klosak, chu, rice

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Li 13942906 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 Eschweilers & Associates, L.L.C. GATES, BRADFORD M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2194 Ex Parte Arora et al 13562756 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 HP Inc. YUN, CARINA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Noldus et al 13376471 - (D) BARRY 103 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC MOBIN, HASANUL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Allen 12326331 - (D) BROWNE 103 103 HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. KIRSCH, ANDREW THOMAS

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Ryther et al 12816016 - (D) RANGE 103 McKee, Voorhees & Sease P.L.C. ATTN: Ecolab Inc ASDJODI, MOHAMMADREZA

“[I]t is not enough to show that results are obtained which differ from those obtained in the prior art: that difference must be shown to be an unexpected difference.” In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Ma et al 11620876 - (D) HUME 103 DLA Piper LLP (US) PAN, PHOEBE X

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Piard et al 12412313 - (D) KUMAR 103 Garlick & Markison (IH) LIN, JASON K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex Parte Fritsch et al 12096228 - (D) HOELTER 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP KONG, SZE-HON

 See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails “to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function or give unexpected results”) [citing In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309 (CCPA 1965) (“Appellants have failed to show that the change [in the claimed invention] as compared to [the reference], result in a difference in function or give unexpected results”)].

Chu, In re, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 211.05 , 716.02(f) , 2145 ,

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 ANVIL INTERNATIONAL, LLC. Requester, Appellant v. VICTALIC COMPANY Patent Owner, Respondent Ex Parte 7712796 et al 11/485,921 95001880 - (D) SONG 102 103 41.77 102/103 OLIFF PLC PATENT OWNER Taylor English Duma LLP ENGLISH, PETER C original BOCHNA, DAVID

klosak, ishizaka, peterson, geisler

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Gau 10954078 - (D) OBERMANN 103 LAW OFFICES OF TRAVIS L. DODD, PC BALL, JOHN C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Chengalvarayan et al 11336081 - (D) CLEMENTS Dissenting SMITH 102/103 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. CHAWAN, VIJAY B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Hancock 11317562 - (D) WOOD 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. MORRISON, THOMAS A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Toulouse et al 11569567 - (D) FLOYD 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 LOWE, HAUPTMAN, HAM & BERNER, LLP (ITW) CHUKWURAH, NATHANIELC

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Amey et al 11678117 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA MARCANTONI, PAUL D

1733 Ex Parte Jiang et al 12603152 - (D) OWENS 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

1747 Ex Parte Mruk et al 11838422 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1782 Ex Parte Hanita et al 10567360 - (D) SCHAFER 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC RAUDENBUSH, ELLEN SUZANNE

1784 Ex Parte Dangelmaier 11776184 - (D) GARRIS 103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA ZIMMERMAN, JOHN J

1791 Ex Parte Roth 11363419 - (D) HASTINGS 103 The Culbertson Group, P.C. STULII, VERA

The burden of showing unexpected results rests on the person who asserts them by establishing that the difference between the claimed invention and the closest prior art was an unexpected difference. See Application of Klosak, 455 F. 2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972), Ex Parte ISHIZAKA, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (BPAI 1992).  Further, the showing of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims.  See In re Peterson, 315 F. 3d 1325, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Finally, unexpected results must be established by factual evidence.  See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470-71 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

Klosak DONNER 8:1316, 1317

Ishizaka, Ex parte, 24 USPQ2d 1621 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) 716.02(b)

Peterson, In re, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 716.02(d), 2144.05
HARMON 4: 90, 374
DONNER 8: 1713-19

Geisler, In re, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2144.05, 2145
HARMON 4: 373, 374-76; 20: 165
DONNER 8: 1682, 1683, 1689, 1713; 13: 234

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Blohm 10954440 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 Fritzsche Patent c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (SEN) PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

2164 Ex Parte Zondervan et al 11612317 - (D) CURCURI 101/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP ADAMS, CHARLES D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3674 Ex Parte Miller et al 11262313 - (D) PLENZLER 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global LEE, GILBERT Y

REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED
1203 PUBLIC PATENT FOUNDATION Requester v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES Patent Owner and Appellant 90009811 5,648,497 08/410,623 LEBOVITZ Obviousness-type double patenting ABBOTT LABORATORIES HUANG, EVELYN MEI original FAN, JANE T  

