innovention toys, gurley

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte TYE et al 12971317 - (D) BEST 103 Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. SMITH, JEREMIAH R

1745 Ex Parte Misek et al 12580765 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. KOCH, GEORGE R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Li et al 12235744 - (D) FENICK 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD MIRZA, ADNAN M

2443 Ex Parte Li et al 13097186 - (D) FENICK 102 41.50 112(2) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. MIRZA, ADNAN M

2449 Ex Parte Peterson et al 11831926 - (D) HUGHES 103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC FAN, HUA

2465 Ex Parte Gaal et al 12824123 - (D) HAMANN 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED DIVITO, WALTER J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Chandler 12425866 - (D) CURCURI 102/103 YEE & ASSOCIATES PC IBM CORP (YA) SALVUCCI, MATTHEW D

2625 Ex Parte Nurmi 12321581 - (D) BAIN 103 Core Wireless Licensing Ltd SCHNIREL, ANDREW B

The Examiner has not rationally explained how Metzler "would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering [the] problem[s]" of Sekiguchi or vice versa. Innovention Toys LLC v. MGA Entertainment Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see id. at 1322—23 (finding sufficient basis for combining references that share the "same purpose," "goal," or "objective"). Moreover, for the reasons recited by the Appellant, App. Br. 5—6, we find that Sekiguchi's disclosure of allowing light to pass through multiple substrate layers teaches away from the combination relied upon by the Examiner. see, e.g., In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (reference teaches away from combination "when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference").

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2123 , 2145

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Kamar et al 12492861 - (D) BAYAT 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION OSMAN BILAL AHME, AFAF

3627 Ex Parte Elwood et al 10026840 - (D) MOHANTY 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP DANNEMAN, PAUL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Vaillancourt 13535060 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 103 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO ABOUELELA, MAY A

3769 Ex Parte Lipow et al 12799427 - (D) REIMERS 103 103 Delio, Peterson & Curcio, LLC LUKJAN, SEBASTIAN X

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Preisler et al 13517877 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DULKO, MARTA S

1798 Ex Parte LENHERT et al 13234540 - (D) HEANEY 103 Alchemy - Partners, PC TAVARES, JULIE L

1799 Ex Parte Allen et al 13185593 - (D) SMITH 103 Covidien LP CONLEY, SEAN EVERETT

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2196 Ex Parte Zhao et al 11944570 - (D) ENGELS 103 The Steadman Law Firm PLLC AGUILERA, TODD

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Young et al 11216240 - (D) JIVANI 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise HOLDER, BRADLEY W

2453 Ex Parte Holtmanns et al 12600128 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy FORMAN, JAMES Q

2465 Ex Parte PAPASAKELLARIOU et al 13204107 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. DIVITO, WALTER J

2469 Ex Parte Vrbaski et al 13083871 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 Kramer & Amado, P.C. AMBAYE, MEWALE A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Barenbrug et al 13119773 - (D) STRAUSS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LEE, KWANG B

2693 Ex Parte Pant et al 13107703 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 SYNAPTICS C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP DICKE, CHAD M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Chang et al 13616194 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 SLATER MATSIL LLP WEISS, HOWARD

2857 Ex Parte Koidl et al 12989908 - (D) SMITH 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP SCHECHTER, ANDREW M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Bulbrook 12670432 - (D) MARSCHALL 103 RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP CATINA, MICHAEL ANTHONY

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Farco 12732181 - (D) HOELTER 102 Joseph Farco SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 CAN CAPITAL, INC., Requester, v. KABBAGE, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7,983,951 B1 et al 12/436,642 95002003 - (D) BRANCH 103 41.77 103 MUSKIN & FARMER LLC PEIKARI, BEHZAD original AIRAPETIAN, MILA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex parte STEPHEN J. BROWN Ex Parte 8140663 et al 11/150,301 90013105 - (D) HOFF 103 Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. For Third Party Requestor STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC MENEFEE, JAMES A original SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2841 STRYKER CORPORATION Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant v. HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent Ex Parte 7,669,263 B2 et al 11/393,645 95002055 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Hill-Rom) THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY LTD. WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original GIBSON, RANDY W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 GOOGLE INC., Third Party Requesters, v. LODSYS GROUP LLC, Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7222078 et al 10/734,102 95000639 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102/103 LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN M. WALDMAN LLC Third Party Requester: Steptoe & Johnson, LLP WASSUM, LUKE S original DIXON, THOMAS A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 GOODMAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC. Third Party Requester v. CARRIER CORP. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7,775,452 B2 et al 10/752,626 95002314 - (D) MARTIN 112(1)/102 103 41.77 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Party Requester: Baker Botts LLP ENGLISH, PETER C original NORMAN, MARC E

gurley, ricoh, optivus, fulton

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Rose 12398748 - (D) BAHR 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. DANG, KET D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Koestner et al 13275795 - (D) WILSON 103 Brooks Kushman P.C. KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C

