chapman2, shinseki, gardner2, case

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Schauer et al 12386220 - (D) KENNEDY 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. SONG, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte FORREST et al 12511797 - (D) WILSON 103 Morgan Lewis & Bockuis, LLP - UDC HAGAN, SEAN P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Ertmer 12403240 - (D) KERINS 103 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) TRAN, THIEN S

3748 Ex Parte Donaldson et al 11589822 - (D) REIMERS 102/103 CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P. TRAN, BINH Q

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Helmick et al 13226126 - (D) HASTINGS 103 103 General Electric Company KIECHLE, CAITLIN ANNE

1755 Ex Parte MURATA et al 12270978 - (D) NAGUMO 112(2)/103 112(1)/103 MOTS LAW, PLLC TRINH, THANH TRUC

The Federal Circuit has explained that, on appeal, the appellant must not only show the existence of error, but also that the error was harmful because it affected the decision below. In re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010), quoting Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009) (“the burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency’s determination.”).
...

The Examiner’s reliance on the case Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984) is unavailing. Obviousness is a legal conclusion based on the facts of each case. As the Federal Circuit explained, “[p]recedent cannot establish facts.” Case v. CPC Int’l, Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Gardner, which addressed the obviousness of an apparatus for drying printed materials on glossy papers (as in many periodicals), does not concern the materials and dimensions of solar cells relevant to the present appeal.

Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2144.04

Case v. CPC Int’l Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 221 USPQ 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2301.03

1764 Ex Parte Fuhry et al 12963045 - (D) SMITH 102 102 PPG Industries, Inc. REDDY, KARUNA P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Sun et al 12521987 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 112(2)/103 NXP B.V. MYERS, PAUL R

2191 Ex Parte Song et al 12488905 - (D) HOMERE 103 103 41.50 103 MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP Oracle formerly d/b/a Sun Microsystems ZHEN, WEI Y

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2673 Ex Parte Silverbrook et al 12954900 - (D) ZADO 103 103 SILVERBROOK RESEARCH PTY LTD PHAM, THIERRY L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Ahlfeld et al 12215671 - (D) BROWN 103 102 TerraPower, LLC O'CONNOR, MARSHALL P

3663 Ex Parte He et al 12182904 - (D) BAHR 103 102 HONEYWELL/IFL TISSOT, ADAM D

3691 Ex Parte Dawson et al 11755800 - (D) FISCHETTI 112(2)/103 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. POINVIL, FRANTZY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte MITCHELL et al 12642978 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 103 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT MATHEW, FENN C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Tanaka et al 11303082 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP HIRIYANNA, KELAGINAMANE T

1633 Ex Parte Yu et al 11526927 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103/double patenting KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP POPA, ILEANA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Neter et al 12085793 - (D) FRANKLIN 102 SIMPSON & SIMPSON, PLLC SULTANA, NAHIDA

1761 Ex Parte Fruge et al 12743719 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 W.R. GRACE & CO.-CONN. DIGGS, TANISHA

1772 Ex Parte Van Westrenen et al 12743280 - (D) NAGUMO 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY NGUYEN, TAM M

1784 Ex Parte Creech et al 13295900 - (D) McSHANE 103 Krieg DeVault LLP ZIMMERMAN, JOHN J

1787 Ex Parte SALNIKOV et al 12611374 - (D) TIMM 102 112(1) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY JACKSON, MONIQUE R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte OSULLIVAN et al 12015270 - (D) COURTENAY 101/102/103/double patenting CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG THATCHER, PAUL A

2181 Ex Parte Gao et al 11935429 - (D) DROESCH 103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP LEWIS-TAYLOR, DAYTON A.