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2624 HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K.K. Requester v. APERIO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000518 7457446 11/173,818 WEINBERG 112(1)/103 PATTRIC J. RAWLINS / Aperio Technologies, Inc. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original LU, TOM Y

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED  
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 2503 THOMSON LICENSING SAS, AND THOMSON LICENSING, LLC, Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, AND QISDA CORPORATION, QISDA AMERICA CORPORATION, QISDA (SUZHOU) CO., LTD., BENQ CORPORATION, BENQ AMERICA CORPORATION, AND BENQ LATIN AMERICA CORPORATION, Intervenors, AND AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, AND AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA, Intervenors, AND CHIMEI INNOLUX CORPORATION, INNOLUX CORPORATION, AND CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA INC., Intervenors.  2012-1536 5,978,063 08/842,586 5,648,674 08/474,845 LOURIE 102/103 THOMSON Licensing LLC; Kirkland & Ellis, LLP; Office of General Counsel ITC; Latham & Watkins, LLP; White & Case LLP; Hogan Lovells US LLP TON, MINH TOAN T  JACKSON JR, JEROME

aslanian, merck, keller, klosak, mcclain, fout, siebentritt

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Young et al 11853855 - (D) HASTINGS 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 102 FRASER CLEMENS MARTIN & MILLER LLC DUDLEY, ARCHER DAVIS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte Weiss et al 12288560 - (D) HANLON 103 103 M.P. Williams PILLAY, DEVINA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Muthiah et al 10873501 - (D) HORNER 103 103 GERALD K. WHITE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. NGUYEN, SON T

See also In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979) (“a drawing in a utility patent can be cited against the claims of a utility patent application even though the feature shown in the drawing was unintended or unexplained in the specification of the reference patent.”) (citations omitted).

Aslanian, In re, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979) 2125

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3774 Ex Parte Ryan et al 12059495 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).

Merck & Co., Inc., In re, 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 707.07(f), 716.02,  2143.02,  2144.08,  2144.09, 2145

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) 707.07(f), 2145

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Skinlo 10665687 - (D) HASTINGS 103 QUALLION LLC RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

1762 Ex Parte Stueven et al 12438835 - (D) McKELVEY 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP ENG, ELIZABETH

In order to rely on an alleged expected result (or a "substantial effect"), applicant must show that it in fact gets that result. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972) (inventor must show that the results the inventor says the inventor gets with the invention are actually obtained with the invention). See also McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 429 (1891) (conclusive evidence needed to establish new function).

1763 Ex Parte Okada et al 12531655 - (D) McKELVEY 102/103 Styron/BHGL USELDING, JOHN E

1771 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 12019276 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC STEIN, MICHELLE

1774 Ex Parte Zetlmeisl et al 11601401 - (D) METZ 103 Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC ROBINSON, RENEE E

1784 Ex Parte Munro et al 11758765 - (D) NAGUMO 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC MCNEIL, JENNIFER C

1785 Ex Parte Hood 11546067 - (D) OBERMANN 103 INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM

Where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).

Fout, In re, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982) 2129, 2143.01, 2144.06

1791 Ex Parte Ikuina et al 11498154 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC PADEN, CAROLYN A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Lim 11615637 - (D) DANG 103 AKA CHAN LLP REYES, MARIELA D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Lee 11353584 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L

2477 Ex Parte Sadot 11238924 - (D) EVANS 102/103 Cochran Freund & Young/ AVAYA, Inc. ZHOU, YONG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte SONG et al 11564760 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC CHI, SUBERR L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte McGee 11117022 - (D) WALSH 112(1)/103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC LUONG, PETER
 
REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2863 GARRY IAN HOLLOWAY Requester and Appellant v. GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001542 7,571,060 10/952,386 SIU 102/103 DLA PIPER US LLP NASSER, ROBERT L original LE, JOHN H

hedges, klosak, aoyama

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Mao et al 11/693,454 GREEN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER LACLAIR, DARCY D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Condon 11/060,332 DESHPANDE 103(a) AT & T Legal Department - BK EXAMINER HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID

2443 Ex Parte Rodman et al 10/032,766 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER ENGLAND, DAVID E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Nikodym 10/376,185 HORNER 103(a) THOMPSON HINE LLP EXAMINER
ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

The Examiner appears to have impermissibly picked the disclosure of antimony from Kimoto without consideration of what the totality of the disclosure in Kimoto would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” (citations omitted)).

