kerkhoven

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Walton et al 12271836 - (D) DEJMEK 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED BOLOURCHI, NADER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte LI et al 13470432 - (D) JESCHKE 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC LAFLAME JR, MICHAEL A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1647 Ex Parte Park et al 13756063 - (D) GRIMES 112(1) 112(1) Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing BUNNER, BRIDGET E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Cahn 13219239 - (D) KENNEDY 112(1)/112(2)/112(4)/103 103 MARSH, FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP KASTLER, SCOTT R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Sakai et al 11523803 - (D) FREDMAN 103 CLARK & ELBING LLP PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

“It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980).

Kerkhoven, In re, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) 2144.06

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Stopek et al 12486352 - (D) PESLAK 112(1) 102/103 Covidien LP OU, JING RUI

kerkhoven

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Kosowsky et al 12571318 - (D) SMITH 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC (1511) NGUYEN, HAIDUNG D

1788 Ex Parte Jaworowski et al 11982639 - (D) BEST 103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. FERRE, ALEXANDRE F

Relying on In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846 (CCPA 1980), the Examiner concludes that, “[i]n view of the mutual anticorrosive properties of the additives in Sako al. [sic] and those of Sinko et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine them to form a third composition.” Ans. 4.

After reviewing Sako and Sinko, we conclude that the Examiner’s reliance on Kerkhoven is misplaced. In that case, claims directed to a mixture of spray-dried anionic and spray-dried nonionic surfactants were held to be prima facie obvious in view of prior art describing the each of the surfactants in a spray-dried form. Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d at 850 (“In the case at bar, [the] appealed claims . . . require no more than the mixing together of two conventional spray-dried detergents. Thus, these claims set forth prima facie obvious subject matter.”).

In this case, however, the Examiner’s rejection is not based a simple mixture of Sako’s corrosion-inhibiting surface treatment and Sinko’s corrosion-inhibiting organic-inorganic hybrid composite.

Kerkhoven, In re, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) 2144.06

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Kauniskangas et al 11455904 - (D) McCARTNEY 102/103 41.50 101 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. IQBAL, KHAWAR

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2852 Ex Parte Gassman et al 12755767 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. FULLER, RODNEY EVAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Foster et al 12870022 - (D) FISCHETTI 102 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY LEVINE, ADAM L

3651 Ex Parte Winslow et al 12459162 - (D) WOODS 103 Ingrid McTaggart KUMAR, RAKESH

3685 Ex Parte Himmelstoin 11455556 - (D) MOORE 102/103 41.50 101 Lech Law, LLC HEWITT II, CALVIN L

3689 Ex Parte Winch et al 10382276 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 TAYLOR IP, P.C. NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Mastio et al 12171048 - (D) MURPHY 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. TRUONG, THANH K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Lowry et al 12433409 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/102/103 112(2)/103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC BANNAN, JULIE A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Angelides 13705341 - (D) ADAMS 101/103 Eric P. Mirabel, JD, LLM RIGGS II, LARRY D

2169 Ex Parte Schwesig et al 11626127 - (D) BEAMER 103 Condo Roccia Koptiw LLP UDDIN, MD I

2173 Ex Parte Miyamoto et al 12256864 - (D) LaVIER 102/103 Anne Vachon Dougherty BYCER, ERIC J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Rissanen 11907780 - (D) McGRAW 103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP HARLEY, JASON A

2481 Ex Parte Guillen et al 10538156 - (D) MORGAN 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC ADAMS, EILEEN M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2844 Ex Parte Hopwood et al 12357987 - (D) SMITH 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (NY) TAN, VIBOL

2893 Ex Parte Lin et al 12653440 - (D) HANLON 103 DUANE MORRIS LLP (TSMC) NGUYEN, THANH T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Blouin et al 11529221 - (D) KIM 103 SMART & BIGGAR CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N

3626 Ex Parte Bastien et al 10517391 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP KANAAN, MAROUN P

3627 Ex Parte Thomas 10584417 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) SHEIKH, ASFAND M

kerkhoven, cheese systems

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Bearinger et al 10781582 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC ANDERSON, GREGORY A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Bernstein 12761953 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH) ARNOLD, ERNST V

“It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980).

