yorkey, celeritas, crish, boyer, bush, kuhle, thompson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Verfaillie et al 10561826 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. WANG, CHANG YU

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Weismantel et al 12065123 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP BUIE-HATCHER, NICOLE M

Determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves two analytical steps: (1) the Board must interpret the claim language; and (2) the Board must then compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference."

Yorkey v. Diab, 605 F.3d 1297 (2010) (quoting In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998) (alteration in original))).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Xydis 09997299 - (D) HOMERE 103 103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC PICH, PONNOREAY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Lunak et al 11423060 - (D) KAMHOLZ concurring SCANLON 103 103 McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Buehlmeyer et al 12084162 - (D) OWENS 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION CORMIER, DAVID G

1733 Ex Parte Ougi et al 10855868 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. YANG, JIE

The elimination of a feature disclosed by the prior art, along with its attendant function, is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art. Application of Thompson, 545 F. 2d 1290, 1294 (CCPA 1976) Application of Kuhle, 526 F. 2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)

1782 Ex Parte Bartley et al 11840467 - (D) McKELVEY 103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN

1793 Ex Parte DeSmidt et al 10918892 - (D) KIMLIN 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. WONG, LESLIE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Kwon et al 11226693 - (D) JEFFERY 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. LUONG, ALAN H

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Chambers et al 10951930 - (D) KOHUT 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FISHMAN, LLP GENACK, MATTHEW W

2645 Ex Parte Link et al 11541916 - (D) McKONE 103 O'Shea, Getz & Kosakowski, P.C. MILLER, BRANDON J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Nathans et al 10392849 - (D) TURNER 103 Pay Rent, Build Credit, Inc. MONFELDT, SARAH M

In sustaining a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Board may rely on one reference alone without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, (CCPA 1966).

kronig, boyer, bush, hyatt2

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Weber et al 11/019,492 McKELVEY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER LISTVOYB, GREGORY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Stobbs et al 10/806,307 POTHIER 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN M

2181 Ex Parte Barrenscheen et al 10/727,102 DESHPANDE 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHUN KUAN

2188 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/054,886 ZECHER 102(b) Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC EXAMINER GU, SHAWN X

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/952,708 KRIVAK 102(e) Synopsys/Fenwick EXAMINER KALAM, ABUL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Elgee et al 11/021,650 McCARTHY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MORRISON, THOMAS A

3657 Ex Parte Murakami 10/698,481 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/220,831 SAINDON 112(2)/103(a) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC EXAMINER BERTHEAUD, PETER JOHN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte Wei et al 12/283,347 ADAMS 112(1) 102(a,b) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER MONSHIPOURI, MARYAM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Bohannon et al 11/025,846 GONSALVES 103(a) 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAM LINH T

2161 Ex Parte Boss et al 10/992,572 DESHPANDE 103(a) 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN EXAMINER NGUYEN, THU N

2179 Ex Parte Hymes et al 10/633,250 FRAHM 103(a) 103(a) FROST BROWN TODD LLC EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte McCall et al 10/956,426 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER JOSEPH, JAISON
AFFIRMED

1653 Ex Parte Kilminster 10/570,447 ADAMS 103(a) ELMORE PATENT LAW GROUP, PC EXAMINER MARTIN, PAUL C

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Wendker et al 12/093,097 MILLS 103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP EXAMINER KAUCHER, MARK S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Matthews et al 10/814,426 HUGHES 103(a) HOWISON & ARNOTT, L.L.P EXAMINER DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY

Although we apply a somewhat different reasoning than that provided by the Examiner, where, as here, the limitations at issue are found in a single reference and the thrust of the obviousness reasoning remains the same, the Board may rely on a single reference to affirm a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) without designating it a new ground of rejection. Reliance upon fewer references in affirming a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 does not normally constitute a new ground of rejection. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966); In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); see also Hyatt v. Doll, 576 F.3d 1246, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The Board cannot be said to have presented a new ground of rejection simply by elaborating on the examiner’s rejection or by using different words.”).

Kronig, In re, 539 F.2d 1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207.03

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Gugliotta 11/293,756 KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) PATENT, COPYRIGHT & TRADEMARK LAW GROUP EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAUREN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Pommereau 10/525,900 ASTORINO 112(2)/102(b) 103(a) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN EXAMINER BUTLER, MICHAEL E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Savic et al 11/343,584 O’NEILL 102(b) Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus P.A. EXAMINER MAI, HAO D