kao2, baxter travenol, merchant

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte LI et al 13309300 - (D) BUSCH 103 Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Oracle) BLACK, LINH

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Brown et al 14310413 - (D) GUPTA 103 ULMER & BERNE LLP NGUYEN, CHAU N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12462332 - (D) CALVE 102/103 HolzerlPLaw, PC BURKE, SEAN P

3688 Ex Parte McElfresh et al 13617647 - (D) CRAWFORD 101/112(2)/102/103 BGL/Yahoo Holdings STIBLEY, MICHAEL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Moehrle et al 13241443 - (D) BROWN 112(4)/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION BURKE, THOMAS P

3749 Ex Parte Martinchick et al 12121832 - (D) HORNER 112(2)/101/103 MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC - GM DECKER, PHILLIP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Reindle et al 14175421 - (D) LANEY 112(1)/112(2)/103 103 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP (TTiFC) MULLER, BRYAN R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte TAKAHASHI et al 12353689 - (D) PAK 103 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP HUHN, RICHARD A

1771 Ex Parte Ravishankar et al 13056246 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 POLSINELLI PC OLADAPO, TAIWO

As such, we turn to Appellants’ evidence of criticality, and we agree with the Examiner’s stated position in the record that Appellants’ showing of unexpected results is not convincing because the comparison made must be with the closet prior art such as Brant.2 Ans. 12—13. “[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.”Kao Corp. v. Unilever U.S., Inc., 441 F.3d 963, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2006) quotingIn Re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As a general guideline, the closest prior art is the reference that has the most claim limitations in common with the invention, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations.In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868 (CCPA 1978).
Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01 , 2145

Merchant, In re, 575 F.2d 865, 197 USPQ 785 (CCPA 1978) 716.02(e)

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Liu et al 14281124 - (D) SAADAT 103 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP MATTIS, JASON E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Gibson III et al 14007336 - (D) SQUIRE 103 PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V. HORIKOSHI, STEVEN Y

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte TROPP 13412233 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 112(1)/101 COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP JASMIN, LYNDA C

3637 Ex Parte Burgess et al 14531108 - (D) REPKO 103 STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP ROERSMA, ANDREW MARK

3671 Ex Parte OHKUBO et al 14029497 - (D) MURPHY 103 DITTHAVONG & STEINER, P.C. MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3747 Ex Parte Hayman et al 13181981 - (D) CAPP 103 Cantor Colburn LLP-General Motors ZALESKAS, JOHNM

3753 Ex Parte Labrie et al 13103589 - (D) KERINS 102 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. SANCHEZ-MEDINA, REINALDO

3761 Ex Parte Sutorius 13116992 - (D) SMEGAL 102/103 GREENBERG TRAURIG (LV) SASS, SARA A

3762 Ex Parte Polefko et al 13250283 - (D) COTTA 103 Pearne & Gordon LLP Greatbatch (QiG) LEVICKY, WILLIAM J

3778 Ex Parte Jafari et al 13059711 - (D) SHAH 102/103 101 Covidien LP BRYANT, ERIC C

rubin, kao2, cordis2, gosteli, vas-cath

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2443 Ex Parte Holmeide et al 10/465,945 HOMERE 103(a) Michael M Rickin ABB Inc EXAMINER FEARER, MARK D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Meyer et al 11/009,575 KRIVAK 103(a) GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC.
c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

The Examiner asserts there is no difference between Lee’s unitary heat treatment and the claimed invention’s two-step heat treatment (Ans. 11). In support of this conclusion, the Examiner cites Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (BPAI 1959) (Ans. 8, 11, 15, and 16). However, the Examiner’s reliance on Rubin, is misplaced, as Rubin does not address splitting one step into two, only the transposition of two steps.

Rubin, Ex parte, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Haynes et al 10/717,888 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER WIENER, ERIC A

2183 Ex Parte Schwinn 10/932,730 HOMERE 112(1)/102(b) Leslie J. Payne IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 EXAMINER LINDLOF, JOHN M

“To fulfill the written description requirement [under 35 U.S.C. § 112], the patent specification must describe an invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented what is claimed.” Kao Corp. v. Unilever U.S., Inc., 441 F.3d 963, 967-968 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Our reviewing court has cautioned, however, that “[t]he disclosure as originally filed does not … have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Cordis Corp., 339 F.3d at 1364 (internal citation omitted). “Although [the applicant] does not have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). Put another way, “the applicant must … convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original).

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . . 1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Gosteli, In re, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . 608.01(p), 715.03, 2131.02, 2136.05, 2163.02, 2163.03, 2163.05

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/361,767 BAHR 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) David B. Johnson EXAMINER HOEY, ALISSA L

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1747 Ex Parte Fujii et al 10/532,424 HASTINGS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER MAKI, STEVEN D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Brewer et al 10/862,684 MacDONALD 103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Rush et al 10/756,664 MacDONALD 102(e) INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) EXAMINER FEILD, JOSEPH H