par pharmaceutical, stepan2, dillon

custom search

REVERSED 

Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1613 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 14900907 - (D) GRIMES 102/103/OTDP Suzannah K. Sundby (UC) Canady + Lortz LLP HUANG, GIGI GEORGIANA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1783 Guardian Glass, LLC 13784108 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Guardian Glass, LLC c/o KCPS IP Dept./Shannon Gonsalves GUO, TONG

Therefore, the Examiner’s inherency position based on combining bits and pieces from disparate references constitutes reversible error.  PAR Pharm. Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he concept of inherency must be limited when applied to obviousness, and is present only when the limitation at issue is the ‘natural result’ of the combination of prior art elements.”); accord In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  

Cf. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc) (explaining that, in certain circumstances, it is not necessary that both a structural similarity between a claimed and prior art composition be shown and that there be a suggestion or expectation from the prior art that the claimed composition will have the same or a similar property as one newly discovered by the applicant). 

Stepan, In re, 868 F.3d 1342, 123 USPQ2d 1838 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 2144.05

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2141 , 2144 , 2144.08 , 2144.09 , 2145

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2175 APPLE INC. 14174707 - (D) HUGHES 103 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)(Apple) HO, RUAY L

2194 James J. Radigan et al. 14751262 - (D) SHAW 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION CHEN, ZHAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security

2413 Robert Baldemair et al. 14563261 - (D) THOMAS 102/103/OTDP Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC PASIA, REDENTOR M

2434 Ravi Chakravarthi. Kumar et al. 11320593 - (D) DANG 103 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP Box AVAYA Inc. TRAN, TONGOC

Tech Center 2600 Communications

2674 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. 15504045 - (D) SHAW 103 HP Inc. ZHANG, FAN

2683 Motorola Mobility LLC 14814566 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group (MM Files) KHAN, OMER S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

3624 BigLever Software, Inc. 14852121 - (D) SHIANG 112(2)/101/103 DUBOIS, BRYANT, & CAMPBELL, LLP SCHEUNEMANN, RICHARD N

3645 HEGNA, STIAN et al. 12806098 - (D) BROWNE 103 OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC HULKA, JAMES R

3681 Fortney, Paul Matthew. et al. 10959637 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 41.50 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP BRANDENBURG, WILLIAM A

3687 Ford Global Technologies, LLC 14699291 - (D) HUME 101 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL HAIDER, FAWAAD

3689 ecoATM, LLC 15630460 - (D) PYONIN 112(1)/112(2)/103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General MINCARELLI, JAN P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3771 J. Landon. Gilkey et al. 13650507 - (D) SHAH 103 Donald K. Jones Apollo Endosurgery US, Inc. HIGHLAND, RACHEL S

3772 Voesh Corporation 15099315 - (D) SCHOPFER 102/103 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C.
GILL, JENNIFER FRANCES

3781 Sai Shankar 13952240 - (D) PLENZLER 102/103 ALLERGAN, INC. ZIMBOUSKI, ARIANA

3793 Karl Storz Imaging, Inc. 13871672 - (D) HOSKINS 103 KS - Whitmyer IP Group LLC
ROZANSKI, MICHAEL T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1741 LeBlond, Nicolas et al. 13206004 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 103 CORNING INCORPORATED
HOFFMANN, JOHN M

1799 Kenneth R. Davenport et al. 14410718 - (D) TIMM 112(4)/103 112(2) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY PRAKASH, GAUTAM

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2163 Erdogan, Ozgun Ali. et al. 13345620 - (D) RAEVSKY 103 112(2) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT GURMU, MULUEMEBET

Tech Center 2600 Communications

2632 Curtis Ling et al. 14695261 - (D) BAIN 103 103 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD TADESE, BERHANU

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2847 Delphi Technologies, Inc. 15007272 - (D) HOMERE 103 103 Aptiv Technologies Limited TSO, STANLEY

AFFIRMED 

Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1629 Heinz Vogt et al. 12311953 - (D) ADAMS 103 LyondellBasell Industries CHU, YONG LIANG

1644 Panagiota Iliopoulou et al. 15287365 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY LICENSING BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP JUEDES, AMY E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1715 Hoff, Vincent et al. 13982080 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 The Dobrusin Law Firm P.C. PROCTOR, CACHET I

1741 Timothy A. Dennis et al. 13474850 - (D) HOUSEL 103 Guardian Glass, LLC c/o KCPS IP Dept./Shannon Gonsalves DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S

