leithem, kronig

custom search

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 IN RE: JOSEPH GIUFFRIDA 2012-1692 11/432,583 PER CURIAM 102/103 103 Great Lakes Neuro Technologies Inc. Deputy Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor Inc. unpublished but incorporated by reference in 13/153,063 SOREY, ROBERT A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 3749 CALICO BRAND, INC. AND HONSON MARKETING GROUP, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERITEK IMPORTS, INC., Defendant, AND ACME INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant. 2008-1324, -1341; 6,318,992 09/531,083 6,814,569 10/005,230 REYNA JMOL/lost profits reasonable royalty Trojan Law Offices Reed Smith, LLP COCKS, JOSIAH C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 IN RE DORON ADLER, OFRA ZINATY, DAPHNA LEVY AND ARKADY GLUKHOVSKY 2012-1610 10/097,096 WALLACH 103 Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP United States
Patent and Trademark Office KISH, JAMES M

When the Board relies upon a new ground of rejection not relied upon by the examiner, the applicant is entitled to reopen prosecution or to request a rehearing. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). This court has stated that “[t]he thrust of the Board’s rejection changes when . . . it finds facts not found by the examiner regarding the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, and these facts are the principal evidence upon which the Board’s rejection was based.” In re Leithem, 661 F.3d 1316, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “‘[T]he ultimate criterion of whether a rejection is considered ‘new’ in a decision by the [B]oard is whether [applicants] have had fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the rejection.’” Id. (quoting In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302–03 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (modifications in original)).
HARMON 18: 8-10
DONNER 2: 218

leithem, mintz

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Bell et al 10840560 - (D) DROESCH 103 DILLON & YUDELL LLP FENNEMA, ROBERT E

2193 Ex Parte Bosworth et al 09741219 - (D) HUME 103 Squire Sanders (US) LLP VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Oka et al 10658549 - (D) CHEN 102 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LAM, HUNG H

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Wong et al 11706833 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 PATENT LAW GROUP LLP CHO, JAMES HYONCHOL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Weber et al 11700915 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

3744 Ex Parte Baumann 10755632 - (D) McCARTHY 103 ALCOA TECHNICAL CENTER FLANIGAN, ALLEN J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Pasquier et al 10516610 - (D) McKELVEY 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 11004446 - (D) GREEN 102/obviousness-type double patenting THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE Riggs II, Larry

1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 11900442 - (D) GREEN 102/obviousness-type double patenting THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE RIGGS II, LARRY D

1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 11893554 - (D) GREEN 102/obviousness-type double patenting THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE RIGGS II, LARRY D

1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 11897103 - (D) GREEN 102/obviousness-type double patenting THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE RIGGS II, LARRY D

1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 11895989 - (D) GREEN 102/obviousness-type double patenting THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE RIGGS II, LARRY D

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Linz et al 10641221 - (D) GARRIS 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S

1762 Ex Parte Yadav et al 10435222 - (D) KIMLIN 112(1)/112(2)/102/103/obviousness-type double patenting PPG INDUSTRIES INC YOON, TAE H

1772 Ex Parte Ulin et al 10539045 - (D) TORCZON 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. WHITE, DENNIS MICHAEL

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Morikawa 11253600 - (D) BARRY 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP CASANOVA, JORGE A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Pelz et al 09913992 - (D) DIXON 112(1)/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP WEST, JEFFREY R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Rodriguez 10571337 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 LAW OFFICE OF DELIO & PETERSON, LLC. AMSDELL, DANA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Davidson 10410082 - (D) ASTORINO 103 MICHAEL W. GOLTRY THAI, XUAN MARIAN

3744 Ex Parte Laskaris et al 11530267 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PETTITT, JOHN F

3768 Ex Parte Haider et al 10697518 - (D) KAMHOLZ 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY CATTUNGAL, SANJAY  

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Biedermann et al 10306057 - (D) GREENHUT 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP RAMANA, ANURADHA

We have not altered the thrust of the rejection so as to deprive Appellants a fair opportunity to respond. Request at 3 citing In re Leithem, 661 F .3d 1316,1319, 100 USPQ 2d 1155, 115 8 (Fed. Cir. 2011 ). Rather, we have merely relied upon a reference akin to a technical dictionary to confirm the meaning of terms used in the references before us...

Finally, Appellants contend we overlooked objective indicia of nonobviousness. Request 7-8. The record does not actually contain any objective indicia of nonobviousness like that discussed in Mintz v. Dietz and Watson (Fed. Cir. No. 2010-1341, May 30, 2012) (cited by Appellants).