hedges, costello, facius, mcginley

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte TREACY et al  11931434 - (D)  JENKS 103 NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP QAZI, SABIHA NAIM

“If a prima facie case is made in the first instance, and if the applicant comes forward with reasonable rebuttal, whether buttressed by experiment, prior art references, or argument, the entire merits of the matter are to be reweighed.” In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Hedges, In re, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ 685 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Daeubler et al  10581147 - (D)  KRATZ 102/103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC SAVAGE, JASON L

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Noda  11029499 - (D)  POTHIER 103 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) CHOWDHURY, NIGAR

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Nossen et al 10229850 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102/103 HITT GAINES, PC ALCATEL-LUCENT WONG, LINDA

2618 Ex Parte Randazzo 10835936 - (D) JEFFERY 103 LSI Logic Corporation HU, RUI MENG
 
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Gosvener 11356372 - (D) SMITH 101/112(1) RICHARD A. RYAN WAKS, JOSEPH

2859 Ex Parte Raiser et al 11112103 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION MILLER IP GROUP, PLC RAMADAN, RAMY O
 
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Leroy et al 11212777 - (D) ABRAMS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. ELDRED, JOHN W

3694 Ex Parte Nicholls et al 10/992,959 LORIN 101/102/103 Jackson Walker LLP HOLLY, JOHN H
 
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Hoffman 09965162 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH ALIE, GHASSEM

3761 Ex Parte Ueminami et al 11443708 - (D) ASTORINO 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY KIDWELL, MICHELE M

AFFIRMED-IN- PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Walter et al  11269861 - (D)  THOMAS 103 103 AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler HEFFINGTON, JOHN M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Abe et al  10128474 - (D)  THOMAS 102 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP NAJJAR, SALEH

While derivation will bar the issuance of a patent to the deriver, a disclosure by the deriver, absent a bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), will not bar the issuance of a patent to the party from which the subject matter was derived. In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[a] prior art reference that is not a statutory bar may be overcome by two generally recognized methods": an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131, or an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 "showing that the relevant disclosure is a description of the applicant's own work"); In re Facius, 408 F.2d 1396, 1407 (CCPA 1969) (subject matter incorporated into a patent that was brought to the attention of the patentee by applicant, and hence derived by the patentee from the applicant, is available for use against applicant unless applicant had actually invented the subject matter placed in the patent).

Costello, In re, 717 F.2d 1346, 219 USPQ 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . 716.10, 2136.05, 2137, 2138, 2138.04, 2138.05

Facius, In re, 408 F.2d 1396, 161 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1969) . . . . . . . . . .715.01(a), 715.01(c), 2132.01, 2136.04, 2136.05, 2137, 2137.01

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Pontanari et al  10543080 - (D)  BROWN 103 103
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. KNIGHT, DEREK DOUGLAS
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Provost-Tine et al 11259004 - (D) ASTORINO 103 103 MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE

3774 Ex Parte Baker et al 10373057 - (D) BAUMEISTER 112(1)/102/103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC COBURN, LESLIE ANN

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Lakshmanan et al 11508545 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX CHEN, BRET P

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Larson et al  10461209 - (D)  SMITH 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MEHRMANESH, ELMIRA

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Yost 10524285 - (D) JEFFERY 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Erhart et al 10984398 - (D) PERRY 103 Ulmer & Berne LLP Avaya Inc. BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M

2618 Ex Parte van Rooyen et al 11011000 - (D) WEINBERG 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. SHARMA, SUJATHA R

2629 Ex Parte Tortola 10606153 - (D) SMITH 103 JOSEPH STECEWYCZ PERVAN, MICHAEL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Lu et al 11080296 - (D) SMITH 102 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. NGUYEN, LONG T

2833 Ex Parte Harwood 11154153 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. GUSHI, ROSS N

2872 Ex Parte Clauss et al 10590257 - (D) POTHIER 102 Striker Striker & Stenby SAHLE, MAHIDERE S

2893 Ex Parte Cao 11142034 - (D) CURCURI 103 FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP RODELA, EDUARDO A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Guermonprez et al  10443205 - (D)  FISCHETTI 101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ONYEZIA, CHUKS N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Johnson 11363568 - (D) ASTORINO 103 THE LAW OFFICE OF STEVE GRATTON SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL
 
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1734 Ex parte Continental Datalabel, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant 90010761 - (D) 6,837,957 10/390,338 GUEST 102/103 PAULEY PETERSEN & ERICKSON MCKANE, ELIZABETH L original CHAN, SING P

3763 BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY Requester & Respondent v. MICHAEL J. VAILLANCOURT Patent Owner & Appellant 95000565 - (D) 6699221 09/879,872 GUEST 102/103 CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN et al. CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original THISSELL, JEREMY

Although a combination of references would be non-obvious when the combination would produce an inoperative device, see McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001), Patent Owner has provided no more than mere speculation, without evidence, that the radial compression of Cox would not function with the central aperture of Sylvanowicz.