custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Mays 13733941 - (D) OWENS 103 PAULEY ERICKSON & KOTTIS DOYLE, BRANDI M
1797 Ex Parte Mayne-L et al 13121377 - (D) GUPTA 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP MUI, CHRISTINE T
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Mawby et al 13564000 - (D) MORGAN 101/103 Siemens Corporation OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS
2164 Ex Parte Kirkby et al 12296208 - (D) PINKERTON 103 MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. OHBA, MELLISSA M
2174 Ex Parte Kim et al 13835881 - (D) KRIVAK 103 Austin Rapp CHOI, DAVIDE
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Hullfish et al 13620851 - (D) PETTIGREW 112(1) Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D
2484 Ex Parte Hugosson et al 12929639 - (D) JURGOVAN 112(1)/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. BRANIFF, CHRISTOPHER
2486 Ex Parte Zheng et al 13402719 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 102 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. MUNG, ON S
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte Martin 13325358 - (D) BUSCH 103 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP HOANG, PETER
2644 Ex Parte Sanneck et al 14387920 - (D) HUGHES 103 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Nokia Technologies Oy PHUONG, DAI
2647 Ex Parte Palin et al 13452254 - (D) MORGAN 103 41.50 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. SOLTANZADEH, MARYAM
2657 Ex Parte Dusan et al 14274544 - (D) ENGLE 103 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/ APPLE INC. PATEL, SHREYANS A
2845 Ex Parte Ionita et al 14503547 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED NGUYEN, LINH V
2856 Ex Parte Ferraro et al 14364105 - (D) SQUIRE 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC SINHA, TARUN
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Fisher 12553529 - (D) OSINSKI 103 RayL. Weber BELLINGER, JASON R
3638 Ex Parte Shimizu et al 13380156 - (D) REIMERS 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. LEWIS, JUSTIN V
3646 Ex Parte ECKARDT et al 13217323 - (D) CAPP 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP BURKE, SEAN P
Furthermore, the Examiner fails to provide a reason as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reversed the order of the throttle and filter.
A claimed invention may be obvious even when the prior art does not teach each claim limitation, so long as the record contains some reason why one of skill in the art would modify the prior art to obtain the claimed invention.
Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added).
3655 Ex Parte Kirchhoffer 13687012 - (D) KERINS 103 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD FLUHART, STACEY A
3657 Ex Parte Robert et al 14602393 - (D) MURPHY 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford BURCH, MELODY M
3669 Ex Parte Johansson et al 14116435 - (D) JESCHKE 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP MCPHERSON, JAMES M
3671 Ex Parte Blunier et al 13605209 - (D) SCHOPPER 103 CNH Industrial America LLC TORRES, ALICIA M
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte LAVALLEY et al 14555945 - (D) KERINS 103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. MULLER, BRYAN R
3737 Ex Parte Leussler 14112580 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS WEATHERBY, ELLSWORTH
3742 Ex Parte Peters et al 13534119 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 The Lincoln Electric Company (Pearne Cases) WARD, THOMAS JOHN
3742 Ex Parte Vogel et al 11350638 - (D) ASTORINO 103 CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE MAYE,AYUBA
3745 Ex Parte Virkler 13713257 - (D) MARTIN 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY DAVIS, JASON GREGORY
3765 Ex Parte Czajka et al 14086798 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC BRAVO, JOCELYN MARY
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Maturana et al 13834850 - (D) BEAMER 102 102 ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC/ SR GEBRESILASSIE, KIBROM K
2153 Ex Parte Doroshenko 13777997 - (D) SAADAT 103 102/103 Baker Botts L.L.P./Facebook Inc. NGUYEN, KIM T
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte OSTROVER et al 14060983 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 103 GOTTLIEB RACKMAN & REISMAN PC MESA, JOSE M