1791 Ex Parte Kiefer et al 11543473 - (D) DELMENDO 112(1)/103/double patenting CANTOR COLBURN LLP DEES, NIKKI H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Castellanos et al 13070056 - (D) MacDONALD 102 Hewlett Packard Enterprise FAN, SHIOW-JY

2185 Ex Parte Mei et al 13091511 - (D) FISHMAN 112(1)/112(2)/103/double patenting J.B. KRAFT ATTORNEY CLEARY, THOMAS J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Issa et al 12174935 - (D) HOWARD 103 Concert Technology Corporation GAO, JING

Appellants have not demonstrated that “a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed
Cir. 1994). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl'ns. S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). At best, the prior art here merely discloses an alternative, which is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate a teaching away. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2123 , 2145

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2123 , 2141.02 , 2143.01 , 2145

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Ghosh et al 12906739 - (D) HOELTER 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise FEENEY, BRETT A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Bangel et al 11427536 - (D) SHAH 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC JARRETT, SCOTT L

3686 Ex Parte Carter et al 12807743 - (D) KIM 103 Jeffrey D. Carter HOLCOMB, MARK

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of ZIMMER SPINE, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 6,936,050 B2 et al 10/409,805 95000451 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C. JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original REIP, DAVID OWEN

medichem, gurley, scientific plastic, clay, innovention toys

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Howard et al 11593958 - (D) GARRIS 103 E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY CHOI, PETER Y

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Goodman et al 10730227 - (D) BAHR 103 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION PATEL, DHAIRYA A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2686 Ex Parte Yu et al 12480944 - (D) HUME 102 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP HINDI, NABIL Z

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte HONG et al 12143255 - (D) HASTINGS 103 H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC LEE, PAUL CHANG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Okuniewicz 11057801 - (D) HILL 103 BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP THOMAS, ERIC M

3724 Ex Parte Claus et al 12174058 - (D) WOODS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR

“When a piece of prior art ‘suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant’ the piece of prior art is said to ‘teach away’ from the claimed invention.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2123 , 2145

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Cook et al 11469645 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 102/103 JEANNE E. LONGMUIR PAGE, EVAN RANDALL

3776 Ex Parte TRAN 11767499 - (D) BAHR 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) THOMAS J. TIGHE, ESQ. DOAN, ROBYN KIEU

The Federal Circuit has explained that “[t]he analogous art inquiry is a factual one, requiring inquiry into the similarities of the problems and the closeness of the subject matter as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Scientific Plastic Prods., Inc. v. Biotage AB, 766 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Criteria for determining whether prior art is analogous may be summarized as “(1) whether the art is form the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. at 1359 (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). A reference is reasonably pertinent if . . . it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness
rejection. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Clay, 966 F.2d at 659).

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte SCHOEN et al 12545139 - (D) GRIMES 103 MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. EPPS -SMITH, JANET L

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Buck et al 11731880 - (D) GARRIS 103 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company WEISS, PAMELA HL

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Pandya et al 11638412 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. HO, BINH VAN

2164 Ex Parte Murthy 11442002 - (D) DANG 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE OHBA, MELLISSA M

2164 Ex Parte GROSS 11856202 - (D) HUME 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. QUADER, FAZLUL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Lee et al 12050477 - (D) BUNTING 103 Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC NGUYEN, THU V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Schaich et al 11608182 - (D) HUME 112(1)/102/103 Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC LI, SHI K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte LEE 12856148 - (D) HASTINGS 103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP GANNON, LEVI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte McIntyre et al 11297785 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2667 EC DATA SYSTEMS, INC. Requester v. j2 GLOBAL, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7020132 et al 10/393,227 95002002 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP Third Party Requester: Hamilton, DeSanctis & Cha LLP CORSARO, NICK original HOANG, THAI D

ricoh, fulton, gurley

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Kajmowicz et al 12259156 - (D) NAPPI 112(2)/103 Mahamedi Paradice LLP (NetApp) STEVENS, ROBERT

