jella, dsl, newkirk

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte BENSON et al 11383002 - (D) BAHR 103 MATTHEW R. JENKINS, ESQ. RESTIFO, JEFFREY J

3655 Ex Parte Kimes et al 12575529 - (D) ASTORINO 103 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC HOLMES, JUSTIN

3665 Ex Parte Logan et al 11851219 - (D) BROWNE 103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION ALGAHAIM, HELAL A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Lloyd 11657344 - (D) PLENZLER 103 Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP HICKS, VICTORIA J

“Establishing long-felt need requires objective evidence that an art-recognized problem existed in the art for a long period of time without solution.” Ex Parte Jellá, 90 USPQ2d 1009, 1019 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). The Examiner does not indicate that Appellant has failed to present such evidence. Instead, the Examiner appears to require proof of failure of others to establish long-felt need. While long-felt need and failure of others are closely related, we are unaware of any authority for the Examiner’s proposition that failure of others is required to establish longfelt need. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has improperly required proof of failure of others to establish long-felt need.

3781 Ex Parte Bellerose et al 11103875 - (D) CALVE 103 TAYLOR IP, P.C. MCKINLEY, CHRISTOPHER BRIAN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Keller et al 11918600 - (D) BAHR 102/103 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ROHRHOFF, DANIEL J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2669 Ex Parte Ali 11211402 - (D) BENOIT 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK PLLC C/O CPA Global  PATEL, JAYESH A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Tadayon et al 11711735 - (D) FETTING 103 Reed Smith LLP SHERR, CRISTINA O

3685 Ex Parte Samayamantry et al 10951355 - (D) FETTING 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION AGWUMEZIE, CHARLES C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Kelley et al 11189883 - (D) BROWNE 103 Whirlpool Patens Company- MD 0750 PEREIRO, JORGE ANDRES

3744 Ex Parte Kang et al 11017431 - (D) HORNER 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. PETTITT, JOHN F

“[P]roof of actual reduction to practice requires a showing that ‘the embodiment relied upon as evidence of priority actually worked for its intended purpose.’” DSL Dynamic Sciences Ltd. v. Union Switch & Signal, Inc., 928 F.2d 1122, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1991), quoting Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “On the other hand, tests performed outside the intended environment can be sufficient to show reduction to practice if the testing conditions are sufficiently similar to those of the intended environment.” Id. at 1125.

DSL Dynamic Sciences, Ltd. v. Union Switch & Signal, Inc., 928 F.2d 1122, 18 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2138.05

Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 3 USPQ2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987) 715.07

REHEARING
 
DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Watkins et al 10601466 - (R) PETRAVICK 103 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. FISHER, PAUL R  

REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 UOP LLC Requester and Respondent v. EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL PATENTS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001387 6870072 FITZPATRICK 314(a)/112(2)/102/103 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY DIAMOND, ALAN D original  GRIFFIN,  WALTER  DEAN

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED
3101 POWERSCREEN INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION, LIMITED (now known as Terex GB Limited), POWERSCREEN NEW YORK, INC. AND EMERALD EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND TEREX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. 2011-1572, 2012-1168, -1169 5,577,618 08/301,578 DYK 103 Cozen O’Connor; Merchant & Gould, PC; Bryan Cave, LLP original JACOBSON, PRICE, HOLMAN & STERN KELLY, TAMARA

halliburton, general electric, holmwood, newkirk, coleman

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Kabra et al 10/610,090 PRATS 102(a)/103(a) Patrick M. Ryan(Q-148) Alcon Research, Ltd. EXAMINER HARTLEY, MICHAEL G

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Rosenflanz et al 10/211,684 KRATZ 112(1)/102(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Roehrle et al 11/193,815 MacDONALD 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Iritani et al 10/468,800 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(5) Cheng Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER RATCLIFFE, LUKE D

3694 Ex Parte Lozano 10/821,610 PETRAVICK 112(1)/101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER MERCHANT, SHAHID R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Boyle et al 10/662,697 SAINDON 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, KEVIN THAO