Hedges, In re, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ 685 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

3764 Ex Parte Datta et al 10/430,655 O’NEILL Concurring BARRETT 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Radnedge et al 11/075,059 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory EXAMINER POHNERT, STEVEN C

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Rettig et al 10/588,678 DANG 102(b)/103(a) STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY EXAMINER ASSOUAD, PATRICK J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Reuteler et al 10/532,528 McCARTHY 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Cavazza et al 12/320,430 WALSH 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R

1628 Ex Parte Cavazza et al 12/320,422 WALSH 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Muldermans et al 10/518,985 WARREN 103(a) KRATON POLYMERS U.S. LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON, CONNIE P

1771 Ex Parte Wen et al 11/887,684 McKELVEY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1,2,4)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WEISS, PAMELA HL

An inventor must show that the results the inventor says the inventor gets with the invention are actually obtained with the invention. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).

1781 Ex Parte Schneider et al 10/944,929 HANLON 103(a) FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER
DEES, NIKKI H

1782 Ex Parte Plourde et al 11/127,879 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) Dennis M. Flaherty, Esq.
Ostrager Chong Flaherty & Broitman P.C. EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ERIK

We agree with Appellants that the interpretation of claims 1, 4, and 20, a matter of law, is the first step in determining whether these claims are anticipated as a matter of fact. See, e.g., In re Aoyama, No. 2010-1552, 2011 WL 3796243, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2011) and cases cited therein.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Bixby et al 10/945,653 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) RICHARD AUCHTERLONIE NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M

2171 Ex Parte Farn 11/121,654 DANG 102(e)/103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Grilliot et al 10/619,161 DANG 102(e) HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS EXAMINER LIPMAN, JACOB

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Virolainen et al 10/465,909 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER BRINEY III, WALTER

hauserman, arvin, freeman, de blauwe, baxter travenol, grasselli2, clemens, freeman, klosak, dillon, mayne, schulze, greenfield, woodruff

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/21/2011 1655 Ex Parte Yang 10/505,015 ADAMS 103(a) WANG & HO EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

2600 Communications
07/22/2011 2624 Ex Parte Fushiki et al 11/041,033 KOHUT 102(b)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER WANG, CLAIRE X
REEXAMINATION EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/22/2011 3765 Ex parte CHRISTOPER SEAN VAN WINKLE and DAVID COX Appellants 90/009,210 7,076,806 SONG 102(b)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC Third Party Requester: VENABLE LLP EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER PATEL, TAJASH D

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/22/2011 1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/089,525 NAGUMO 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M

07/21/2011 1747 Ex Parte Yokota et al 10/277,646 GUEST 103(a) BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDINGS, INC. EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

The word “substantially” has been construed many times by our reviewing court. While the term “substantially” certainly broadens the term it modifies to some degree, it “cannot be allowed to negate the meaning of the word it modifies.” In re Hauserman, Inc., 892 F.2d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Arvin Industries, Inc. v. Berns Air King Corp., 525 F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1975)).
07/22/2011 1731 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/820,972 OWENS 103(a) K&L GATES LLP EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

That argument is not persuasive because, first, evidence must not merely show an unexpected property but, rather, must show an unexpected difference in a property between the claimed invention and the prior art. See In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973). Second, the Appellants have not provided a side-by-side comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims, and explained why the results would have been unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Freeman, 474 F.2d at 1324; In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . .2131.01, 2145

De Blauwe, In re, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . 716.01(c), 2145

Grasselli, In re, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2112, 2145

Clemens, In re, 622 F.2d 1029, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . 716.02(d), 2145

07/21/2011 1796 Ex Parte Dreier et al 11/032,434 ROBERTSON 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

A showing of unexpected results may be sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). Such a showing must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965). The evidence must also be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978). Further, the Federal Circuit has held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is a claimed range; the applicant must show that the range is critical through unexpected results. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted).