Kerkhoven, In re, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) 2144.06

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Steigelmann et al 12516479 - (D) ROESEL 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) ENG, ELIZABETH

1764 Ex Parte Ganapathiappan 11701040 - (D) ROESEL 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BOYLE, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Lee et al 12025479 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC PATEL, NIMESH G

Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems, 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

2114 Ex Parte Weiberle et al 11990251 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102 KENYON & KENYON LLP IQBAL, NADEEM

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte CHOI et al 11777829 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

2649 Ex Parte Sylvain 10824662 - (D) HORVATH 103 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple) LU, ZHIYU

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Cooke 11932729 - (D) HOELTER 103 Cooke Law Firm THOMPSON, KENNETH L

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2601 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant Ex Parte 4930150 et al 07/260,104 90012136 - (D) CHEN 103 COOLEY LLP Third Party Requester: LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD. RALIS, STEPHEN J

kerkhoven

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Van Patten 10363079 - (D) FREDMAN 103 KAGAN BINDER, PLLC HUI, SAN MING R

In Kerkhoven, the CCPA found: “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980). Thus, Kerkhoven requires that the prior art recognize that each of two different compositions are useful for the same purpose.

Kerkhoven, In re, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) 2144.06

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1754 Ex Parte Boulanger et al 10941831 - (D) HOUSEL 103 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP BERDICHEVSKY, MIRIAM

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Rapp 11100515 - (D) CURCURI 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP PHANTANA ANGKOOL, DAVID

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Mitreuter et al 11516619 - (D) GONSALVES 102/103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP MADAMBA, GLENFORD J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Lankston et al 11742540 - (D) CURCURI 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHERVINSKY, BORIS LEO

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Stokes 11355353 - (D) JUNG 102/103 RICHARD L HUFF KWIECINSKI, RYAN D

3643 Ex Parte Werner et al 12164825 - (D) McCOLLUM 102/103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke) BANIANI, SHADI SHUNTI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Corvi et al 12357037 - (D) WALSH 103 Covidien FOREMAN, JONATHAN M

3738 Ex Parte Harris et al 10603952 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. WILLSE, DAVID H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Lemley 11555477 - (D) SCHAFER 103 112(1) MILLER, MATTHIAS & HULL LLP KO, JASON Y

1744 Ex Parte Kramer et al 11345479 - (D) McKELVEY 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ABRAHAM, AMJAD A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Gregory et al 12042425 - (D) FREDMAN 103 102/103 WARF/MKE/QUARLES & BRADY LLP SZMAL, BRIAN SCOTT

3767 Ex Parte Hoarau et al 11716145 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 102/103 Covidien LP THOMAS, JR, BRADLEY G

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Ellington et al 11939012 - (D) WALSH 103 L'Oreal USA AL-AWADI, DANAH J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Daguier et al 10593463 - (D) BEST 103 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. KING, ROY V

1742 Ex Parte Grah et al 11142044 - (D) McKELVEY 103 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 112(4) Sealed Air Corporation BUTLER, PATRICK NEAL

1763 Ex Parte Shaffer et al 12179368 - (D) TIMM 103 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY FINK, BRIEANN R

1793 Ex Parte Amit 11837803 - (D) TORCZON 103 NIXON PEABODY, LLP MOORE, WALTER A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Gould 10326561 - (D) McKONE 102/103 COOL PATENT, P.C. ZAMAN, FAISAL M

2128 Ex Parte Hamlin et al 10768588 - (D) DESHPANDE 112(2)/103 LSI Corporation c/o Suiter Swantz pc llo SAXENA, AKASH

2176 Ex Parte Liebl et al 11181813 - (D) DANG 102/103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) DYER, ANDREW R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Degertekin 11260238 - (D) CURCURI 103 GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORP. LARKIN, DANIEL SEAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Hannah et al 12200825 - (D) HOELTER 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP MAWARI, REDHWAN K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Krivoruchko et al 11624343 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. MCEVOY, THOMAS M

kerkhoven, yates, fessmann

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Helfman et al 11/037,977 McCOLLUM 103(a) RENNER KENNER GREIVE BOBAK TAYLOR & WEBER EXAMINER BARHAM, BETHANY P

1621 Ex Parte Karvinen et al 11/908,780 WALSH 103(a) Novak Druce + Quigg LLP EXAMINER WITHERSPOON, SIKARL A

Although Reinius did not describe using a catalyst complex based on a ligand mixture, the Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to combine the individual ligands taught by Reinius et al in an[] effort to obtain a new ligand mixture that would be effective in increasing the selectivity to branched aldehyde products. In re Ker[k]hoven, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA, 1980).”
...

