 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LUK, VANESSA TIBAY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/737,124 MACDONALD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DANG, KHANH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Roginsky et al 09/999,643 POTHIER 103(a) Robert V. Wilder EXAMINER TRUONG, LAN DAI T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Thiers et al 10/216,821 BAHR 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Goicoechea et al 09/977,826 COCKS 112(1) BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/172,021 GAUDETTE 112(1) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

1736 Ex Parte KURATA et al 12/130,179 GARRIS 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER WALCK, BRIAN D

1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,659 GAUDETTE 103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

A party seeking to antedate a reference based on reduction to practice must present evidence of the actual reduction to practice of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference. 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b). An inventor cannot rely on uncorroborated testimony to establish a prior invention date. Id. It has long been the case that an inventor’s allegations of earlier invention alone are insufficient—an alleged date of invention must be corroborated. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc., 148 F.3d 1368, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[E]vidence is assigned probative value and collectively weighed to determine whether reduction to practice has been achieved.” Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1170. “Sufficiency of corroboration is determined by using a ‘rule of reason’ analysis, under which all pertinent evidence is examined when determining the credibility of an inventor’s testimony.” Id.

In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,853 GAUDETTE 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU) EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Raley et al 10/425,647 HOMERE concurring BLANKENSHIP obviousness-type double patenting/102(e) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER NOBAHAR, ABDULHAKIM
REHEARING

GRANTED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Giordano et al 12/038,177 KIM 102(b) MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC FOR BOFA EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[a]ny bases for asserting error, whether factual or legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived”); see also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“an issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

lovin, borden

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Erhan et al 11/717,524 WALSH 103(a) USDA-ARS-OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NATIONAL CTR FOR AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH EXAMINER CARR, DEBORAH D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Yilmaz et al 11/397,974 FREDMAN 103(a) Casimir Jones, S.C. EXAMINER YAO, LEI

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Dinger et al 10/711,956 KOHUT 102(b)/103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC For IBM EXAMINER REYES, MARIELA D

See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that interpreting 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) to require a more substantive argument than a naked assertion that the prior art fails to teach limitation in order to address a claim separately, is not an unreasonable interpretation of the rule). Additionally, any arguments not presented are waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative).
REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Morsa 09/832,440 CRAWFORD 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Steve Morsa EXAMINER OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P