brown

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Puttaswamy 12272669 - (D) MOORE 103 WINSTEAD P.C. IBM CORP. (WSM) WU, RUTAO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1785 Ex Parte Herslow 12006168 - (D) HOUSEL 112(1)/112(2)/103 103 HENRY I. SCHANZER, ESQ REDDY, SATHAVARAM I

Claim 1 is directed to an assembly for forming a document, which we interpret as directed to an apparatus, i.e. a structure which can be termed a machine or manufacture under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, claim 1 is a structural claim and as such must be distinguished from the prior art based on structure. “[I]t is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535 (CCPA 1972).

Brown, In re, 459 F.2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972) 2113 , 2183

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Ledlie et al 12980864 - (D) McCARTNEY 102 102/103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. SAMS, MATTHEW C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Albrecht et al 12558517 - (D) JENKS 102/103 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP WEST, THEODORE R

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Stute et al 12653731 - (D) DELMENDO 103 KLAUS J. BACH CREPEAU, JONATHAN

1777 Ex Parte Rohde et al 12200488 - (D) SMITH 103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago ZALASKY, KATHERINE M

1789 Ex Parte Verreet 10547992 - (D) SMITH 103 LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP WYROZEBSKI, KATARZYNA I

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte BHATNAGAR et al 12551737 - (D) FENICK 112(1)/112(2)/103 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP KUDIRKA, JOSEPH R

2159 Ex Parte Pierce et al 12748284 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 Orthosensor, Inc. VU, THONG H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte King 12820839 - (D) JIVANI 103 BlackBerry Limited (CRGO Cases) KATSIKIS, KOSTAS J

2481 Ex Parte BEKIARES et al 12648274 - (D) FENICK 103 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. PEREZ FUENTES, LUIS M

2488 Ex Parte Wang et al 13084142 - (D) SAADAT 103 Davidson Sheehan LLP VIXS Systems Inc. PONTIUS, JAMES M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Bateni et al 12327068 - (D) MOORE 103 TERADATA US, INC. JARRETT, SCOTT L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Briscoe et al 11469736 - (D) MURPHY 103 MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. GRAY, PHILLIP A

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 CRESTRON ELECTRONICS, INC. Requester v. LUTRON ELECTRONICS CO., INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7619539 et al 10/824,248 95002260 - (D) CURCURI 103 103 Condo Roccia Koptiw LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: CRESTRON ELECTRONICS, INC. NASSER, ROBERT L original VO, TUYET THI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2825 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO. LTD Requester and Respondent v. TELA INNOVATIONS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8,185,865 B2 et al 12/717,885 95002214 - (D) DILLON 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester: HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP GE, YUZHEN original DOAN, NGHIA M

2876 BLACKHAWK NETWORK, INC., Third Party Requester, v. E2INTERACTIVE, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7,578,439 et al 11/691,766 95001464 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) Third Party Requester: COOLEY LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original TRAIL, ALLYSON NEEL

eynde, ahlert, brown

DE 4,024,941

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Damsohn 10592584 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC GAMINO, CARLOS J

First, the predecessor to our reviewing court explained in In re Eynde, 480 F.2d 1364, 1370 (CCPA 1973), that facts constituting the state of the art are normally subject to the possibility of rational disagreement among reasonable people and are not amenable to the taking of official notice. Second, in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970) the court held that assertions of technical fact in areas of esoteric technology must always be supported by citation to some reference work [admitted in evidence] and recognized as standard in the pertinent art. Moreover, the court held, facts officially noticed should not constitute the principal evidence upon which a rejection is based. Thus, mere assertions of fact, unsupported by evidence of record and an explanation, are not persuasive.

Eynde, In re, 480 F.2d 1364, 178 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1973) 2144.03

Ahlert, In re, 424 F.2d 1088, 165 USPQ 418 (CCPA 1970) 2144.03

As the predecessor to our reviewing court has explained, “[w]hether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 59 CCPA 1036, 173 USPQ 685 (1972).”

Brown, In re, 459 F.2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972) 2113, 2183

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Ganesh et al 10866433 - (D) QUINN 102/103 ORACLE HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG REYES, MARIELA D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Lee et al 11200847 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC LAN, TZU-HSIANG