custom search
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Zheng et al 10667191 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Blair et al 11170676 - (D) FRAHM Dissenting KOHUT 103 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. PHAM, LINH K
2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Emerson et al 11594633 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, THU HA T
2463 Ex Parte Bois et al 10366932 - (D) EVANS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MARCELO, MELVIN C
2478 Ex Parte Jai et al 10600995 - (D) GONSALVES 102/103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte van Rooyen et al 11010983 - (D) HAHN 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. AFSHAR, KAMRAN
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Ito et al 11038123 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Morrison & Foerster LLP GOLUB-MILLER, MARCIA A
The presence or absence of a reason "to combine references in an obviousness determination is a pure question of fact." In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03
Although the teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) test is no longer a rigid rule post KSR, "the best defense against the subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness analysis is rigorous application of the requirement for a showing of the teaching or motivation to combine prior art references." Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999.
Dembiczak, In re, 175 F.3d 994, 50 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . .1504.06, 2144.04
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Zeller 11854230 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Zeman-Mullen & Ford, LLP RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH C
3682 Ex Parte Choi et al 10508616 - (D) TURNER 103 LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP HOAR, COLLEEN A
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Patton et al 09957011 - (D) HORNER 102
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY FRIDIE JR, WILLMON
3735 Ex Parte Widenhouse et al 11798497 - (D) WALSH 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC DORNA, CARRIE R
3738 Ex Parte Biss et al 11025223 - (D) MILLS 103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP WILLSE, DAVID H
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Marya et al 11769230 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 102/103 SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS BOMAR, THOMAS S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Surti 11448494 - (D) BAHR 102/103 102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C
3731 Ex Parte Wasicek 10616785 - (D) WALSH 103 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC NGUYEN, VI X
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2819 CME GROUP, INC., Requester, Appellant v. REALTIME DATA LLC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95001517 - (D) 7,714,747 11/651,365 SIU 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. HUGHES, DEANDRA M original NGUYEN, LINH V
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Spisinski et al 11011268 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(2)/103 PITNEY BOWES INC. PURDY, KYLE A
1644 Ex Parte Allen 11436652 - (D) PRATS 112(1)/103 SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP DAHLE, CHUN WU
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Flocken et al 11184253 - (D) RUGGIERO 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MCCARTHY, CHRISTOPHER S
2166 Ex Parte Li et al 10643628 - (D) THOMAS 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE SAEED, USMAAN
2173 Ex Parte Dolimier et al 10264031 - (D) ARBES 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BASOM, BLAINE T
2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Gaul et al 09924111 - (D) DILLON 102/103 MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY HSIUNGFEI, PENG
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Howell et al 09968746 - (D) JEFFERY 103 COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR
We see no error in this position, for “[i]t is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, --- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 2384056, at *5 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (noting that the criterion for obviousness is not whether the references can be physically combined, but whether the claimed invention is rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole)).
Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . 2242, 2258, 2279, 2286, 2642, 2686.04
2617 Ex Parte Carrion-Rodrigo 10875584 - (D) BISK 103 MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Belson et al 11193266 - (D) HAHN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY KAPLAN, HAL IRA
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Adam et al 10335045 - (D) TURNER 102/103 APPLE INC./BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP BADII, BEHRANG
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Boone 11047407 - (D) BAHR 103 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. SHAKERI, HADI
3732 Ex Parte Ha et al 10787804 - (D) SCHEINER 102/103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY LEWIS, RALPH A
3737 Ex Parte Hogan et al 11588043 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1) 103 GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC SANTOS, JOSEPH M
3738 Ex Parte Lenz 11289085 - (D) ASTORINO 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J
3762 Ex Parte Kollatschny 11338375 - (D) MILLS 103 CYBERONICS, INC. LAVERT, NICOLE F
3778 Ex Parte Edgett et al 12122880 - (D) ADAMS 103 MICHAUD-Kinney Group LLP CRAIG, PAULA L
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1636 Ex parte The Trustees of Columbia University 90/006,953 6,455,275 10870229 - (D) LEBOVITZ obviousness-type double patenting COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP QIAN, CELINE X
REHEARING
DENIED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Sanders et al 10776069 - (R) DANG 103 Sue Z. Shaper MORRISON, JAY A
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Van Os et al 11692650 - (R) HOMERE 102 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller, PLLC WARREN, DAVID S
Showing posts with label gartside. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gartside. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
hoffer, gartside, princeton biochemicals, dystar, merck2, gechter, champagne
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1615 Ex Parte Ahlgren et al 11/057,480 MILLS 103(a) Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. EXAMINER SASAN, ARADHANA
07/25/2011 1624 Ex Parte Pathi et al 11/574,642 WALSH Concurring FREDMAN 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER WILLIS, DOUGLAS M
07/25/2011 1628 Ex Parte Bieringer et al 10/198,580 MILLS 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2161 Ex Parte Rath et al 11/388,012 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA
See Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.”).
Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04
07/25/2011 2168 Ex Parte Idicula et al 11/014,442 DIXON 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER MOBIN, HASANUL
07/25/2011 2179 Ex Parte Uotila et al 11/124,651 GONSALVES 102(b)/103(a) HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3624 Ex Parte Fama et al 11/478,714 PETRAVICK 103(a) SETTER ROCHE LLP EXAMINER WALKER III, GEORGE H
07/25/2011 3634 Ex Parte Rieder et al 11/288,682 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/25/2011 3767 Ex Parte Torris et al 10/419,934 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO EXAMINER GRAY, PHILLIP A
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1626 Ex Parte Almirante et al 10/566,292 WALSH 103(a) ARENT FOX LLP EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R
“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references. . . is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Motivation to apply prior art teachings may be found when “the nature of the problem called for exactly the solutions in the prior art.” Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming obviousness). Accord, DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied”). The prior art’s disclosure of a multitude of combinations does not necessarily render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03
Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144
Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. .716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08
07/25/2011 1637 Ex Parte Park et al 11/965,687 ADAMS 103(a) MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. EXAMINER TUNG, JOYCE
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/25/2011 1763 Ex Parte Gestermann et al 11/709,411 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I
07/25/2011 1787 Ex Parte NOWAK et al 09/178,329 KRATZ 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2166 Ex Parte Kreulen et al 10/851,754 DANG 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2436 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos et al 10/810,025 DROESCH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, DANIEL L
07/25/2011 2464 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 10/354,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) EXAMINER HAN, CLEMENCE S
07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Smith 10/658,896 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J
07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Nakhjiri et al 11/169,406 DANG 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER MOORTHY, ARAVIND K
2600 Communications
07/26/2011 2617 Ex Parte Heaven et al 11/239,346 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3621 Ex Parte Goodwin III 12/128,694 KIM 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E
REHEARING
DENIED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2187 Ex Parte Lake 10/960,184 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W
DENIED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N
Our reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has had occasion to analyze the word “review” as it is used in its jurisdictional statutes – 35 U.S.C. § 144.3 See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1458, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (discussing the scope of review, and vacating a Board decision that omits several crucial findings); accord Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir 1998) (J. Michel concurring) (citing Gechter). We find the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the term “review,” in the context of the Federal Circuit’s review of Board decisions, to be particularly helpful in determining the meaning of the word “review” in the context of our statutory duty to review adverse decisions of examiners.
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1615 Ex Parte Ahlgren et al 11/057,480 MILLS 103(a) Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. EXAMINER SASAN, ARADHANA
07/25/2011 1624 Ex Parte Pathi et al 11/574,642 WALSH Concurring FREDMAN 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER WILLIS, DOUGLAS M
07/25/2011 1628 Ex Parte Bieringer et al 10/198,580 MILLS 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2161 Ex Parte Rath et al 11/388,012 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA
See Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.”).
Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04
07/25/2011 2168 Ex Parte Idicula et al 11/014,442 DIXON 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER MOBIN, HASANUL
07/25/2011 2179 Ex Parte Uotila et al 11/124,651 GONSALVES 102(b)/103(a) HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3624 Ex Parte Fama et al 11/478,714 PETRAVICK 103(a) SETTER ROCHE LLP EXAMINER WALKER III, GEORGE H
07/25/2011 3634 Ex Parte Rieder et al 11/288,682 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/25/2011 3767 Ex Parte Torris et al 10/419,934 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO EXAMINER GRAY, PHILLIP A
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1626 Ex Parte Almirante et al 10/566,292 WALSH 103(a) ARENT FOX LLP EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R
“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references. . . is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Motivation to apply prior art teachings may be found when “the nature of the problem called for exactly the solutions in the prior art.” Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming obviousness). Accord, DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied”). The prior art’s disclosure of a multitude of combinations does not necessarily render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03
Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144
Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. .716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08
07/25/2011 1637 Ex Parte Park et al 11/965,687 ADAMS 103(a) MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. EXAMINER TUNG, JOYCE
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/25/2011 1763 Ex Parte Gestermann et al 11/709,411 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I
07/25/2011 1787 Ex Parte NOWAK et al 09/178,329 KRATZ 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2166 Ex Parte Kreulen et al 10/851,754 DANG 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2436 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos et al 10/810,025 DROESCH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, DANIEL L
07/25/2011 2464 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 10/354,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) EXAMINER HAN, CLEMENCE S
07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Smith 10/658,896 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J
07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Nakhjiri et al 11/169,406 DANG 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER MOORTHY, ARAVIND K
2600 Communications
07/26/2011 2617 Ex Parte Heaven et al 11/239,346 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3621 Ex Parte Goodwin III 12/128,694 KIM 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E
REHEARING
DENIED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2187 Ex Parte Lake 10/960,184 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W
DENIED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N
Our reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has had occasion to analyze the word “review” as it is used in its jurisdictional statutes – 35 U.S.C. § 144.3 See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1458, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (discussing the scope of review, and vacating a Board decision that omits several crucial findings); accord Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir 1998) (J. Michel concurring) (citing Gechter). We find the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the term “review,” in the context of the Federal Circuit’s review of Board decisions, to be particularly helpful in determining the meaning of the word “review” in the context of our statutory duty to review adverse decisions of examiners.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)