schering, ochiai

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Megarity et al 13533376 - (D) HOELTER 102 Streets & Steele - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. MALIK, RAHEENA REHMAN

3782 Ex Parte Ponce et al 12453004 - (D) McCARTHY 103 Noberto Ponce BATTISTI, DEREK J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Sallaz et al 13992426 - (D) DERRICK 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1783 Ex Parte Abuto et al 14106101 - (D) BEST 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. and KIMBERLY-CLARK VAN SELL, NATHAN L

1784 Ex Parte PABLA et al 14193241 - (D) HEANEY 103 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC KATZ, VERA

1787 Ex Parte Kitano et al 13391732 - (D) McMANUS 103 Cheng Law Group, PLLC SHAH, SAMIR

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 Ex Parte Nayak et al 12824979 - (D) FISCHETTI 101/103 AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Glydon et al 11897117 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP PAGAN, JENINE MARIE

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Shur 12449838 - (D) McCARTHY 103 Joel D. Citron HOBAN, MELISSA A

 That which is inherent is not necessarily known, see Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmas., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2003); and, as a general rule, that which was unknown could not have been obvious, see In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1569–70 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 

Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2112 , 2152.02(b)

Ochiai, In re, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995)  706.02(n) ,  2116.01 ,  2158

ochiai, kunzmann

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Bruck 13005656 - (D) O'HANLON 102/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION CALVETTI, FREDERICK F

A proper obviousness analysis requires "a searching comparison of the claimed invention-including all its limitations-with the teaching of the prior art." In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 

Ochiai, In re, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995)  706.02(n) ,  2116.01 ,  2158

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Harris et al 13392969 - (D) ROSS 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP DEES, NIKKI H

Appellants do not dispute or identify any error in these findings by the Examiner. We therefore adopt these findings as fact. Cf In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964) (a finding not shown by the Appellant to be erroneous may be accepted as fact). 

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2137 Ex Parte Fiske et al 13455183 - (D) ENGLE 102/103 WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. IBM CORP. (WIP) THAMMAVONG, PRASITH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte NARDINI et al 13401520 - (D) O’HANLON 102 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP BLANCO, JAVIER G

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Bushman 13872001 - (R) ENGLE double patenting Maschoff Brennan HUANG, MIRANDA M

fallaux, ochiai, torpharm

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Yamka et al 13274597 - (D) POLLOCK 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY ZAREK, PAUL E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Hertel et al 11651327 - (D) WILSON 112(1)/103 DAVID M. QUINLAN, P.C. STULII, VERA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Duerdodt et al 12014641 - (D) DIXON 103 ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES LLC PATEL, JAY P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1643 Ex Parte Houghton et al 12622087 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 103/double patenting Larson & Anderson, LLC RAWLINGS, STEPHEN L

We find this argument unpersuasive because “harassment justification for obviousness-type double patenting is particularly pertinent here because the . . . application and the . . . patents are not commonly owned. If the . . . application and the . . . patents were commonly owned, the terminal disclaimer filed in this case would have been effective to overcome the double patenting rejection.” In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2009).  We note that this defect was of Appellants creation as through assignment it allowed ownership of the applications to be divided among different entities, because the original assignment received on May 7, 2003 was to the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and it was only in the later July 23, 2003 assignment that The Animal Medical Center was added to the assignment.

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Castellanos et al 12889805 - (D) JIVANI 103 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise MACKES, KRIS E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Lifson et al 12280840 - (D) COCKS 102/103 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. GONZALEZ, PAOLO

3788 Ex Parte Kindig 12111638 - (D) CALVE 103 103 HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN DESAI, KAUSHIKKUMAR A

The Examiner's reliance on a per se rule of obviousness does not provide the necessary analysis. see In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("section 103 requires a fact-intensive comparison of the claimed process with the prior art rather than the mechanical application of one or another  per se rule."), TorPharm, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharms., Inc., 336 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Ochiai)

Ochiai, In re, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 706.02(n) , 2116.01 , 2158

TorPharm., Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, 336 F.3d 1322, 67 USPQ2d 1511 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2116.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte SUCK et al 12167712 - (D) GRIMES double patenting MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. ROONEY, NORA MAUREEN

1674 Ex Parte Bennett et al 12064330 - (D) POLLOCK 103 BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP MCGARRY, SEAN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte MIZUSHIMA et al 13033338 - (D) BEST 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. RODEE, CHRISTOPHER D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Childress et al 13478951 - (D) STRAUSS 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. TRAN, JIMMY H

2484 Ex Parte JOHNSON et al 14155956 - (D) WINSOR 103/double patenting THOMSON Licensing LLC DANG, HUNG Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2621 Ex Parte KIMURA et al 13550855 - (D) DANG 103 Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C. SHERMAN, STEPHEN G

2683 Ex Parte Vader 11566468 - (D) MARGOLIES 103 CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP NGUYEN, AN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3696 Ex Parte Hofman et al 13454670 - (D) HILL 103/double patenting BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. BERONA, KIMBERLY SUE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte George et al 12272093 - (D) WIEDER 102/103 Brake Hughes Bellermann LLP LOPEZ, LESLIE ANN

japikse, ochiai, montgomery

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Mitchell 11373342 - (D) BEST 103 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION GONZALEZ, MADELINE

The Examiner argues that these missing elements would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 12-13. In support of this argument, the Examiner cites In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950).

The Examiner’s reliance on Japikse is misplaced. The Examiner cites that case as standing for the broad proposition that “shifting the position of a particular element is unpatentable as long as the operation of the device is not modified.” Ans. 12. This is too broad a reading of the case. Japikse involved an obviousness rejection where the only difference between the claimed invention and a single reference was the location of a starting switch. Japikse, 181 F.2d at 1023. This case involves multiple differences between the claimed invention and a combination of references.