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Koreis 14494131 - (D) BROWN 103 103 Evans & Dixon, LLC HIJAZ, OMAR F
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Hoey et al 12843581 - (D) KERINS 103/OTDP 103 SHAY GLENN LLP DELLA, JAYMI E
3742 Ex Parte Weber 14538415 - (D) KERINS 103 103 EGL/Research Triangle Park FUQUA, SHAWNTINA T
3781 Ex Parte Paredes 13606996 - (D) LANEY 103 103 OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC. ANDERSON, DON M
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1673 Ex Parte Jenkins et al 13969736 - (D) WORTH 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP MILLER, DALE R
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Callsen et al 14162786 - (D) PRAISS 103 PEARNE & GORDON LLP ROLLAND, ALEX A
1722 Ex Parte Wu et al 14825175 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 JCIPRNET LEE, SIN J
1727 Ex Parte TSURUTA et al 14137667 - (D) SNAY 102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC HARRIS, GARY D
1734 Ex Parte Shindo et al 11916906 - (D) RANGE 112(2)/103 HOWSON & HOWSON LLP KESSLER, CHRISTOPHER S
1758 Ex Parte WOO et al 12950912 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 MH2 Technology Law Group (w/Boeing) DANICIC, CHRISTOPHER 05/24/2012
1768 Ex Parte Creamer et al 14353902 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY c/o The Dow Chemical Company NERANGIS, VICKEY M
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2126 Ex Parte Pope et al 13240378 - (D) KOHUT 103 Greenberg Traurig, LLP NORTON, JENNIFER L
2145 Ex Parte Cutler et al 13570809 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102/103 RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP ORR, HENRY W
2156 Ex Parte Bell et al 13724356 - (D) KIM 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - IBM Endicott OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE
2159 Ex Parte CHENG et al 12272225 - (D) KRIVAK 101/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC BURKE, JEFF A
2166 Ex Parte Strauss et al 13287118 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Wilson Legal Group P.C. FEATHERSTONE, MARK D
2182 Ex Parte Rosman et al 14093671 - (D) JEFFERY 101 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. NGO, CHUONG D
2191 Ex Parte Katariya et al 14266141 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 Keller Jolley Preece / Adobe LYONS, ANDREW M
2193 Ex Parte Ranjan et al 14675164 - (D) KOHUT 101 Hickman Palermo Becker Bingham /Linkedln/Microsoft WOOD, WILLIAM C
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2411 Ex Parte Oyman 13553880 - (D) KRIVAK 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC ANDREWS, HOYET H
2454 Ex Parte Maruyama 14240882 - (D) McNEILL 103 AEON Law PATEL, CHIRAG R
2454 Ex Parte Stickle 13792399 - (D) HUGHES 103 101 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP HACKENBERG, RACHEL J
2489 Ex Parte Srinivasan et al 13864131 - (D) REPKO 112(2)/103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED KWON, YONG JOON
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Leonard 13733172 - (D) BUI 103 Stephen W. Leonard BALAOING, ARIEL A
2644 Ex Parte Jung 13933020 - (D) KOHUT 102 DOCKET CLERK HUYNH, CHUCK
2666 Ex Parte Moshfeghi 13473144 - (D) BARRY 103 Makoui Law, PC CHAKRABORTY, RAJARSHI
2857 Ex Parte Kar 13166524 - (D) HASTINGS 101/103 HONEYWELL/MUN CK KUAN, JOHN CHUNY ANG
2862 Ex Parte CHEN et al 14555844 - (D) PRAISS 101 DLA PIPER LLP (US ) PETERS, LISA E
2862 Ex Parte Poole 14050064 - (D) PRAISS 101 Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC LE, JOHN H
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte HOWE 13938703 - (D) HUME 101/103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC DIVELBISS, MATTHEW H
3624 Ex Parte Moerdler et al 12337894 - (D) POTHIER 101/112(1)/112(2)/103 Baker Botts LLP/CA Technologies GOLDBERG, IVAN R
3626 Ex Parte Ahn et al 13103129 - (D) SILVERMAN 101/103 SNYDER, CLARK, LESCH & CHUNG, LLP HOLCOMB, MARK
3626 Ex Parte Ennett et al 12808371 - (D) REPKO 101 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS PAULS, JOHN A
3636 Ex Parte Ratzmann 14681407 - (D) BROWN 102/103 FISHMAN STEW ART PLLC KIM, SHIN H
3659 Ex Parte Choi et al 13822759 - (D) SONG 112(1)/112(2)/102 NOVICK, KIM & LEE, PLLC KNIGHT, DEREK DOUGLAS
