fracalossi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2489 Ex Parte Shih 13823637 - (D) SHIANG Dissenting MANTIS MERCADER  112(1)/112(2)/103 ROSENBERG, KLEIN & LEE HODGES, SUSAN E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte HOSEK et al 13744900 - (D) OWENS 102/103 HARRINGTON & SMITH LEUNG, QUYEN PHAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Zhuikov et al 13611891 - (D) BAHR 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP O'CONNOR, MARSHALL P

3652 Ex Parte Piccioni et al 11943570 - (D) SHAH 103 GREG GOSHORN, P.C. MYERS, GLENN F

3685 Ex Parte Goodwin 11762695 - (D) MEYERS 112(2)/103 41.50 101 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP HALE, TIM B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Ark et al 13675189 - (D) GRIMES 103 CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP COTRONEO, STEVEN J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2472 Ex Parte Larsson et al 13818127 - (D) BARRY 103 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson BHATTI, HASHIM S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Dorn et al 11917431 - (D) SHAH 102/103 103 Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. C. R. Bard, Inc. RODJOM, KATHERINE MARIE

AFFIRMED

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte O’KEEFE et al 12090692 - (D) INGLESE 112(2)/103 Chipperson Law Group, P.C. HORNING, JOEL G

However, Appellants’ arguments directed to select experimental examples in Knapsack do not take into consideration Knapsack’s explicit disclosure that the applied ultrasonic energy is preferably greater than 0.01 watts per gram, which indicates a direct—rather than inverse— relationship between the level of ultrasonic energy applied and the mass of gypsum treated. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.l (CCPA 1982) (explaining that a prior art reference’s disclosure is not limited to its examples)

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Afrashteh et al 11407035 - (D) ZECHER 102 SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION SHEDRICK, CHARLES TERRELL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte ELLIS et al 13329955 - (D) CUTITTA 112(2) 103 Southeast IP Group, LLC. MILLNER, MONICA E

3674 Ex Parte Clement et al 13153120 - (D) OSINSKI 102/103 DLA Piper LLP (US) Synthetic Genomics, Inc AHUJA, ANURADHA

3688 Ex Parte Boland et al 13297180 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 101 Facebook/Fenwiok PATEL, DIPEN M

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Lerner et al 12842033 - (R) SAADAT 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED VARNDELL, ROSS E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Alley et al 13663282 - (R) SILVERMAN 103 BERKELEY LAW & TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLP WATKINS, MARCIA LYNN

fracalossi

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Kaeppeler 11/284,987 GAUDETTE 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER CHEN, KEATH T

1729 Ex Parte Otis et al 10/833,974 OWENS 103(a) MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC EXAMINER ECHELMEYER, ALIX ELIZABETH

1761 Ex Parte Bitler 11/199,049 OWENS 103(a) Axiom Global Inc. EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A

1777 Ex Parte Tonkovich et al 11/089,440 GAUDETTE 103(a) FRANK ROSENBERG EXAMINER XU, XIAOYUN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte PATERA et al 11/834,776 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER STELLING, LUCAS A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Poo et al 09/898,365 WINSOR 102(e)/103(a) 103(a) WHITE & CASE LLP EXAMINER GELAGAY, SHEWAYE

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Volle et al 11/630,498 GUEST 102(b)/103(a) Huntsman Advanced Materials Americas Inc EXAMINER SELLERS, ROBERT E

After all, we note that lack of novelty is the ultimate or epitome of obviousness. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982) (“Though the composition might have been obvious, though not anticipated, it cannot have been anticipated and not have been obvious. Thus evidence establishing lack of all novelty in the claimed invention necessarily evidences obviousness.”).

1775 Ex Parte Tamaoki et al 11/114,242 GAUDETTE 102(e)/103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

fracalossi, seattle box, york prod., ngai, kohler, mills, bozek, boe

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Alzer et al 11/341,253 SCHEINER 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Lo 11/047,057 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER
SHIN, KYUNG H

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Hild et al 10/775,601 O’NEILL 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3723 Ex Parte Emami et al 11/063,653 O’NEILL 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER GRANT, ALVIN J

3761 Ex Parte Fields 11/124,337 SPAHN 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER
CHAPMAN, GINGER T

3729 Ex Parte Nishii et al 10/517,445 O’NEILL 103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P. EXAMINER NGUYEN, DONGHAI D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Uhlemann 11/039,392 KOHUT 103(a) 103(a) Eschweiler & Associates (Lantiq) EXAMINER ZHOU, YONG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Walker et al 09/939,239 McCARTHY 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER DESANTO, MATTHEW F

In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982)(evidence sufficient to establish lack of novelty also establishes a prima facie case of obviousness)
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Ramberg et al 10/934,064 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER IQBAL, NADEEM

2184 Ex Parte Von Stein et al 10/532,666 JEFFERY 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER MAMO, ELIAS

2188 Ex Parte Bonola 10/980,538 DANG 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE

2829 Ex Parte Krieger et al 11/078,873 MACDONALD 102(b) SPANSION LLC C/O MURABITO , HAO & BARNES LLP EXAMINER TRAN, LONG K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2895 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/274,961 BROCKETTI 102(a)/103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER WOJCIECHOWICZ, EDWARD JOSEPH

Appellants‟ claim language uses the phrase “substantially aligned”. “When a word of degree is used [it is necessary to] determine whether the… specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” See Seattle Box Co.. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We find that nothing in Appellants‟ Specification, except for Appellants‟ own drawings, for providing some standard for measuring that degree. Therefore, we construe the term “substantially aligned” as “substantially” is often construed in patent claims as “largely but not wholly that which is specified.” See York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .2173.05(b)

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . .2181

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Masterson et al 10/334,548 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, VU Q

3671 Ex Parte Kroening 11/029,163 O’NEILL 103(a) 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) ROBERT PLATT BELL EXAMINER HARTMANN, GARY S

Printed matter may patentably distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art when the critical question of whether there is a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate is answered in the affirmative. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To show a new and unobvious functional relationship, it has to be shown that the printed matter would not achieve its purpose without the substrate and the substrate without the printed matter would similarly be unable to produce the desired result. Id. at 1339.

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Wan 11/183,354 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA
REHEARING

GRANTED, 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Ohki 11/118,385 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery LLP EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

Murakami is not limited to its preferred embodiments. See In re Kohler, 475 F.2d 651, 653 (CCPA 1973); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Instead, all disclosures therein must be evaluated for what they would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966).

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Aurenz 11/140,398 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HEFFINGTON, JOHN M