dann

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Kociak et al 13699975 - (D) HANLON 103 GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD MCCORMACK, JASON L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte HEDERSTIERNA et al 14653178 - (D) BROWNE 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP HERRING, BRENT W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte FISCHER 13688964 - (D) HOUSEL 103 Delphi Technologies LLC LYNCH, VICTORIA HOM

1762 Ex Parte Sun et al 12814552 - (D) RANGE 102 102/103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC MULCAHY, PETER D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Garmark et al 14231170 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA) RIEGLER, PATRICK F

The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does not establish non-obviousness. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976). Instead, the relevant question is "whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in question is a [difference] sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art." Dann, 425 U.S. at 228.

Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) 716.01(a) , 2141 , 2141.03

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3681 Ex Parte Jaffe et al 11829329 - (D) KUMAR 101/102/103 BGL/Excalibur SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

janakiraman, ormco, muchmore, dann

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte King et al 11847612 - (D) REIMERS 103 Universal City Studios LLC c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC MUSTAFA, IMRAN K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Hendricks 12010045 - (D) CHUNG 103 103 ARENT FOX LLP CHAI, LONGBIT

2488 Ex Parte Kim 11607351 - (D) McCARTNEY 112(1)/112(2) 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. PONTIUS, JAMES M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Brunschwiler et al 11957576 - (D) TIMM 102/103 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP HAN, JONATHAN

The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 16 constitutes an implied rejection of the broader claims 1, 2, 13, and 15.Ex parte Janakiraman, 2009 WL 1270322 (BPAI 2009) (Informative); see alsoOrmco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (When the subject matter of dependent claims is determined to have been obvious, the broader subject matter of the claims from which they depend must also be determined to have been obvious.);In re Muchmore, 433 F.2d 824, 824–25 (CCPA 1970) (“Since we agree with the board's conclusion of obviousness as to these narrow claims, the broader claims must likewise be obvious.”). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5, 16, and 17

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Nyhan et al 09900674 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD BOYCE, ANDRE D

While de Mint is silent as to from where these instructions are executed (server side or user computer side), we find that the mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does not establish nonobviousness. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976). The issue is “whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in question ‘is a differen[ce] sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art.’” Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (citation omitted) (finding system for automatic record keeping of bank checks and deposits obvious in view of nature of extensive use of data processing systems in banking industry and “closely analogous” patent for an automatic data processing system used in a large business organization for keeping and updating system transaction files for each department of the organization).

Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) 716.01(a) , 2141 , 2141.03

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Beatty 11183405 - (D) HILL 102(e) 102(e)/103 NIXON PEABODY LLP LIDDLE, JAY TRENT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Heijkants et al 11584682 - (D) PER CURIAM 103/obviousness-type double patenting KENYON & KENYON LLP SERGENT, RABON A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2136 Ex Parte Hoover et al 12117906 - (D) HOMERE 102(e) IBM (ROC-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP TSAI, SHENG JEN

2163 Ex Parte Kang et al 12167324 - (D) TROCK 102 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC BROWN, SHEREE N

2198 Ex Parte De Sio 11230338 - (D) SHAW 103 IBM AUS IPLAW (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC KRETZMER, ERIKA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Dunning et al 10880199 - (D) DANG 103 Daniels IP Services LTD. CHEN, CAI Y

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Chen 11058294 - (D) DANG 103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General MITCHELL, NATHAN A

2642 Ex Parte Obermanns 10590138 - (D) COURTENAY 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte PIETERIS 12700252 - (D) DELMENDO 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC LIAN, MANG TIN BIK

2845 Ex Parte Derneryd et al 11721418 - (D) GARRIS 103/obviousness-type double patenting ERICSSON INC. SMITH, GRAHAM P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Obrea et al 11844020 - (D) CRAWFORD 101/102/103 PITNEY BOWES INC. GARTLAND, SCOTT D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Krumme 12310829 - (D) WOODS 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 D. PETER HOCHBERG CO. L.P.A. ORTIZ, RAFAEL ALFREDO

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Da Palma et al 11297079 - (D) HUME 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG REZA, MOHAMMAD W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Requester and Cross Appellant v. VOLTSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8,242,359 B2 et al 13/053,007 95002374 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 103 Schneider Rothman IP Law Group Third Party Requester: Snell & Wilmer NGUYEN, LINH M original MAYO III, WILLIAM H

2835 SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Requester and Cross Appellant v. VOLTSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7910833 et al 12/127,592 95002365 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102/103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102/103 Schneider Rothman IP Law Group Third Party Requester: Snell & Wilmer MENEFEE, JAMES A original MAYO III, WILLIAM H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 LOGITECH, INC. Requester, Respondent v. IGO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 6527241 et al 09/988,694 95001357 - (D) SONG 102/103 102/314 DOCKET CLERK Third Party Requester: TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP CLARKE, SARA SACHIE original SCHULTERBRANDT, KOFI A

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex parte AVX CORPORATION Appellant Ex Parte 6477032 et al 09/775,050 90012091 - (D) CHEN 102 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. For Third Party Requester: KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP (GREATBATCH) GE, YUZHEN original DINKINS, ANTHONY

dann

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Biasi et al 10951226 - (D) FETTING 101/103 PITNEY BOWES INC. CLARK, DAVID J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Mubarekyan et al 11260997 - (D) KALAN 112(2) 112(1)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

1763 Ex Parte Krauter et al 12262346 - (D) McKELVEY 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP USELDING, JOHN E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Lietzau 10530613 - (D) WINSOR 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP NORTON, JENNIFER L

2183 Ex Parte Lataille et al 11526870 - (D) Per Curiam 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Gale et al 12721607 - (D) DIXON 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL WILLIAMS, ARUN C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Barta et al 11443701 - (D) HOFFMANN 102(b)/102(e)/103 BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3694 Ex Parte Zellner 11969938 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ CRANFORD, MICHAEL D

Yet the law is well established that the mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does not establish non-obviousness. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976).

Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) 716.01(a), 2141, 2141.03
DONNER 6: 390-93, 412, 543, 544; 10: 967-71

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Gonos 11415338 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

klein, dann, stepan

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Kemper et al 10/732,162 BAHR 103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP EXAMINER REDDING, DAVID A

3732 Ex Parte Shirasuka 11/582,111 FRANKLIN 103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

3734 Ex Parte Quijano et al 11/263,302 FRANKLIN 102(b) Paul T. Parker PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D

3764 Ex Parte Stenberg 09/879,151 BONILLA 102(e)/103(a) Ronald L. Grudziecki BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Ruddle et al 11/227,934 PRATS 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C. EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (A reference is analogous prior art when it is “from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed . . . .”) (emphasis added).

AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Colin et al 10/675,363 BISK 103(a) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION EXAMINER AHMED, SALMAN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2852 Ex Parte Hoffman 11/196,139 PER CURIAM 102(e) FLETCHER YODER P.C. EXAMINER FULLER, RODNEY EVAN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Nazginov 10/964,436 HOELTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL

3687 Ex Parte Love et al 11/416,946 FISCHETTI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KING & SPALDING EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does not establish nonobviousness. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976). The issue is “whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in question ‘is a differen[ce] sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art.’” Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (citation omitted)

Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) . . . . . . 716.01(a), 2141, 2141.03

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1711 Ex Parte 6359022 et al Ex parte STEPAN COMPANY Appellant 90/006,824 and 90/007,619 09/289,043 PER CURIAM 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(a)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER GORR, RACHEL F

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s Decision in the above-identified ex parte reexamination proceedings, and remanded the proceedings with instructions to designate the Decision as including a new ground of rejection. In re Stepan Co., 660 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011).