3665 Ex Parte Wang 14711366 - (D) MURPHY 101/103 Perspectives Law Group, Corp. MALHOTRA, SANJEE V
3671 Ex Parte Swearingen et al 14591640 - (D) BROWN 103 CHAMBLISS, BAHNER & STOPHEL, P.C. RISIC, ABIGAIL ANNE
3679 Ex Parte ONEIL et al 14230856 - (D) ASTORINO 102 MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC BINDA, GREGORY JOHN
3683 Ex Parte Park et al 13488950 - (D) SHIANG 101/103 NSIP LAW PADOT, TIMOTHY
3686 Ex Parte Shah 14058788 - (D) MEYERS 112(1) 101 Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. NGUYEN, TRAN N
3691 Ex Parte Frankel 13965068 - (D) WIEDER 101 Docket Clerk-GOLD KAZIMI, HAN! M
3691 Ex Parte McKay et al 11968923 - (D) CRAWFORD 101 LEYDIG VOIT & MEYER, LTD AKINTOLA, OLABODE
3694 Ex Parte Ballout 14691499 - (D) REPKO 101 SAMUEL A. KASSATLY NGUYEN, TIEN C
3694 Ex Parte BLYTHE 13962289 - (D) LORIN 101 Budzyn IP Law, LLC ZIEGLE, STEPHANIE M
3694 Ex Parte CURTIS et al 13777261 - (D) KIM 101 COOPER LEGAL GROUP/ ORACLE RANKINS, WILLIAM E
3695 Ex Parte Leibon et al 12908677 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103/OTDP 101 FIS/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY
3696 Ex Parte Lee et al 11201554 - (D) FENICK 101/103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP/VISA DEGA, MURALI K
3697 Ex Parte Dinella 11385276 - (D) SHAH 101/103 LEYDIG VOIT & MA YER, LTD GREGG, MARY M
3697 Ex Parte Wilce et al 12748534 - (D) CRAWFORD 101 Docket Clerk-GOLD OYEBISI, OJO 0
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Thomas 13659260 - (D) MARTIN 101 MORSE, BARNES-BROWN & PENDLETON, P.C. ZAMAN, SADARU
3716 Ex Parte GREGORY-BROWN et al 14033082 - (D) WOOD 101/OTDP Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP CUFF, MICHAEL A
3723 Ex Parte Meza et al 12755766 - (D) PESLAK 103 WARE, FRESSOLA, MAGUIRE & BARBER LLP HORTON, ANDREW ALAN
3735 Ex Parte Bhavaraju et al 13836260 - (D) FLAX 112(4)/102/103 KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP DEXCOM, INC. MESSERSMITH, ERIC J
3747 Ex Parte Wu et al 14132913 - (D) WARNER 103 FCA US LLC SCHARPF, SUSAN E
3771 Ex Parte Krepel et al 13396839 - (D) KERINS 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY SUL, DOUGLAS YOUNG
SEARCH
PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Li & Cai
Showing posts with label nike. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nike. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
leo, wright, iron grip, nike
custom search
REEXAMINATION
REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex parte Dane Technologies, Inc. Ex Parte 7493979 et al 12/125,138 90013576 - (D) MARTIN 112(1)/112(2) Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. ENGLISH, PETER C original SWENSON, BRIAN L
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH OF THE COMMOMWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION (Patent Owner and Appellant) v. CELLERIX (Requester and Cross-Appellant) Ex Parte 6,777,231 et al 09/936,665 95001592 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(2)/102 112(1)/101/103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original KETTER, JAMES S
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex parte Dane Technologies, Inc. Ex Parte 7389836 et al 10/947,831 90013575 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. ENGLISH, PETER C original SWENSON, BRIAN L
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION Requester, Respondent v. FELLOWES, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7631822 et al 11/444,491 95001736 - (D) SONG 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP SPAHN, GAY original MILLER, BENA B
Moreover, while noting that “Leo Pharmaceutical discusses the number of years that passed from the time the prior art was invented until the filing of the patent at issue,” the Federal Circuit recently explained in Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG:
our reversal of the Patent Board’s obviousness determination [in Leo Pharmaceutical] hinged on the fact that nothing in the cited prior art appreciated the problem the invention recognized and then solved. Id. at 1353 . . . . Because there was no prior recognition of the problem solved by the subject invention, there was no reason in the record why one of skill in the art would attempt to combine the cited prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. at 1354 . . . ; see also id. at 1356–57 . . . .
