borkowski, lindner

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1671 Ex Parte Reese et al 13826394 - (D) FLAX 103 Covestro LLC MURESAN, ANA Z

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte Dunne 13615172 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP - Colorado Springs ABRAHAM, SAMANTHA K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte SIRAVO et al 12843421 - (D) PRATS 102/103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP ECKMAN, MICHELLE CHRISTINE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1678 Ex Parte Seher et al 11996810 - (D) COTTA 112(2) 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS FOSTER, CHRISTINE E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Gelli et al 13138548 - (D) DELMENDO 103 BREINER & BREINER, L.L.C. BLADES, JOHN A

The Appellants’ general reference to the Gelli Declaration, without specific citations to facts (e.g., experimental comparative data as distinguished from mere assertions), is insufficient to identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Cf. In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718 (CCPA 1974) (“The original and supplemental affidavits together with the accompanying comments do not adequately explain what facts or data appellants are relying upon ...”); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972) (“[M]ere conclusory statements in the specification and affidavits are entitled to little weight when the Patent Office questions the efficacy of those statements.”).

Lindner, In re, 457 F.2d 506, 173 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1972) 716.01(c) , 716.02(d) , 2145

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2676 Ex Parte Kamath et al 13174197 - (D) WINSOR 103 HP Inc. KY, KEVIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2864 Ex Parte Feng et al 13495272 - (D) GARRIS 101/102/103 Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP ABB Inc. BLOSS, STEPHANIE E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Schramm 13726466 - (D) DIXON 112(1)/102/103 112(2) Schramm-Personal-ACT BROWN, DREW J

3689 Ex Parte MALACKOWSKI et al 12727939 - (D) CRAWFORD 101/103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP SHANKER, JULIE MEYERS

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Shuster 14089639 - (D) OSINSKI 101 Coleman & Horowitt, LLP HYLINSKI, STEVEN J

dill, lindner

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Etesse et al 10443149 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY LLP NGUYEN, THANH T

2449 Ex Parte Badt et al 12004972 - (D) DIXON 103 RGIP LLC WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

2466 Ex Parte Dinicola et al 11381780 - (D) FINK 103 Cochran Freund & Young/ AVAYA, Inc. CRUTCHFIELD, CHRISTOPHER M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Hartley 11231621 - (D) LaVIER 103 BGL/Cook - Chicago GANESAN, SUBA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
3616 Ex Parte Hordos 11604628 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 102/103 L.C. Begin & Associates, PLLC WILHELM, TIMOTHY

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Goto et al 10557502 - (D) MILLS 103 Frommer Lawrence & Haug SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D

“The evidence presented to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims to which it pertains.” In re Dill, 604 F.2d 1356, 1361, 202 USPQ 805, 808 (CCPA 1979). “It is well established that the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims.” In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972).

“Commensurate in scope” means that the evidence provides a reasonable basis for concluding that the untested embodiments encompassed by the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested embodiment(s). See Lindner, 457 F.2d at 508 (“Here, only one mixture of ingredients was tested . . . . The claims, however, are much broader in scope, . . . and we have to agree with the Patent Office that there is no ‘adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included by the claims would behave in the same manner as the [single] tested composition.’” (bracketed material in original)).

Lindner, In re, 457 F.2d 506, 173 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1972) 716.01(c) , 716.02(d) , 2145

1621 Ex Parte Kling 10394619 - (D) MILLS 103 WINSTEAD PC FAY, ZOHREH A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte DeMesa et al 11415710 - (D) FREDMAN 102(e) BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC LO, WEILUN

2196 Ex Parte Birenheide et al 11221667 - (D) EVANS 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP MILLS, PAUL V

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2462 Ex Parte Houck et al 10657864 - (D) DIXON 112(1)/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WU, JIANYE

REHEARING

DENIED 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2655 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 11117608 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP PAUL, DISLER