1782 Kuhmann, Karl et al. 13639765 - (D) DELMENDO 112(2) 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. PATTERSON, MARC A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2118 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 14106131 - (D) THOMAS 101/103 Armstrong Teasdale LLP (12764) FOLEY, SHON G

2135 Hoffman, Daniel D. et al. 14977699 - (D) BAIN 103 JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA US, INC. WADDY JR, EDWARD

2158 Smith, Gregory Paul. 14798216 - (D) JURGOVAN 103/OTDP Colby Nipper / Google PENG, HUAWEN A

2167 SPLUNK, Inc. 15582670 - (D) BAIN 103 112(2)/OTDP Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Splunk Inc.) UDDIN, MOHAMMED R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security

2425 Brulotte, Kristopher 14945454 - (D) BAIN 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP (DISH) DISH Network L.L.C. LIN, JASON K

2456 Anurup Singhal et al. 15391662 - (D) BAIN 103/OTDP Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC CHEN, WUJI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2834 Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation 14879715 - (D) HEANEY 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - Power Controls, Sensing Systems JOHNSON, ERIC

2864 Ping Zhang et al. 13742923 - (D) SQUIRE 101 102 Schlumberger Technology Center LE, TOAN M

2892 HERBSOMMER, Juan A. et al. 13021969 - (D) DENNETT 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED JONES, ERIC W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

3619 David Hamilton et al. 15132685 - (D) OSINSKI 112(2)/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
BOOMER, JEFFREY C

3624 Flockhart, Andrew D. et al. 13540906 - (D) MEDLOCK 101 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. DICKERSON, TIPHANY B

3624 Reveel Inc. 14699512 - (D) JEFFERY 101 DLA PIPER LLP (US ) KONERU, SUJAY

3626 BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE 14578396 - (D) SHIANG 112(2)/103 101/103 Thomas E. Lees LLC BLANCHETTE, JOSHUA B

3629 Facebook, Inc. 13765607 - (D) WOOD 101/103 Facebook/Fenwick LINDSEY III, JOHNATHAN J

3663 Judd, Thomas D. et al. 12888499 - (D) HOMERE 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG EVANS, GARRETT F

3681 Stephane H. Maes 12544484 - (D) GRIMES 103 112(2) Kraguljac Law Group/Oracle ROJAS, HAJIME S

3681 FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 14949263 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 101/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL CIRNU, ALEXANDRU

3686 Lynam, Joe M. et al. 13841318 - (D) WIEDER 103 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA) GO, JOHN P

3691 Bartko, Peter et al. 12464099 - (D) HUGHES 101 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. 
TINKLER, MURIEL S

3691 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION 14037720 - (D) CHUNG 101 Tutunjian & Bitetto, P.C. POINVIL, FRANTZY

3694 Brian Blank et al. 14214047 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/OTDP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP NGUYEN, TIEN C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3723 Molz, Ronald J. et al. 13499764 - (D) HOELTER 103 ROBERT S. GREEN OERLIKON METCO (US) INC. MORGAN, EILEEN P

3735 Kelly, Daniel 13826033 - (D) CAPP 112(1) 102/103 Massina Patent & Trademark Law PLLC
POON, ROBERT

3741 United Technologies Corporation 14740368 - (D) CAPP 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY BREAZEAL, WILLIAM LEE

3745 United Technologies Corporation 15266266 - (D) GUIJT 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY BROWN, ADAM WAYNE

REHEARING

DENIED 

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security

2457 Damola, Ayodele et al. 14356926 - (R) SHAW 103 Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC VANG, MENG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

3627 Agee, Richard et al. 14536582 - (R) MEYERS 101 Richards Patent Law P.C. GLASS, RUSSELL S

3635 SmithGroupJJR, Inc. 14029501 - (R) FITZPATRICK 102/103 Brooks Kushman CANFIELD, ROBERT

3692 Richard Lang 13601984 - (R) COURTENAY III 101/103 Polsinelli LLP GAW, MARK H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3793 Nahi Halmann 11710773 - (R) MEYERS 112(1)/112(2) 103 DEAN D. SMALL THE SMALL PATENT LAW GROUP LLC LAURITZEN, AMANDA L

dillon

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1624 Ex Parte Feenstra et al 11/294,603 SCHEINER 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER BERNHARDT, EMILY B

[I]t is not necessary in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness that both a structural similarity between a claimed and prior art compound . . . be shown and that there be a suggestion in or expectation from the prior art that the claimed compound . . . will have the same or a similar utility as one newly discovered by applicant.

In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “A prima facie case has been established” where “[t]he art provide[s] the motivation to make the claimed compositions in the expectation that they would have similar properties.” Id. “[T]he burden (and opportunity) then falls on applicant to rebut that prima facie case.” Id. at 692.

