reid, michalek, carroll

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1756 Ex Parte Schutze 10991047 - (D) WARREN 103 103 NOTARO, MICHALOS & ZACCARIA P.C. BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH

1765 Ex Parte Rukavina et al 11638876 - (D) McKELVEY 103 103 41.50 112(2) PPG Industries, Inc. SERGENT, RABON A

Precedent teaches that a negative result of prior art compositions obtained by a party having an interest can raise credibility doubts as to the result reported. See In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 1002 (CCPA 1950) (“in no way reflecting on the good faith of the makers of the affidavits . . . the failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight”) and In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 232 (CCPA 1947) (same), and compare In re Carroll, 601 F.2d 1184, 1886 (CCPA 1979) (“[u]nlike the usual expert opinion, prepared either by the applicant himself, or on his behalf after the controversy has arisen, Dr. Merkal’s opinion was formulated prior to the making of the claimed invention. It was therefore completely untainted by either hindsight or bias.”).

Reid, In re, 179 F.2d 998, 84 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1950) 716.07

Michalek, In re, 162 F.2d 229, 74 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1947) 716.07

Carroll, In re, 601 F.2d 1184, 202 USPQ 571 (CCPA 1979) 716.01(c)

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Rukavina et al 11638925 - (D) McKELVEY 103 PPG Industries, Inc. LEONARD, MICHAEL L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte KWUN et al 11779588 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L

2688 Ex Parte Scholz et al 11925012 - (D) HORVATH 102 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. RENNER, CRAIG A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Molnes 11988191 - (D) MARSCHALL 103 Carella Byrne Bain NGUYEN, VU Q

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Spagnolo 12708538 - (D) JESCHKE 103 Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLP 1 PERREAULT, ANDREW D

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 LEICA BIOSYSTEMS MELBOURNE PARTY LTD. Requester and Respondent v. DAKO DENMARK A/S Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,217,392 et al 10/864,620 95001613 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102 103 HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester: LEICA BIOSYSTEMS RICHMOND, INC. DANAHER LEGAL DAWSON, GLENN K original GORDON, BRIAN R

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 8111008 et al 12/503,559 95002261 - (D) CURCURI Concurring BAUMEISTER 112(2) 103 Condo Roccia Koptiw LLP Third Party Requester: Creston Electronics, Inc. HUGHES, DEANDRA M original VO, TUYET THI

donaldson, carroll, valmont, johnston1, alcon, KSR

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Karau et al 11583192 - (D) FLOYD 102/103 Jackson Walker LLP MORGAN, EILEEN P

“[T]he ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six.” In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194-95 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). In other words, in order to meet a “means plus function” limitation, the prior art must (1) perform the identical function recited in the means limitation and (2) perform that function using the structure disclosed in the specification or an equivalent structure. Cf. Carroll Touch Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys. Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Valmont Indus. Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182

Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993)  2183,  2184, 2186

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte MALET et al 12147111 - (D) GAUDETTE 103/obviousness-type double patenting THE DIAL CORPORATION DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

This argument is unpersuasive because the "motivation to modify a prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention need not be the same motivation that the [applicant] had. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (stating that it is error to look "only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve");

Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 687 F. 3d 1362, 1368 ((Fed. Cir. 2012)

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, , 2145, 2216,  2242,  2286,  2616,  2642,  2686.04

1767 Ex Parte Mabey et al 11654486 - (D) DELMENDO 103/obviousness-type double patenting CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY STANLEY, JANE L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Bourland et al 11647964 - (D) JEFFERY 102 PITNEY BOWES INC. NGUYEN, KIM T

2193 Ex Parte Weaver 10041743 - (D) KUMAR 112(1)/102/103 NCR Corporation VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2496 Ex Parte van Bemmel et al 10970143 - (D) JEFFERY 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP POLTORAK, PIOTR