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Lee 12455049 - (D) DIXON 103 DOCKET CLERK FANG, PAKEE

2699 Ex Parte Espelien 11973477 - (D) NEW 103 PacketVideo Corp. JOHNSON, GERALD

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Pasik et al 11584239 - (D) PAK 103 HONEYWELL/ADDITON ELLIS, SUEZU Y

2886 Ex Parte Kare 12074247 - (D) OWENS 101 112(1) INTELLECTUAL VENTURES - ISF HANSEN, JONATHAN M

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
2742 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant Ex Parte 5,684,863 et al 08/476,662 90012407 - (D) CHEN 103 COOLEY LLP Third Party Requester: NDQ SPECIAL REEXAM GROUP MCNEIL, JENNIFER C original BROWN, THOMAS

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte AMERITOX, LTD. Appellant Ex Parte 8359207 et al 11/949,407 90012861 - (D) CHEN 102/103 FOR PATENT OWNER: Perkins Coie LLP - CHI General THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: SHEPPERD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP TARAE, CATHERINE MICHELLE original COBANOGLU, DILEK B

einstein, case

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Igarashi et al 11643823 - (D) KIMLIN 103 CLARK & BRODY IP, SIKYIN

1743 Ex Parte Roesgen et al 12235821 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY BROWN II, DAVID N

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Lee 11624524 - (D) HOMERE 103 DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORPORATION PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte Klassen 11863591 - (D) FREDMAN 103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER ZHU,RICHARD Z

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11803152 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 DOCKET CLERK-STMI ROY, PUNAM P

Citing In re Einstein, 46 F.2d 373, 8 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1931), the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to reverse the location of the bumps with the location of the grooves, “since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art” (Ans. 5).

The Examiner’s sole reliance on the precedent in Einstein as a factual basis for concluding that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious is improper because precedent cannot establish facts. See, e.g., Case v. CPC Int’l, Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

case HANSON 9: 33; 10: 88; 14: 187, 191; 18: 116, 128, 133, 243

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Claise et al 11223379 - (D) HUME 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP BELANI, KISHIN G

2452 Ex Parte Light et al 10414593 - (D) MORGAN 103 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) HOANG, HIEU T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Storaasli 11975982 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Oliver Law Firm, PS Inc. SCHEUERMANN, DAVID W

2881 Ex Parte Sawada et al 11874646 - (D) OWENS 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. JOHNSTON, PHILLIP A

2894 Ex Parte Mengel et al 12053830 - (D) KALAN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA PAYEN, MARVIN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Voic 11986424 - (D) ADAMS 103 COLEMAN SUDOL SAPONE, P.C. HICKS, VICTORIA J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2629 LOGITECH INC. Requester v. UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS Patent Owner and Appellant 95001759 7782309 12/103,895 HOFF 102(a)/102(e)/103 112(1)/112(2) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) RALIS, STEPHEN J original ABDULSELAM, ABBAS I

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP Thomas & Betts Corporation Respondent, Requestor v. PPC BROADBAND, INC. Appellant, Patent Owner 95001691 7,828,595 12/397,087 McCARTHY 102(a)/102(e)/314 112(1)/112(2)//103 JOHN MEZZALINGUA ASSOCIATES, INC. C/O SCHMEISER OLSEN & WATTS Third Party Requester: Hiscock & Barclay LLC/PPC RALIS, STEPHEN J original LEON, EDWIN A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 MONAGHAN MEDICAL CORP. Requester and Appellant v. PARI GmbH Patent Owner and Respondent 95001216 7562656 10/943,542 GUEST 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BRINKS HOFFER GILSON & LIONE LEWIS, AARON J original DOUGLAS, STEVEN O

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 2743 CBT FLINT PARTNERS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RETURN PATH, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND CISCO IRONPORT SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-1036 6,192,114 09/145,710 6,587,550 09/783,340 TARANTO concurring in part and dissenting in part O’MALLEY fee award King & Spalding, LLP; Duane Morris LLP; Mayer Brown, LLP BARNIE, REXFORD N

AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2624 SUPREMA, INC. AND MENTALIX, INC., Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, AND CROSS MATCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Intervenor. 2012-1170 7203344 10/345,420 7,277,562 10/631,890 O’MALLEY concurring in part and dissenting in part REYNA cease and desist/limited exclusion claim construction/non-infringement Fenwick & West, LLP; United States International Trade Commission; Latham & Watkins LLP; King & Spalding LLP original STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. DO, ANH HONG; SCHAFFER, JONATHAN C

bicon, zumbiel, cortright, case, eaton, richdel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Braun et al 11721077 - (D) KRATZ 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. SAHA, BIJAY S

1745 Ex Parte Schonbeck 11152425 - (D) DELMENDO 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2699 Ex Parte Branton et al 11192619 - (D) KRIVAK 103 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP SHAPIRO, LEONID

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte CELESTINI 11463918 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Lutz 11354781 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Cozen O'Connor TAOUSAKIS, ALEXANDER P

Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Prior art references may be ‘indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means ... [and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.’ ... Accordingly, the PTO’s interpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from analogous art.

