cross med., oetiker

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte FARAM 11748907 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 41.50 103 HITCHCOCK EVERT LLP LYDDANE, KATHRYNN M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte VEERASAMY et al 13188897 - (D) DELMENDO 103 103 41.50 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC SAWHNEY, HARGOBIND S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Thaning et al 11572679 - (D) SCHNEIDER 101 103 GE Healthcare, IP Department RIDER, LANCE W

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Howland 13263757 - (D) DENNETT 103 HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC BROOKS, KREGGT

Appellant’s argument that the end uses of the products in Cleaver II and Tada are “completely different” is unpersuasive. “One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.” Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v.  Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1992). There is no need for Cleaver II to require improved solvent resistance in order for the Examiner to find improved solvent resistance as motivation for the combination.

Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 76 USPQ2d 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2144

Oetiker, In re, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)  707.07(f) ,   716.01(d) ,   1504.01(a) ,   2107.02 ,   2142 ,   2145 ,   2164.07

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 INPHI CORPORATION Requester and Appellant v. NETLIST, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7636274 et al 12/408,652 95001337 - (D) JEFFERY 103 MASCHOFF BRENNAN THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP PEIKARI, BEHZAD original SOFOCLEOUS, ALEXANDER

kerkhoven, cross med.

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Griffith et al 11/810,639 WARREN 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER WALTERS JR, ROBERT S

1723 Ex Parte Gui et al 11/058,850 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER GARDNER, SHANNON M

1731 Ex Parte Lo et al 10/511,865 HASTINGS 103(a) KF ROSS PC EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

Additionally, the Examiner repeatedly relies upon In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980) (Ans. 4, 5, 7), to combine the three applied references, because “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two or three
compositions, each taught for the same purpose to yield a third composition for that very purpose.” See, e.g., Examiner's Answer, page 4, citing In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980).

In Kerkhoven, however, the claims required “no more than the mixing together of two conventional spray-dried detergents.” Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d at 850. In contrast, in the present rejection, the Examiner is making at least two substitutions to the Reynolds invention in order to arrive at the current claimed invention...
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Kitchin 10/208,995 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Ross et al 11/198,699 GONSALVES 103(a) Hovey Williams LLP EXAMINER
TSIDULKO, MARK
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Dubbert et al 10/826,782 HORNER 103(a) Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C. EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Haering et al 11/169,773 SCHEINER 102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER PRICE, ELVIS O
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Tuttle 11/214,339 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P

(motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

1761 Ex Parte Frankenbach et al 11/405,729 WARREN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Schwartz 09/912,636 MANTIS MERCADER 101/102(e) HEIMLICH LAW EXAMINER VU, THONG H