chore-time, okajima, litton

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Murray et al 12979440 - (D) KERINS 102 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. OLSON, LARS A

3627 Ex Parte Casey 12909580 - (D) MOHANTY 103 LEWIS RICE LLC HAIDER, FAWAAD

3644 Ex Parte Sainct et al 12809115 - (D) JESCHKE 103 41.50 112(2) BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP O'HARA, BRIAN M

3654 Ex Parte Hodjat 12928537 - (D) BROWNE 103 GATES CORPORATION TRAN, DIEM M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Kumar et al 12727473 - (D) HOSKINS 103 BASF CORPORATION SHANSKE, JASON D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Sowden et al 10484485 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON COUGHLIN, DANIEL F

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Brusic et al 11591730 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

1746 Ex Parte Whitworth et al 13433106 - (D) HASTINGS 103 KLEMCHUK LLP LEE, JAEYUN

1772 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 13008615 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 41.50 102/103 Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC ROBINSON, RENEE E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte CARMEL et al 12788459 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise NGUYEN, LE V

2193 Ex Parte ARPANA et al 11689276 - (D) ENGELS 101/103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (CA, Inc.) LOUIE, JUE WANG

see also Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 779 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("an invention may be held to have been either obvious (or nonobvious) without a specific finding of a particular level of skill or the reception of expert testimony on the level of skill where, as here, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level"); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ( [T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error 'where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown'") (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 218 USPQ 673 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2141.03

Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 59 USPQ2d 1795 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 2141.03

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte TSAI et al 12235098 - (D) KUMAR 103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP GUPTA, PARUL H

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 ANALOG DEVICES, INC. Requester v. KNOWLES ELECTRONICS LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte Minervini et al 8,018,049 11,741,881 95001850 - (D) CHEN 102/103 LATHROP & GAGE LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP ANDUJAR, LEONARDO original CHAMBLISS, ALONZO

okajima, litton, GPAC, custom accessories

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2412 Ex Parte Hsu et al 12055353 - (D) JURGOVAN 103 41.50 103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP JAVAID, JAMAL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2619 Ex Parte Posa et al 12197635 - (D) SHAW 102/103 41.50 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C HARRISON, CHANTE E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Szczypinski et al 12061812 - (D) KATZ 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP ALMO, KHAREEM E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Campbell et al 11985088 - (D) GUIJT 102 Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. SY, MARIANO ONG

3661 Ex Parte Perkins 12409657 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 DIEDERIKS & WHITELAW, PLC NELSON, SARA J

3692 Ex Parte McCoppin et al 10747612 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) BAIRD, EDWARD J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Johnson et al 11132035 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Spyros J. Lazaris HYLINSKI, ALYSSA MARIE

3762 Ex Parte Salo 11316123 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC LAVERT, NICOLE F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1647 Ex Parte Hunter et al 10768744 - (D) JENKS 102 102 Saul Ewing LLP (Philadelphia) STANFIELD, CHERIE MICHELLE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Atanasoska et al 11231583 - (D) HULSE 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. KASSA, TIGABU

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Narendra et al 11870636 - (D) HUME 112(2)/103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS

2198 Ex Parte Fredrickson et al 11380754 - (D) MOORE 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG AGUILERA, TODD

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Roberts 12111785 - (D) JURGOVAN 102/103 Jason P. Webb MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

2451 Ex Parte Florkey et al 11769153 - (D) NAPPI 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP TIV, BACKHEAN

2452 Ex Parte Sylvain et al 12334202 - (D) MacDONALD 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. GOLABBAKHSH, EBRAHIM

An express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required in all situations, as the level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references.  See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350,1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); In re GPAC Inc. 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed.Cir. 1995).   Beyond a bald assertion of error (reproduced above), Appellants have provided no proposal regarding an alternative level of ordinary skill and no explanation as to how an alternative level of ordinary skill changes the analysis in this case.

Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 59 USPQ2d 1795 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 2141.03

GPAC, In re, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 716.03 , 2145

2484 Ex Parte HARDACKER et al 12573629 - (D) THOMAS 101/103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES ZHAO, DAQUAN

2494 Ex Parte Proulx 12404023 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 Kramer & Amado, P.C. PARSONS, THEODORE C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Swenson et al 11033457 - (D) BUI 103 Clariphy Communications/Fenwick LEUNG, WAI LUN

2647 Ex Parte Rofougaran 12041723 - (D) DEJMEK 103 GARLICK & MARKISON YUN, EUGENE

2682 Ex Parte ALRABADY et al 12263029 - (D) BUI 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) OBINIYI, PAULSON IDOWU

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Ahearn 12346991 - (D) BROWN 103 BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD. HAWN, PATRICK D

3653 Ex Parte Zimmermann 12350356 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP MATTHEWS, TERRELL HOWARD

3696 Ex Parte Kochansky et al 10323133 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 Locke Lord LLP NORMAN, SAMICA L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Irving et al 11422754 - (D) STEPINA 103 BRIGGS AND MORGAN P.A. KLAYMAN, AMIR ARIE

Though the Examiner did not make a specific explicit finding regarding the level of skill in the art, Appellants do not make any specific proposal regarding what the level of ordinary skill in the art is, or that it is other than what the applied art connotes. We consider the applied prior art, i.e., Meltzer, Tsui, Vallance, and Jennings to be reflective of the level of skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to know the relevant prior art.”) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (emphasis added)). See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”’) (citation omitted).

GPAC, In re, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 716.03 , 2145

Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962, USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2141.03

Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 59 USPQ2d 1795 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 2141.03

3726 Ex Parte Frost et al 13018559 - (D) HOELTER 103 MILLER & MARTIN OMGBA, ESSAMA

litton

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Morris 11704703 - (D) ADAMS 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) LEGGETT, ANDREA C.

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Moore et al 10975214 - (D) ADAMS 103 VERIZON ZENATI, AMAL S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Harris et al 10892692 - (D) GREENHUT 112(1)/102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. PIERCE, DAMON JOSEPH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Hantler et al 11513782 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP FABER, DAVID

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Chen et al 11255197 - (D) PARVIS 103 Greg Goshorn, P.C. CHANG, JEFFREY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 Ex Parte Oehlerking et al 11062503 - (D) FETTING 101 103 DEERE & COMPANY DAGNEW, SABA

3689 Ex Parte Block 09875454 - (D) KIM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP FISHER, PAUL R

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Talanis et al 11194931 - (D) BRANCH 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION RAHIM, MONJUR

“A specific finding on the level of skill in the art is not, however, required where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level.” Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
HARMON 4: 115; 11: 224; 14: 151, 160, 164; 21: 110

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 ARIA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEQUENOM, INC., Defendant-Appellant. 2012-1531 6,258,540 09/380,696 RADER denial of preliminary injunction Irell & Manella LLP; Kaye Scholer, LLP GOLDBERG, JEANINE ANNE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2771 TAURUS IP, LLC (now known as Manufacturing System Technologies, LLC), Plaintiff/Third Party Defendant-Appellant, AND ORION IP, LLC (now known as Clear With Computers LLC) AND ERICH SPANGENBERG, Third Party Defendants-Appellants, v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, CHRYSLER FINANCIAL, LLC, AND DAIMLERCHRYSLER COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, AND CHRYSLER HOLDING, LLC, Defendant, AND MERCEDES-BENZ USA, INC. AND CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants. 2008-1462, -1463, -1464, -1465 6,141,658 08/926,870 SCHALL damages claim construction/102/non-infringement/exceptional under 285/personal jurisdiction/breach of warranty/damages/sanctions Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC; McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, LLP; Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP original Hershkovitz & Associates, PLLC MILLS, JOHN G