Such rebuttal or argument can consist of a comparison of test data showing that the claimed compositions possess unexpectedly improved properties or properties that the prior art does not have. . . . There is no question that all evidence of the properties of the claimed composition and the prior art must be considered in determining the ultimate question of patentability, but it is also clear that the discovery that a claimed compound or composition possesses a property not disclosed for the prior art subject matter, does not by itself defeat a prima facie case.

Id. at 692-693 (internal citations omitted).

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Saigusa et al 11/620,334 WARREN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

1733 Ex Parte Hiraiwa et al 10/661,638 TIMM 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L

1763 Ex Parte Huynh 10/797,826 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) Avery Dennison Corporation EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

1787 Ex Parte Roth et al 10/509,319 NAGUMO 103(a) PROSKAUER ROSE LLP EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R

1798 Ex Parte Giron et al 10/564,501 KIMLIN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER NELSON, MICHAEL B

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Sylthe et al 11/251,551 CHEN 103(a) Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC EXAMINER ALAM, SHAHID AL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Kramer 10/104,863 LUCAS 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER BLAIR, DOUGLAS B
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Gierhart et al 10/356,134 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) NIXON PEABODY, LLP EXAMINER VU, JAKE MINH

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Droux et al 10/541,121 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HALPERN, MARK

1763 Ex Parte Loth et al 12/119,138 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LACLAIR, DARCY D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Hughes et al 10/517,957 MILLS 103(a) Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L

1634 Ex Parte Tanaami et al 11/446,225 PRATS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Wieser 11/341,292 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER RYAN, PATRICK J

1747 Ex Parte McCormick et al 10/853,750 WARREN 103(a) Cynthia L. Foulke NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER MCNALLY, DANIEL

1763 Ex Parte Brobeil et al 11/523,532 GREEN 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L

1788 Ex Parte Li et al 11/314,113 KRATZ 103(a) Legal Department (M-495) EXAMINER CHANG, VICTOR S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Kolar et al 10/432,316 CHEN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER IBRAHIM, MOHAMED

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Johannsen et al 10/349,921 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Abadeer et al 11/340,340 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER TAYLOR, EARL N

2857 Ex Parte McClanahan et al 11/185,371 HAHN 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BASF CORPORATION EXAMINER TEIXEIRA MOFFAT, JONATHAN CHARLES

2861 Ex Parte Sampath et al 11/170,845 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER EXAMINER LEGESSE, HENOK D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Starkey et al 09/930,668 DESHPANDE 101/103(a) SEYFARTH SHAW LLP EXAMINER PORTER, RACHEL L

The preamble recites a “computer-implemented method,” the steps of the method fail to explicitly require any of the steps to be performed on a computer. As such, this recitation in the preamble is a mere nominal recitation of structure. At most, a “computer-implemented method” ties the process to any general-purpose computer. We find no evidence that the claims require the method steps to be hosted on a computer.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Lazar 10/098,851 McCOLLUM 103(a) MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU
REHEARING

DENIED

2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Madden et al 11/166,975 WHITEHEAD, JR. USEFUL ARTS IP MICHAEL J. URE EXAMINER HARRISON, CHANTE E

hauserman, arvin, freeman, de blauwe, baxter travenol, grasselli2, clemens, freeman, klosak, dillon, mayne, schulze, greenfield, woodruff

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/21/2011 1655 Ex Parte Yang 10/505,015 ADAMS 103(a) WANG & HO EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

2600 Communications
07/22/2011 2624 Ex Parte Fushiki et al 11/041,033 KOHUT 102(b)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER WANG, CLAIRE X
REEXAMINATION EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/22/2011 3765 Ex parte CHRISTOPER SEAN VAN WINKLE and DAVID COX Appellants 90/009,210 7,076,806 SONG 102(b)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC Third Party Requester: VENABLE LLP EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER PATEL, TAJASH D

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/22/2011 1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/089,525 NAGUMO 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M

07/21/2011 1747 Ex Parte Yokota et al 10/277,646 GUEST 103(a) BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDINGS, INC. EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

The word “substantially” has been construed many times by our reviewing court. While the term “substantially” certainly broadens the term it modifies to some degree, it “cannot be allowed to negate the meaning of the word it modifies.” In re Hauserman, Inc., 892 F.2d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Arvin Industries, Inc. v. Berns Air King Corp., 525 F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1975)).
07/22/2011 1731 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/820,972 OWENS 103(a) K&L GATES LLP EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

