remark, demaco, pentec, McLaughlin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Warrier et al 10577754 - (D) SMITH 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC MARKS, JACOB B

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Sperle et al 11284263 - (D) SHIANG 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP RICHARDSON, JAMES E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Cooper et al 11252320 - (D) HUGHES 102 THOMSON Licensing LLC VANCHY JR, MICHAEL J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Peltier et al 12331621 - (D) HOELTER 103 American Air Liquide, Inc. ADAMOS, THEODORE V

3663 Ex Parte Katsumata et al 11476143 - (D) BROWNE 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP TISSOT, ADAM D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Lloyd 12011415 - (D) SMEGAL 103 102/103 Jerrod R. Lloyd AVILA, STEPHEN P

In ex parte proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, an applicant must show that the claimed features were responsible for the commercial success of an article if the evidence of nonobviousness is to be accorded substantial weight. Merely asserting commercial success of an article-alleged to embody an invention that is being offered for sale by another-is not sufficient. See Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1502-03 (BPAI 1990). Compare Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1394 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988). See also Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (commercial success may have been attributable to extensive advertising and position as a market leader before the introduction of the patented product).

Remark, Ex parte, 15 USPQ2d 1498 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) 716.03 , 716.03(b) , 2144.08

Demaco Corp. v. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   716.01(b) ,   716.01(d) ,   716.03 ,  716.03(a) ,  716.03(b)

Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.03(b) , 716.06 , 2141.01(a)


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Ott 11625357 - (D) GOODSON 103 obviousness-type double patenting FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) MAYE, AYUB A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Fukushima et al 11812272 - (D) HASTINGS 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO BOYLE, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Buller et al 12244764 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG SINGH, AMRESH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Swager et al 12268291 - (D) WINSOR 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Lu et al 12502211 - (D) KATZ 103 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. ALROBAIE, KHAMDAN N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Buhamad 12706858 - (D) SMEGAL 103 LOWE HAUPTMAN & HAM, LLP RISIC, ABIGAIL ANNE

See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971(“[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning”).

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) 707.07(f) , 2145

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Kleyne 11599496 - (D) KINDER 103 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. SHEARER, DANIEL R

3777 Ex Parte Cain et al 12569061 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 SHAY GLENN LLP NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC

rosco, demaco

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Melnyk et al 11735083 - (D) SMITH 103 General Electric Company GE Global Patent Operation ZALASKY, KATHERINE M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2882 Ex Parte Coon et al 11878540 - (D) HOFF 102/103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC LIU, CHIA HOW MICHAEL

Under the doctrine of inherency, if a claimed element is not expressly disclosed in a prior art reference, the reference nevertheless anticipates the claim if the missing element is necessarily present in the reference, and it would be so recognized by skilled artisans. Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., 304 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). To anticipate the claim, the missing element must be necessarily present in the prior art—not merely probably or possibly present. Id.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kazantsev et al 10171352 - (D) RUGGIERO 102 102 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HICKS, CHARLES N

2442 Ex Parte Lyle et al 11040069 - (D) SMITH 103 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP ZHANG, SHIRLEY X

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Edwards et al 10147241 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/132(a)/103 103 -PHYSIO -CONTROL, INC. MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. HOLMES, REX R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Steen et al 11444787 - (D) GREEN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

1651 Ex Parte Ueda et al 10482704 - (D) ADAMS 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH FERNANDEZ, SUSAN EMILY

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Fu et al 11964960 - (D) KIMLIN 103 HARTMAN GLOBAL IP LAW FLETCHER III, WILLIAM P

1765 Ex Parte Lorenz et al 11713898 - (D) SMITH 102/103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC SERGENT, RABON A

1765 Ex Parte Moens et al 10544116 - (D) KIMLIN 103 DITTHAVONG MORI & STEINER, P.C. LISTVOYB, GREGORY

1765 Ex Parte Costolnick et al 12375847 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 The Dow Chemical Company VALDEZ, DEVE E

1767 Ex Parte Behan et al 11604257 - (D) SCHAFER 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

1782 Ex Parte Schatzmuller-Baragas 11985003 - (D) KIMLIN 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. PATTERSON, MARC A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte James et al 11521711 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP RHU, KRIS M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Regimbal et al 11753328 - (D) SMITH 103 HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP PAPE, ZACHARY

2885 Ex Parte Sibalich et al 11345831 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP LEE, JONG SUK

The term “nexus” designates a factually and legally sufficient connection between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention so that the evidence is of probative value in the determination of nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988).

Demaco Corp. v. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 716.01(b) , 716.01(d) , 716.03, 716.03(a) , 716.03(b)

2893 Ex Parte Park et al 11604678 - (D) EVANS 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. RODELA, EDUARDO A  

REHEARING  

DENIED  
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Patel et al 11578646 - (R) SMITH 103 The Dow Chemical Company SALVATORE, LYNDA