Finally, Appellants contend that factual differences make Kerkhoven inappposite, and “the legal conclusion as to patentability of the claimed process is more properly guided according to the circumstances outlined in In re Yates, 211 USPQ 1149, 1151 [663 F.2d 1054] (CCPA 1981) than Ker[k]hoven.”
...

The rejection also relies on the general rule of the Kerkhoven case, “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980). Appellants argue that Kerkhoven is inapposite, and “[h]ere, there is no combination of two compositions, but rather the creation of a catalytic complex from individual reactants (i.e., a rhodium complexed with two (or more) ligand reactants).” (App. Br. 5.)
...

Under these circumstances, we agree with Appellants that the Yates case provides useful guidance. In Yates, claims to a catalytic process had been rejected for obviousness based on idea that controlling the degree of conversion to optimize an acid-aldehyde ratio would have been obvious. In re Yates, 663 F.2d 1054, 1056 (CCPA 1981). The court agreed that the rejection had “the appearance of being founded on both logic and sound scientific principle.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Notwithstanding that appearance, the court explained that “obviousness cannot be established without considering the record as a whole,” and reversed after considering Yates’ data that controlling the degree of conversion was not recognized to be a result-effective variable. Id.
Kerkhoven, In re, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980). . . . . . . . . . 2144.06

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Nishino et al 11/473,334 TIMM 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER LEE, CYNTHIA K

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Serban 10/553,657 HOMERE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER STONE, ROBERT M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte ROYYURU 11/874,584 PETRAVICK 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Keller 11/401,986 BAHR 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Wood et al 10/674,174 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER SANDY, ROBERT JOHN

The burden of proof on the PTO in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims is less than when a product is claimed in the more conventional fashion. In re Fessman, 489 F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974).

Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Ullestad et al 10/836,589 WALSH 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER EISENBERG, REBECCA E
REEXAMINATION

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3991 Ex Parte 6607695 et al Ex parte Veltek Associates, Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/009,290 ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: BLANK ROME LLP EXAMINER JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Hovey et al 11/093,149 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2115 Ex Parte Neuman et al 10/326,863 SMITH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CONNOLLY, MARK A

2179 Ex Parte Craig et al 11/489,337 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HASSAN, RASHEDUL

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Martin et al 12/011,276 POTHIER 103(a) James Ray & Associates Intellectual Property, LLC EXAMINER DOAN, KIET M

2622 Ex Parte Pilu 10/877,676 MacDONALD 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MISLEH, JUSTIN P

2624 Ex Parte Paxton et al 10/933,002 DILLON 103(a) Stephen B. Salai, Esq. Harter Secrest & Emery LLP EXAMINER ENTEZARI, MICHELLE M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Kobetsky et al 11/067,965 SPAHN 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3764 Ex Parte Hasse et al 10/902,820 WALSH concurring and dissenting FREDMAN 102(e)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

3765 Ex Parte CHO 11/614,685 PER CURIAM 103(a) FELLERS SNIDER BLANKENSHIP BAILEY & TIPPENS EXAMINER CLINE, SALLY COLSON
REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Casion 11/304,026 DANG 102(b) HODGSON RUSS LLP EXAMINER RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD N

kerkhoven, cross med.

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Griffith et al 11/810,639 WARREN 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER WALTERS JR, ROBERT S

1723 Ex Parte Gui et al 11/058,850 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER GARDNER, SHANNON M

1731 Ex Parte Lo et al 10/511,865 HASTINGS 103(a) KF ROSS PC EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

Additionally, the Examiner repeatedly relies upon In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980) (Ans. 4, 5, 7), to combine the three applied references, because “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two or three
compositions, each taught for the same purpose to yield a third composition for that very purpose.” See, e.g., Examiner's Answer, page 4, citing In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980).

In Kerkhoven, however, the claims required “no more than the mixing together of two conventional spray-dried detergents.” Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d at 850. In contrast, in the present rejection, the Examiner is making at least two substitutions to the Reynolds invention in order to arrive at the current claimed invention...
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Kitchin 10/208,995 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Ross et al 11/198,699 GONSALVES 103(a) Hovey Williams LLP EXAMINER
TSIDULKO, MARK
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Dubbert et al 10/826,782 HORNER 103(a) Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C. EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Haering et al 11/169,773 SCHEINER 102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER PRICE, ELVIS O
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Tuttle 11/214,339 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P

(motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

1761 Ex Parte Frankenbach et al 11/405,729 WARREN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Schwartz 09/912,636 MANTIS MERCADER 101/102(e) HEIMLICH LAW EXAMINER VU, THONG H