That argument is not persuasive because, first, evidence must not merely show an unexpected property but, rather, must show an unexpected difference in a property between the claimed invention and the prior art. See In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973). Second, the Appellants have not provided a side-by-side comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims, and explained why the results would have been unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Freeman, 474 F.2d at 1324; In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . .2131.01, 2145

De Blauwe, In re, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . 716.01(c), 2145

Grasselli, In re, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2112, 2145

Clemens, In re, 622 F.2d 1029, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . 716.02(d), 2145

07/21/2011 1796 Ex Parte Dreier et al 11/032,434 ROBERTSON 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

A showing of unexpected results may be sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). Such a showing must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965). The evidence must also be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978). Further, the Federal Circuit has held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is a claimed range; the applicant must show that the range is critical through unexpected results. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted).

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09, 2145

Schulze, In re, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965) . . . .716.01(c), 2145, 2164.06(c)

Greenfield, In re, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . 2144.05

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/21/2011 2162 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11/058,972 THOMAS 103(a) Baker Botts L.L.P EXAMINER BULLOCK, JOSHUA

07/22/2011 2164 Ex Parte Avinash et al 11/016,081 MORGAN 103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

07/21/2011 2181 Ex Parte Azadet et al 10/880,331 GONSALVES 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
07/21/2011 2456 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/672,601 DANG 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T

2600 Communications
07/21/2011 2617 Ex Parte Filipovic et al 10/412,928 RUGGIERO 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

kao, dillon

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Graf 11/192,938 MORGAN 102(b)/102(a) SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC EXAMINER FLEURANTIN, JEAN B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Schlecht 10/892,390 PETRAVICK 102(b)/103(a) VINSON & ELKINS, L.L.P. EXAMINER MAGUIRE, LINDSAY M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Gorelik 10/725,116 MORGAN 103(a) Dr. Victor Gorelik EXAMINER LOUIE, OSCAR A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Ging et al 11/080,446 SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
ACUSHNET COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. Patents of CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,122; 95/000,120; 95/000,121; & 95/000,123 6,506,130 B2; 6,210,293 B1; 6,503,156 B1; & 6,595,873 B2 DELMENDO 103(a) Patent Owner: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH & RICHARDSON PC Third-Party Requester: CLINTON H. BRANNON MAYER BROWN LLP

In re Kao, 2011 WL 1832537 * 10 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“This is not a case where the Board relied on an unknown property of prior art for a teaching. Rather, Maloney’s express teachings render the claimed controlled release oxymorphone formulation obvious, and the claimed ‘food effect’ adds nothing of patentable consequence.”). Further on this point, we think that the following guidance from In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), is instructive:

This court, in reconsidering this case in banc, reaffirms that structural similarity between claimed and prior art subject matter, proved by combining references or otherwise, where the prior art gives reason or motivation to make the claimed compositions, creates a prima facie case of obviousness, and that the burden (and opportunity) then falls on an applicant to rebut that prima facie case. Such rebuttal or argument can consist of a comparison of test data showing that the claimed compositions possess unexpectedly improved properties or properties that the prior art does not have . . . . There is no question that all evidence of the properties of the claimed compositions and the prior art must be considered in determining the ultimate question of patentability, but it is also clear that the discovery that a claimed composition possesses a property not disclosed for the prior art subject matter, does not by itself defeat a prima facie case.

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145
REHEARING

DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
PENTEL CO., LTD. and PENTEL OF AMERICA, LTD. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of BENJAMIN J. KWITEK Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,399 6,447,190 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ADAMS AND WILKS EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Gentle 10/667,110 DANG 103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Park et al 10/662,406 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP EXAMINER SHERMAN, STEPHEN G

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Jaranson et al 11/530,067 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) EXAMINER DUNN, DAVID R

3687 Ex Parte Watson et al 10/555,914 KIM 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER CRAWLEY, TALIA F

NEW

REVERSED

1767 Ex Parte Borke et al 11/717,944 MILLS 103(a) LyondellBasell Industries EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2812 Ex Parte Tsakalakos et al 10/273,926 HAHN 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER MULPURI, SAVITRI

AFFIRMED

2816 Ex Parte Chan et al 11/054,310 SAADAT 103(a) Richard Lau INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER TRA, ANH QUAN

1644 Ex Parte Goldenberg et al 11/534,124 FREDMAN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP EXAMINER SCHWADRON, RONALD B

1761 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/957,759 MILLS 103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