In this way, our decision in Leo Pharmaceutical is entirely consistent with established precedent that “[t]he mere age of the references is not persuasive of the unobviousness of the combination of their teachings, absent evidence that, notwithstanding knowledge of the references, the art tried and failed to solve the problem.” In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977); see also Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2004) . . . . Leo Pharmaceutical recognizes the natural consequence of this idea: Persons of skill in the art cannot have tried and failed to solve the problem if they were never aware of that problem to begin with. Thus, the number of years that passed between the prior art and the claimed invention may be a relevant factor to underscore that skilled artisans had long failed to appreciate the problem solved by that invention. Here, there is no question that skilled artisans knew of the desire to reduce waste when producing wearable, knitted shoe uppers because that problem is expressly recognized in Nishida. Thus, Leo Pharmaceutical does not control the present case.
Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
3766 Ex parte KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 5,607,454 et al 08/227,553 90013483 - (D) SONG 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: COOLEY LLP ATTN: PATENT GROUP DAWSON, GLENN K original SCHAETZLE, KENNEDY
3788 Ex parte John T. Ziemba Ex Parte 8418852 et al 12/798,764 90013486 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 ERNEST D. BUFF AND ASSOCIATES, LLC. FETSUGA, ROBERT M original CHU, KING M
REEXAMINATION
REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex parte Dane Technologies, Inc. Ex Parte 7493979 et al 12/125,138 90013576 - (D) MARTIN 112(1)/112(2) Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. ENGLISH, PETER C original SWENSON, BRIAN L
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH OF THE COMMOMWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION (Patent Owner and Appellant) v. CELLERIX (Requester and Cross-Appellant) Ex Parte 6,777,231 et al 09/936,665 95001592 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(2)/102 112(1)/101/103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original KETTER, JAMES S
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex parte Dane Technologies, Inc. Ex Parte 7389836 et al 10/947,831 90013575 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. ENGLISH, PETER C original SWENSON, BRIAN L
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION Requester, Respondent v. FELLOWES, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7631822 et al 11/444,491 95001736 - (D) SONG 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP SPAHN, GAY original MILLER, BENA B
Moreover, while noting that “Leo Pharmaceutical discusses the number of years that passed from the time the prior art was invented until the filing of the patent at issue,” the Federal Circuit recently explained in Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG:
our reversal of the Patent Board’s obviousness determination [in Leo Pharmaceutical] hinged on the fact that nothing in the cited prior art appreciated the problem the invention recognized and then solved. Id. at 1353 . . . . Because there was no prior recognition of the problem solved by the subject invention, there was no reason in the record why one of skill in the art would attempt to combine the cited prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. at 1354 . . . ; see also id. at 1356–57 . . . .
In this way, our decision in Leo Pharmaceutical is entirely consistent with established precedent that “[t]he mere age of the references is not persuasive of the unobviousness of the combination of their teachings, absent evidence that, notwithstanding knowledge of the references, the art tried and failed to solve the problem.” In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977); see also Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2004) . . . . Leo Pharmaceutical recognizes the natural consequence of this idea: Persons of skill in the art cannot have tried and failed to solve the problem if they were never aware of that problem to begin with. Thus, the number of years that passed between the prior art and the claimed invention may be a relevant factor to underscore that skilled artisans had long failed to appreciate the problem solved by that invention. Here, there is no question that skilled artisans knew of the desire to reduce waste when producing wearable, knitted shoe uppers because that problem is expressly recognized in Nishida. Thus, Leo Pharmaceutical does not control the present case.
Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
3766 Ex parte KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 5,607,454 et al 08/227,553 90013483 - (D) SONG 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: COOLEY LLP ATTN: PATENT GROUP DAWSON, GLENN K original SCHAETZLE, KENNEDY
3788 Ex parte John T. Ziemba Ex Parte 8418852 et al 12/798,764 90013486 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 ERNEST D. BUFF AND ASSOCIATES, LLC. FETSUGA, ROBERT M original CHU, KING M
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)