Id. (internal citations omitted).

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111, 2164.04

As the Appellant chose to use both the preamble and the body of the claim to define the subject matter of the claimed invention, the preamble is limiting. See e.g., C.W. Zumbiel Co., Inc. v. Kappos 702 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952-53 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“when the limitations in the body of the claim ‘rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention’” (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Sonderkaer 10513672 - (D) SAINDON 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC CHAPMAN, JEANETTE E

3634 Ex Parte Ashmus 11207409 - (D) OSINSKI 112(2) 103 JANSSON SHUPE & MUNGER LTD. CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3689 Ex Parte Harris 10531246 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(1)/112(2)/101/103 112(2)/101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Nederegger et al 11605228 - (D) KILE 103 102/103 Manelli Selter PLLC TIETJEN, MARINA ANNETTE

3769 Ex Parte Rogers 11448296 - (D) PRATS 103 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP SHAY, DAVID M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Feng et al 12187049 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 Hartman Global IP Law TAKEUCHI, YOSHITOSHI

1756 Ex Parte Clipstone et al 11375693 - (D) BEST 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1791 Ex Parte Mayville et al 11106082 - (D) NAGUMO 103/obviousness-type double patenting BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DICUS, TAMRA

As our reviewing court has explained, “[p]recedent cannot establish facts.” Case v. CPC Int’l, Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Case v. CPC Int’l Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 221 USPQ 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2301.03

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Videtich 10135300 - (D) DIXON 112(2)/102 General Motors Corporation ANTHONY LUKE SIMON NGUYEN, THUONG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Dick 11619642 - (D) TARTAL 103 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP BOEHLER, ANNE MARIE M

Moreover, asserting that what makes an invention commercially successful is a claimed feature that is well known in the art fails to establish a nexus because “the asserted commercial success of the product must be due to the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.” J.T. Eaton & Co., Inc. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) citing to Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 714 F.2d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (claims held obvious despite purported showing of commercial success when patentee failed to show that “such commercial success as its marketed system enjoyed was due to anything disclosed in the patent in suit which was not readily available in the prior art.”)

3611 Ex Parte Parenti et al 12015337 - (D) CAPP 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C KIM, SHIN H

3626 Ex Parte Graves et al 10813230 - (D) KIM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 DOWELL & DOWELL P.C. COUPE, ANITA YVONNE

3689 Ex Parte Cole et al 10408175 - (D) FETTING 102/103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Porter et al 11031421 - (D) DANIELS 103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP MANAHAN, TODD E

case, ICON

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Spormann et al 11/218,386 McCOLLUM 103(a) STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY LICENSING BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER MEAH, MOHAMMAD Y 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Harai 10/561,503 HASTINGS 102(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES EXAMINER NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L 

Ex Parte Huttlin 10/823,926 GARRIS 112(2)/103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE 

Ex Parte Kaye et al 10/877,771 NAGUMO 103(a) BEYER LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER CONLEY, OI K 

The Examiner’s reliance on Supreme Court precedent to establish obviousness is misplaced because, as our reviewing court pointed out, "[p]recedent cannot establish facts." Case v. CPC Int’l, Inc. , 730 F.2d 745, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 

Case v. CPC Int’l Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 221 USPQ 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . 2301.03 

Ex Parte Komatsu et al 10/830,449 KIMLIN 103(a) MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER CHEVALIER, ALICIA ANN 

Ex Parte Manning et al 10/341,375 NAGUMO 103(a) FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Van Den Berg et al 10/571,814 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Mitra et al 11/251,664 HOMERE 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER WHITMORE, STACY 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Flinner et al 10/989,809 O’NEILL 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER JIANG, CHEN WEN 

REEXAMINATION 

AFFIRMED 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte RPM SOLUTIONS, INC. Patent US 6,659,375 90/007,333 SONG 102(b)/103(a) cc: CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD. cc Third Party Requester: Edward J. Kondracki MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A 

see also In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“During reexamination, as with original examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.”).