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte Greenfield 11832941 - (D) FRAHM 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Desai et al 10999325 - (D) MOHANTY 103 AT&T Legal Dept. GGGV GOLDMAN, MICHAEL H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Park et al 11646597 - (D) TROCK 103 102/103 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP STEINBERG, JEFFREY S

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Bleumer et al 11229466 - (D) STRAUSS 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP NGUY, CHI D

“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations and quotations omitted). A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, “[a] known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2123 , 2141.02 , 2143.01 , 2145

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2123 , 2145

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Zimmer et al 12386572 - (D) McGRAW 103 KLAUS J. BACH & ASSOCIATES BATSON, VICTOR D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Kovacevich et al 12108432 - (D) GREENHUT 102 TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC WALKER, NED ANDREW

geisler, gurley

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Day et al 11605642 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 CORNING INCORPORATED KEMMERLE III, RUSSELL J

“A prima facie case of obviousness can be rebutted if the applicant . . . can show ‘that the art in any material respect taught away’ from the claimed invention.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Furthermore,

[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts . . . .

In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Geisler, In re, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2144.05 , 2145
Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2123 , 2145

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Hindle 12035868 - (D) FINK 103 102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD PENG, HSIUNGFEI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Meade et al 12159589 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 102/103 Rutan & Tucker, LLP. TYSON, MELANIE RUANO

3788 Ex Parte Erickson et al 12492688 - (D) ABRAMS 103 112(1) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Alemany et al 11721827 - (D) PRAISS 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP CAMPBELL, NATASHA N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Chou et al 10814081 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Maldjian Law Group LLC YEN, ERIC L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Ferren et al 11725982 - (D) MILLS 102/103 obviousness-type double patenting IV - SUITER SWANTZ PC LLO BERTRAM, ERIC D

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
2758 Ex parte ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC Appellant Ex Parte 6088816 et al 08/942,071 90012315 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC Third Party Requester: BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P. KE, PENG original NAJJAR, SALEH

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2839 CERRO WIRE, INC. Requester and Respondent v. SOUTHWIRE COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,749,024 et al 11/675,441 95000594 - (D) CHEN 112(1)/112(2) 102 GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP PATEL, HETULB original DUVERNE, JEAN F

gurley

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Huynh 11452713 - (D) McKONE 103 IMPERIUM PATENT WORKS RAHMAN, FAHMIDA

According to the Federal Circuit:

A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. . . . [I]n general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant.

In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2123, 2145

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Chen et al 10871120 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. RASHID, HARUNUR

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Agapi et al 11291064 - (D) FREDMAN 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP NGUYEN, PHUNG HOANG JOSEPH

3725 Ex Parte Plaschka et al 10521231 - (D) HOFFMAN 102/103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. GRABOWSKI, KYLE ROBERT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Brenes et al 11220882 - (D) PARVIS 102 102 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b) 101 BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2672 Ex Parte Berti et al 10661263 - (D) DIXON 103 112(2) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC DICKERSON,CHAD S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Brushwyler et al 12334965 - (D) KALAN 102/103 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP JAGAN, MIRELLYS

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Ortega 10662492 - (D) KIMLIN 112(1)/112(2)/102 103 SALIWANCHIK, LLOYD & EISENSCHENK BUTLER, PATRICK NEAL

1782 Ex Parte Bekele 11084537 - (D) PRAISS 103 Sealed Air Corporation KASHNIKOW, ERIK

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Ansari et al 11147665 - (D) WHITE 101/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S

2487 Ex Parte Adolph et al 10499868 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc CZEKAJ, DAVID J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2647 Ex Parte Modonesi et al 10991935 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & DUNLEAVY, P.C. TRAN, PAUL P

2685 Ex Parte Hunt et al 12259217 - (D) THOMAS 101/obviousness-type double patenting CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP MULLEN, THOMAS J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Gilbert et al 10171437 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(2)/102/103 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 SynQor, Inc. Requester v. Lineage Power Corporation Patent Owner 95001231 6,191,964 09/472,617 PERRY 102/103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.79 102/103 HITT CHWANG & GAINES, P.C. Third Party Requester: HAMILTON, BROOK SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. NGUYEN, LINH M original VU, BAO Q

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED
2736 COMAPER CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANTEC, INC., BEST BUY CO., INC., AND MICRO ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2013-1147 5,955,955 08/796,512 RADER JMOL of obviousness STEPHEN J. DRISCOLL, Saul Ewing, LLP; ROBERT P. ANDRIS, Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley LIEU, JULIE BICHNGOC