2629 Ex Parte Kambayashi 11/068,144 SAADAT 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER PERVAN, MICHAEL

2182 Ex Parte Klein 10/424,206 HUGHES 102(e) Dorsey & Whitney LLP-IP Dept.-MTI EXAMINER PARK, ILWOO

1641 Ex Parte Rosenstein et al 11/117,825 FREDMAN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DO, PENSEE T

DISMISSED

2117 Ex Parte Dubey 11/437,420 Shaw new ground of rejection SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, STEVE N

st. regis, harza, ochiai, dillon

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Ohki 10/897,016 GARRIS 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

1735 Ex Parte Wilks 11/357,458 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER EXAMINER PATEL, DEVANG R

1793 Ex Parte Hu et al 10/801,424 PAK 103(a) W.R. GRACE & CO.-CONN. EXAMINER BRUNSMAN, DAVID M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Soylemez et al 10/841,941 SIU 102(b)/103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Kleinsteiber et al 10/062,125 SIU 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Brocade-Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford EXAMINER HENNING, MATTHEW T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Mahy et al 11/065,369 O’NEILL 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KENNEDY, JOSHUA T

Appellants also contend that the Examiner’s reliance on the case law of St. Regis Paper Company v. Bemis Company, Inc., 549 F.2d 833 (7th Cir. 1977) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960), to duplicate parts so that the proposed modification includes a plurality of arms, does not consider the facts of either St. Regis or Harza and amounts to the use of an improper per se rule of obviousness. ... Nor does the case law of either St. Regis or Harza, relied upon by the Examiner, demonstrate per se obviousness for duplicating the single bendable member taught by Schwarzschild to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (no per se rule of obviousness exists).

Harza, In re, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04

Ochiai, In re, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . 706.02(n), 2116.01
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2871 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. 90/008,146 6,373,537 SIU 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Patent Owner: McKenna Long & Aldridge LLC Third Party Requesters: Bruce K. Lagerman, Lagerman and Associates, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER TON, MINH TOAN T

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2871 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. 90/008,150 6,020,942 SIU 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting PATENT OWNER MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER BRUCE K. LAGERMAN LAGERMAN AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER TON, MINH TOAN T

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Horpel et al 11/578,664 GARRIS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ARCIERO, ADAM A

1767 Ex Parte Neal et al 11/401,510 HASTINGS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER RIOJA, MELISSA A

While we agree that the problem faced by an applicant is a relevant factor, a teaching or suggestion of applicant's problem is not always required for a prima facie case of obviousness. An invention may be obvious for reasons the inventor did not contemplate. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(en banc).

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145
1787 Ex Parte Schaepkens et al 10/779,373 OWENS 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - DC EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Anspach et al 11/135,460 COURTENAY 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KUMAR, ANIL N

2174 Ex Parte Ferrarini et al 10/948,703 SIU 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER KUMAR, ANIL N

dillon, mayne, payne, hammack,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Bays et al 10/682,289 ADAMS 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. EXAMINER DAVIS, RUTH A 

Ex Parte Donde et al 10/916,243 GREEN 103(a) ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R 

In order to make a prima facie case of obviousness based on the structural similarity between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the prior art, not only must the structural similarity exist, but the prior art must also provide reason or motivation to make the claimed compound. See In re Dillon, 919 F. 2d 688, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), In re Mayne, 104 F. 3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313 (CCPA 1979) 

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145 

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09, 2145 

Payne, In re, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) . . . 716.02(a), 716.02(e), 2144.09 

Ex Parte Faecke et al 11/007,015 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR 

Ex Parte Yamashita 10/794,187 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Fayet et al 10/529,533 DELMENDO 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK, LLP EXAMINER CHEN, KEATH T 

Ex Parte Wieners et al 10/257,002 NAGUMO 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) PROPAT, L.L.C. EXAMINER AHMED, SHEEBA 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Dresti et al 10/288,727 BARRY 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Nomura et al 09/969,845 NAPPI 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HUNTSINGER, PETER K 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Bates et al 09/848,573 CRAWFORD 102(e) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER ELISCA, PIERRE E 

Ex Parte McClary 11/101,897 KERINS 112(2)/103(a)/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HONEYWELL/FOGG EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHUONG P 

A principal purpose of the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,

is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance.

In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382 (CCPA 1970). 

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Marlborugh et al 10/497,925 FREDMAN 103(a) HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CHIN, CHRISTOPHER L 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte McCarty 10/347,095 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER GOLD, AVI M 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Simpson 10/052,617 NAPPI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER THOMAS, ASHISH 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Gluck 11/022,751 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER NEGRON, ISMAEL