Thus, as suggested by Appellants, the claims’ point of novelty lies within functional language. See Halliburton Energy Serv., Inc., v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“a vice of functional claiming occurs … ‘when … conveniently functional language [is used] at the exact point of novelty.’”) (citing General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Torrey et al 10/982,279 MORGAN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Amarr Company Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Wayne-Dalton Corp. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,304 6,640,872 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: PHILLIP L. KENNER RENNER, KEENER, GREIVE, BOBAK, TAYLOR & WEBER THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFREY R. MCFADDEN WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER LEV, BRUCE ALLEN

To prove a reduction to practice, an applicant must show that “the embodiment relied upon as evidence of priority actually worked for its intended purpose.” Holmwood v. Sugavanam, 948 F.2d 1236, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (quoting Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1582, (Fed.Cir.1987)).

The Federal Circuit “applies a ‘rule of reason’ standard when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence about reduction to practice.” Id., at 1238 (citing Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The rule of reason “requires the Patent and Trademark Office to examine, analyze, and evaluate reasonably all pertinent evidence when weighing the credibility of an inventor's story.” Id., at 1239.

“Only an inventor's testimony needs corroboration . . . [T]he Board must view the evidence as a whole to determine if the inventor's story withstands careful examination.” Id.

Newkirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 3 USPQ2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . 715.07 Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 224 USPQ 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . 2138.04
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Ponder et al 11/762,313 MILLS 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

1628 Ex Parte Arduini 10/343,626 FREDMAN 102(b) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R

1629 Ex Parte Amalric et al 10/466,558 GRIMES 112(1)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER ROYDS, LESLIE A

1654 Ex Parte Li et al 10/664,697 PRATS 103(a) BELL & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER GUPTA, ANISH

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Erickson et al 11/096,577 ROBERTSON 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MENG, JAU SHYA

2424 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/078,877 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/102(b) JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC. EXAMINER SHELEHEDA, JAMES R

NEW

REVERSED

1741 Ex Parte Ackerman et al 09/844,947 OWENS 112(2)/112(1) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M

2437 Ex Parte Destidar et al 10/165,938 DIXON 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GERGISO, TECHANE

2448 Ex Parte Harvey et al 10/848,159 THOMAS 102(a)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) VERIZON EXAMINER LUU, LE HIEN

2492 Ex Parte Horn et al 10/433,856 THOMAS 112(1)/103(a) KF ROSS PC EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J

2871 Ex Parte Maruyama et al 11/065,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAUREN

3634 Ex Parte Obinata et al 11/321,913 ASTORINO 102(b) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER REDMAN, JERRY E

3634 Ex Parte Sullivan 11/004,230 ASTORINO 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

AFFIRMED

1618 Ex Parte Arduini 10/343,626 FREDMAN 102(b) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER Vu, Jake

2617 Ex Parte Borst et al 10/422,286 SAADAT 103(a) PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN PLLC EXAMINER LEE, JUSTIN YE

2853 Ex Parte Donovan 11/017,995 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER HUFFMAN, JULIAN D

2168 Ex Parte Erickson et al 11/096,577 ROBERTSON 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MENG, JAU SHYA

2166 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/944,623 BARRY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER YEN, SYLING

2478 Ex Parte Holder 10/138,453 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LIN, KENNY S

3738 Ex Parte Jang 10/419,280 STAICOVICI 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER MILLER, CHERYL L

2439 Ex Parte Kean 10/900,011 THOMAS 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER WANG, HARRIS C

3752 Ex Parte Petrovic et al 11/359,647 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation EXAMINER GORMAN, DARREN W

2451 Ex Parte Ramamoorthy et al 10/751,899 ZECHER 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ANWARI, MACEEH

2161 Ex Parte Yuan et al 10/930,486 POTHIER 103(a) RIM EXAMINER LU, CHARLES EDWARD