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES, GMBH AND ACCENTURE LLP, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2011-1486 7,013,284 09/305,331 LOURIE dissenting RADER summary judgment of invalidity under 101 J. MICHAEL JAKES, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP; MARK A. LEMLEY, Durie Tangri, LLP ALLEN, AKIBA KANELLE

TRANSFERRED
1302 DAVID WAWRZYNSKI Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H.J. HEINZ COMPANY, H.J. HEINZ COMPANY, L.P., ANDHEINZ GP LLC, Defendants-Appellees. 2012-1624 5,676,990 08/639,953 PLAGER jurisdiction H. WILLIAM BURDETT, JR., Boyle Burdett; ROBERT L. BYER, Duane Morris LLP WEINSTEIN, STEVEN L

gurley, adams

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Taneri et al 11/260,697 FREDMAN 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER GULLEDGE, BRIAN M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Kabalnov 11/581,182 PAK 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Mitchell et al 10/037,043 LUCAS 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Sundell 11/157,038 NAPPI 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER PRITCHETT, JOSHUA L

Our reviewing court has said:

[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant.

In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52 (1966)).

However, a reference that “teaches away” does not per se preclude a prima facie case of obviousness, but rather the “teaching away” of the reference is a factor to be considered in determining unobviousness. Id.

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145

United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 148 USPQ 479 (1966). . . . . . . . . 716.01(b), 716.05, 2143.01, 2145

modine, rinehart, syntex, gurley, fulton,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Ware et al 11/142,651 GRIMES 112(2)/102(b)/102(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER CHEN, SHIN LIN 

“Such broadening usages as ‘about’ must be given reasonable scope; they must be viewed by the decisionmaker as they would be understood by persons experienced in the field of the invention. Although it is rarely feasible to attach a precise limit to ‘about,’ the usage can usually be understood in light of the technology embodied in the invention.” Modine Manufacturing Co. v. U.S. ITC, 75 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Kawabata et al 10/472,753 NAGUMO 103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER OLSEN, KAJ K 

Ex Parte Lawrence et al 10/399,797 TIMM 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNENHULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Day et al 10/606,582 SIU 112(1)/103(a)/101 IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Kelly 10/820,484 BAUMEISTER 103(a) Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER ANDUJAR, LEONARDO 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Wilbanks 10/445,584 SILVERBERG 103(a) MICHAEL J. COLITZ, JR. EXAMINER ELLIS, CHRISTOPHER P 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Kocher et al 10/204,374 BAHR 103(a) Striker Striker & Stenby EXAMINER PRONE, JASON D 

Ex Parte Veith 10/693,555 HORNER 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Peart et al 10/759,280 ADAMS obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY 

Obviousness does not require absolute predictability; however, at least some degree of predictability is required. Evidence showing there was no reasonable expectation of success can support a conclusion of non-obviousness. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1053-54 (CCPA 1976). 

Rinehart, In re, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2142, 2143.02, 2144.04 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

Ex Parte McElroy 10/368,425 LANE 103(a)/102(e) Foley and Lardner, LLP EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D 

When a reference teaches away

it suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant's invention. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A statement that a particular combination is not a preferred embodiment does not teach away absent clear discouragement of that combination.In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1199-1200.

Syntex LLC v. Apotex, Inc. 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145 

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . 2123, 2141.02, 2143.01, 2145

gurley, para-ordnance, harza, freeman,

REVERSED 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Koh et al 09/802,857 THOMAS 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER YIGDALL, MICHAEL J 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Guglielmotti et al 10/560,836 WALSH 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI Ex Parte Shy 11/123,360 WALSH 103(a) STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP 

See Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553; see also, Para-Ordnance Manufacturing v. SGS Importers International Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed Cir. 1995) (a warning against use of an element, rather than omission of mention of the element, is required to find teaching away). 

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Forman et al 10/835,684 HOMERE 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D 

Ex Parte Nutter et al 10/145,374 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DALE B. HALLING EXAMINER LE, MIRANDA 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Sharp 09/765,985 LORIN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER MITTAL, KRISHAN K 

Cf. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 774 (CCPA 1960) ("It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced".) 

Harza, In re, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04 

REEXAMINATION 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC. 90/008,132 6,624,096 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: HAMMER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MICHAEL F. SNYDER VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L 

Collateral estoppel (also called issue preclusion) “precludes relitigation in a second suit of issues actually litigated and determined in the first suit.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994). This doctrine applies only if: “(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” Id. 

Freeman, In re, 30 F.3d 1459, 31 USPQ2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . 706.03(w), 2250, 2666.01