exxon chem, teva2, markman, abbott diabetes

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Zoltai et al 13450073 - (D) TIMM 112(1)/102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP WONG, LESLIE A

The Examiner and this Board have an independent obligation to determine the meaning of an application’s claims, notwithstanding the views asserted by an applicant. The obligation is analogous to that of district and appeals court judges. See, e.g., Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“the trial judge has an independent obligation to determine the meaning of the claims, notwithstanding the views asserted by the adversary parties.”); see also Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 835 (2015) (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, (1996) (“‘the construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim,’ is not for a jury but ‘exclusively’ for ‘the court’ to determine.”); In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Although, “[i]n contrast to district court proceedings involving an issued patent, claims under examination before the PTO are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,” claim construction remains a legal question, reviewed de novo.).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Pearl et al 12145954 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. KUMAR, RAKESH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Henke et al 12375556 - (D) CALVE 103/ obviousness-type double patenting MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. CHU, KING M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2486 Ex Parte Murray et al 10555214 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 102/103 Husch Blackwell LLP Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz VO, TUNG T

2492 Ex Parte Karnik 12195737 - (D) HUME 102 102/103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION PAN, PEILIANG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte SMITH et al 12368284 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 GE GPO- Transportation- The Small Patent Law Group LE, MARK T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte YIN et al 13163088 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY CALANDRA, ANTHONY J

1791 Ex Parte Jendrysik et al 12766998 - (D) ROESEL 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2686 Ex Parte Giorgi et al 12059539 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT KLIMOWICZ, WILLIAM JOSEPH

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Gillies et al 11175196 - (D) HANLON 112(2) HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC TORNOW, MARK W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Lampert et al 11983403 - (D) GUIJT 103 DOCKET CLERK STANCZAK, MATTHEW BRIAN

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 TAIWAN MICROLOOPS CORPORATION and HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY Requester, Cross-Appellant, Respondent v. CONVERGENCE TECHNOLOGIES (USA) Patent Owner, Appellant, Respondent Ex Parte 7422053 et al 11/272,145 95001749 - (D) SONG 103 EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PATTERSON THUENTE CHRISTENSEN PEDERSEN, P.A. CLARKE, SARA SACHIE original FLANIGAN, ALLEN J

SNQ, exxon chem

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Dresher 11/293,199 SAINDON 103(a) TAIYO CORPORATION EXAMINER
RESTIFO, JEFFREY J

3628 Ex Parte Ogg 10/677,619 KIM 112(2)/103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER JOSEPH, TONYA S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Keskiniva et al 10/563,821 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC) EXAMINER LOPEZ, MICHELLE
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Rakib 09/898,728 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER ANDRAMUNO, FRANKLIN S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Jurmain et al 10/387,792 BAHR 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SHERRILL LAW OFFICES EXAMINER CEGIELNIK, URSZULA M
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3711 Ex Parte 6623381 et al ACUSHNET COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. Patent of CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,444 DELMENDO 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: THE TOP-FLITE GOLF COMPANY, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY Third-Party Requester: MAYER BROWN LLP EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER GORDEN, RAEANN

For ex parte reexaminations, the USPTO has clarified the procedure for seeking review of issues pertaining to substantial new question of patentability. See Clarification on the Procedure for Seeking Review of a Finding of a Substantial New Question of Patentability in Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings, 75 Fed. Reg. 36357-58 (Dep’t of Commerce, June 25, 2010) (hereinafter “Notice”) (delegating the authority to review issues related to the Examiner's determination that a reference raises a substantial new question of patentability to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, who may further delegate this authority to a panel of Administrative Patent Judges deciding the appeal in the ex parte reexamination proceeding).

The Notice, however, explicitly states that the delegation of review authority provided for review of an Examiner’s SNQ determination in ex parte reexaminations does not apply to inter partes reexaminations. See Notice, 75 Fed. Reg. at 36,358 (“The procedure set forth in this notice does not apply to inter partes reexamination proceedings. A determination by the USPTO in an inter partes reexamination either that no SNQ has been raised or that a reference raises a SNQ is final and non-appealable.”).
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Wietfeldt et al 11/808,305 TIMM 103(a) S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R

A composition is a mixture of substances that contains the specified ingredients at any time from the moment at which the ingredients are mixed together. See Exxon Chem. Pats. Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1557 (Fed. Cir 1995).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte de Gruil 11/857,492 KIM 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER ROJAS, HAJIME S

3644 Ex Parte Huynh 10/112,815 KAUFFMAN 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD, LLP EXAMINER
DINH, TIEN QUANG