saab, dunbar

2004/0201087 A1


custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Pepper 11426314 - (D) EVANS 102 LAW OFFICES (San Jose) PHAN, TUANKHANH D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Sima 11056928 - (D) THOMAS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WRIGHT, BRYAN F

A prima facie case is established when the party with the burden of proof points to evidence that is sufficient, if uncontroverted, to entitle it to prevail as a matter of law. See Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. U.S., 434 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Chang et al 11772208 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 102/103 Lin & Associates WAGNER, JENNY L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Tang et al 11726432 - (D) PRATS 102 FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN THANH, QUANG D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Faecke et al 11472000 - (D) McKELVEY 102 102/103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC TOSCANO, ALICIA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1625 Ex Parte TERRERO 11139338 - (D) PRATS 112(1) Pabst Patent Group LLP CHANDRAKUMAR, NIZAL S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Doerr et al 12632285 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 SERVILLA WHITNEY LLC (CGG) HARDEE, JOHN R

1765 Ex Parte Schuft et al 12447612 - (D) PRAISS 103 Henkel Corporation SELLERS, ROBERT E

1765 Ex Parte Obrecht et al 09739034 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 LANXESS CORPORATION SERGENT, RABON A

1778 Ex Parte Schaupp et al 11986358 - (D) TORCZON 102/103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global DRODGE, JOSEPH W

[T]he specification may provide controlling definitions or context for avoiding ambiguities. White v. Dunbar 119 U.S. 47, 51-52 (1886) (context, but not at the expense of actual claim language).

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Boylan et al 11442670 - (D) McKEOWN 102 ROPES & GRAY LLP HUYNH, AN SON PHI

2432 Ex Parte Cusey et al 11176620 - (D) ZECHER 103 NORTH WEBER & BAUGH LLP LANIER, BENJAMIN E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2687 Ex Parte Becker et al 10564607 - (D) WINSOR 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP SHERWIN, RYAN W
 
REMAND
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Charati et al 11689228 - (D) OBERMANN 112(2)/102/103 37 CFR 41.50(e) CANTOR COLBURN LLP VALDEZ, DEVE E

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Phillips et al 10059469 - (D) WINSOR 101 37 CFR 41.50(b) MICROSOFT CORPORATION CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Schuster 10575997 - (D) KILE 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP ELKINS, GARY E

suitco surface, dunbar, rowe

REVERSED 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Ho et al 10/646,289 JEFFERY Dissenting DANG 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M 

“[W]ith original examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” In re Suitco, No. 2009-1418, 2010 WL 1462294, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted). When a claim uses the open-ended term, “comprising,” “this court has instructed that any such construction be consistent with the specification . . . and that the claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at *4 (citations, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted). 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Imura et al 10/697,041 COURTENAY 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER KIM, ANDREW

Invention or discovery is the requirement which constitutes the foundation of the right to obtain a patent . . . unless more ingenuity and skill were required in making or applying the said improvement than are possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there is an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute the essential elements of every invention.

Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 197 (1876) (citing Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248, 267 (1850)) 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Lamont et al 10/491,811 GRIMES 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J 

“Where . . . a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303 

REEXAMINATION 

EXAMINER REVERSED 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte MERITOR LIGHT VEHICLE SYSTEMS 6,273,501 90/008,657 SONG 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY, & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester: Webasto AG EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C