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09, 2145

Schulze, In re, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965) . . . .716.01(c), 2145, 2164.06(c)

Greenfield, In re, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . 2144.05

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/21/2011 2162 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11/058,972 THOMAS 103(a) Baker Botts L.L.P EXAMINER BULLOCK, JOSHUA

07/22/2011 2164 Ex Parte Avinash et al 11/016,081 MORGAN 103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

07/21/2011 2181 Ex Parte Azadet et al 10/880,331 GONSALVES 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
07/21/2011 2456 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/672,601 DANG 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T

2600 Communications
07/21/2011 2617 Ex Parte Filipovic et al 10/412,928 RUGGIERO 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

steele, boon, klosak, skoner

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kang et al 11/410,757 SMITH 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O

1782 Ex Parte Jester et al 10/404,787 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) FERRELLS, PLLC EXAMINER MIGGINS, MICHAEL C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Atkins 11/128,543 DILLON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ITURRALDE, ENRIQUE W

2186 Ex Parte Ruckerbauer et al 11/011,466 COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP Gero McClellan / Qimonda EXAMINER BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Colasurdo et al 10/166,299 STEPHENS 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK

A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of the claim language. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d
859, 862-863 (CCPA 1962).

Steele, In re, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06

2452 Ex Parte Malik 10/165,831 STEPHENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER DOAN, DUYEN MY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte SHIMOE et al 11/457,356 COCKS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

3763 Ex Parte Diemunsch 11/038,359 KERINS Dissenting STAICOVICI 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Piggush 11/823,699 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LIN, KUANG Y

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Cherkasova et al 10/801,793 JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3993 PlaSmart, Inc. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Jar Chen Wang and Hong Jiun Gu Patent Owners and Appellants 95/000,355 6,722,674 ROBERTSON 103(a) MORRIS MANNING MARTIN LLP EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3991 Ex parte TAKASHI YASUKOCHI, TOSHIRO YAMAGUCHI, TETSURO TATEISHI, and NARUHITO HIGO 90/008,491 7,034,083 SCHAFER 103(a) THE HARRIS FIRM EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Eun et al 10/946,326 HANLON 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P

1746 Ex Parte Stadele 10/805,337 GUEST 103(a) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC EXAMINER MUSSER, BARBARA J

1775 Ex Parte Tang et al 11/458,668 COLAIANNI 103(a) COOLEY LLP EXAMINER EDWARDS, LYDIA E

1785 Ex Parte Watanabe et al 11/297,792 GUEST 103(a) Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP EXAMINER RICKMAN, HOLLY C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Barrenscheen et al 09/883,817 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP FOR INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG EXAMINER KNOLL, CLIFFORD H

2168 Ex Parte Alvarado et al 11/362,488 DANG 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER MORRISON, JAY A

2179 Ex Parte Iwema et al 10/144,256 DANG 103(a) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER HUYNH, BA

Our reviewing court has held that an adequate traverse to such a finding of official notice must “contain adequate information or argument” to create on its face “a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances
justifying the . . . notice” of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). “To adequately traverse such a finding [of official notice], an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b).” MPEP § 2144.03(C). “If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, . . . the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art . . . .” Id.

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Birks et al 10/386,152 BAUMEISTER 112(1)/103(a) Merchant & Gould - Cox EXAMINER LEWIS, JONATHAN V

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Spector 10/949,987 HAHN 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER BROWN, VERNAL U

2617 Ex Parte Chen et al 09/932,842 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) Frank C. Nicholas Cardinal Law Group EXAMINER PEACHES, RANDY

2628 Ex Parte Billingsley et al 10/863,609 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EXAMINER WASHBURN, DANIEL C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Hengsbach 10/454,333 OWENS 103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. EXAMINER BATTULA, PRADEEP CHOUDARY
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Barnes et al 10/899,452 COLAIANNI 103(a) AUTOLIV ASP, INC Attn: Sally J. Brown ESQ EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

It is well settled that Appellants have the burden of showing that the claimed invention imparts not just any improvement, but an unexpected improvement. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972); see also In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 948 (CCPA 1975) (Expected results are evidence of obviousness just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness).

DENIED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Apps et al 10/340,315 BARRETT 103(a) Konstantine J. Diamond EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Cronley
Ex Parte Dimitrova et al
Ex Parte Ferderer
Ex Parte Geerits et al
Ex Parte Grove et al
Ex Parte Luo
Ex Parte Mezo et al
Ex Parte Virji et al

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Hahnle et al
Ex Parte Kulkarni

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Dooley et al
Ex Parte Fritz et al
Ex Parte Futamura et al
Ex Parte Gabrius et al
Ex Parte Goebel et al
Ex Parte Hagiya et al
Ex Parte King et al
Ex Parte Kok et al
Ex Parte Lais et al
Ex Parte Lloyd
Ex Parte Mandel et al
Ex Parte Postupack et al
Ex Parte Rauma et al