In essence, the Examiner is attempting to create a per se rule of upatentability as a substitute for the detailed inquiry required by § 103. Reliance on such per se rules is legal error. In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

Japikse, In re, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04

Ochiai, In re, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . 706.02(n), 2116.01, 2144.08

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Prummel 10513282 - (D) DIXON 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS NORTON, JENNIFER L

2172 Ex Parte Foxenland 11463123 - (D) BENOIT 102/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP GREENE, SABRINA LETICIA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2486 Ex Parte Naidoo et al 09954976 - (D) HOFF 103 Comcast c/o Ballard Spahr LLP VO, TUNG T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Shearer et al 11470641 - (D) BAHR 103 Cindy Murphy LLC (Goodrich) BONZELL, PHILIP J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Turnpaugh et al 11619739 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P. A. BLAU, STEPHEN LUTHER

3736 Ex Parte Heruth et al 12351414 - (D) ADAMS 102 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

3743 Ex Parte Larsen et al 11485474 - (D) VANOPHEM 103 Whirlpool Patents Company - MD 0750 PEREIRO, JORGE ANDRES

3777 Ex Parte Brabrand 10725431 - (D) KERINS 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP RAMIREZ, JOHN FERNANDO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Chang et al 09858387 - (D) JEFFERY 103 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. TORRES, MARCOS L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Howard et al 10585386 - (D) JUNG 103 103 Carlson Gaskey & Olds HESS, DOUGLAS A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte Kmiec et al 11890595 - (D) FREDMAN 102 MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP WILMINGTON SCHNIZER, RICHARD A

It may be that the Federal Circuit would not interpret claim 9 to require an efficacy requirement in cancer treatment, but in Montgomery the Court found that “efficacy is inherent in carrying out the claim steps.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Montgomery also teaches that even if the prior art “merely proposed the administration of [an active agent] for treatment or prevention of [a disease] (without actually doing so), it would still anticipate.” Id. at 1382.

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Oravitz et al 11246466 - (D) HASTINGS 103 PPG Industries, Inc. RIPA, BRYAN D

1765 Ex Parte Thorman et al 11897361 - (D) BEST 112(1)/102/103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC LU, C CAIXIA

1767 Ex Parte De Munck et al 10568699 - (D) KIMLIN 103 EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY HEINCER, LIAM J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Allegrezza 09839581 - (D) ELLURU 103 PHILIP H. BURRUS, IV PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L

2448 Ex Parte Chandra et al 09872920 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN SHINGLES, KRISTIE D

2478 Ex Parte Stochosky 10781029 - (D) WINSOR 101/103 (Apple) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, LLP SMARTH, GERALD A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Sato et al 09771547 - (D) ELLURU 103 HAUPTMAN KANESAKA BERNER PATNET AGENTS, LLP AGGARWAL, YOGESH K

2625 Ex Parte Dauer et al 10000692 - (D) STEPHENS 102 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP LETT, THOMAS J

2626 Ex Parte Gardner et al 10669475 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED CHAWAN, VIJAY B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Chen 11512000 - (D) EASTHOM 103 FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP CHI, SUBERR L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Brooks 11187517 - (D) SPAHN 103 Brooks & Cameron, PLLC HAWK, NOAH CHANDLER

3641 Ex Parte Staley 11021822 - (D) SPAHN 102 LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP KLEIN, GABRIEL J

st. regis, harza, ochiai, dillon

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Ohki 10/897,016 GARRIS 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

1735 Ex Parte Wilks 11/357,458 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER EXAMINER PATEL, DEVANG R

1793 Ex Parte Hu et al 10/801,424 PAK 103(a) W.R. GRACE & CO.-CONN. EXAMINER BRUNSMAN, DAVID M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Soylemez et al 10/841,941 SIU 102(b)/103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Kleinsteiber et al 10/062,125 SIU 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Brocade-Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford EXAMINER HENNING, MATTHEW T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Mahy et al 11/065,369 O’NEILL 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KENNEDY, JOSHUA T

Appellants also contend that the Examiner’s reliance on the case law of St. Regis Paper Company v. Bemis Company, Inc., 549 F.2d 833 (7th Cir. 1977) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960), to duplicate parts so that the proposed modification includes a plurality of arms, does not consider the facts of either St. Regis or Harza and amounts to the use of an improper per se rule of obviousness. ... Nor does the case law of either St. Regis or Harza, relied upon by the Examiner, demonstrate per se obviousness for duplicating the single bendable member taught by Schwarzschild to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (no per se rule of obviousness exists).

Harza, In re, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04

Ochiai, In re, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . 706.02(n), 2116.01
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2871 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. 90/008,146 6,373,537 SIU 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Patent Owner: McKenna Long & Aldridge LLC Third Party Requesters: Bruce K. Lagerman, Lagerman and Associates, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER TON, MINH TOAN T

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2871 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. 90/008,150 6,020,942 SIU 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting PATENT OWNER MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER BRUCE K. LAGERMAN LAGERMAN AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER TON, MINH TOAN T

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Horpel et al 11/578,664 GARRIS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ARCIERO, ADAM A

1767 Ex Parte Neal et al 11/401,510 HASTINGS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER RIOJA, MELISSA A

While we agree that the problem faced by an applicant is a relevant factor, a teaching or suggestion of applicant's problem is not always required for a prima facie case of obviousness. An invention may be obvious for reasons the inventor did not contemplate. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(en banc).

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145
1787 Ex Parte Schaepkens et al 10/779,373 OWENS 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - DC EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Anspach et al 11/135,460 COURTENAY 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KUMAR, ANIL N

2174 Ex Parte Ferrarini et al 10/948,703 SIU 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER KUMAR, ANIL N