REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Gaither et al 11554672 - (D) SMITH 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LI, ZHUO H
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Todd 11626730 - (D) WORTH 103 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP TRINH, MICHAEL MANH
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Kelly 10737087 - (D) HOELTER 112(1)/112(2) CANTOR COLBURN LLP LAVINDER, JACK W
Appellant disagrees and references Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) for stating “the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” App. Br. 21 (additional citations omitted); see also Reply Br. 2. “Accordingly, the Examiner's allegation that the meaning could change over time is irrelevant, as the meaning ‘at the time of invention’ determines plain meaning.” App. Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 3.
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Bugir et al 11305873 - (D) SAADAT 103 William E. Curry PADMANABHAN, KAVITA
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Scrimsher et al 11497156 - (D) FRAHM 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PLECHA, THADDEUS J
2473 Ex Parte Meier et al 11600492 - (D) WINSOR 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. HUQ, OBAIDUL
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Rooyen 11010486 - (D) JEFFERY 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CHEN, JUNPENG
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Jiang et al 12182531 - (D) GARRIS 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY BERHANU, SAMUEL
REEXAMINATION
REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex parte Artsana USA, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8056975 et al 12/573,484 90009987 - (D) GREENHUT 103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. Third Party Requester: Law Office of John W. Harbst ENGLISH, PETER C original NELSON JR, MILTON
“[U]nhelpful evidence [does not] diminish[] the strength of the more persuasive forms of evidence.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Company V. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 13-1306, 18 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2014). The burden of showing commercial success attributable to the features of the claim does not impose a burden to demonstrate that no other conceivable factors contributed to that success. App. Br. 31-36; contra Ans. 8. “It is not necessary that [] the patented invention be solely responsible for the commercial success, in order for this factor to be given weight appropriate to the evidence, along with other pertinent factors.” Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1273 (Fed.Cir. 1991).
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01
We are unaware of any requirement that the invention be the only successful product in its market niche or the most successful. App. Br. 38 (citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 2d 602,679 (D. Del. 2013) aff’d at Bristol-Myers Squibb Company V. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc ., supra (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2014)(“ We agree with the factual findings on secondary considerations and find no clear error”). Evidence of growth in market share, like evidence of total market share, is relevant to the commercial success inquiry. See e.g., Kansas Jack, Inc. v. Kuhn, 719 F. 2d 1144, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 1983). A growing market share demonstrates that Appellant was “displac[ing] other devices which had previously been employed for analogous uses.” See Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 US 486, 495-6 (1877).
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Requester and Respondent v. FRACTUS, S.A. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7528782 et al 11/780,932 95001455 - (D) MOORE 102(e)/103 EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC Third Party Requester: Novak Druce & Quigg, LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP MENEFEE, JAMES A original PHAN, THO GIA
