gurley, ricoh, optivus, fulton

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Rose 12398748 - (D) BAHR 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. DANG, KET D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Koestner et al 13275795 - (D) WILSON 103 Brooks Kushman P.C. KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C

1791 Ex Parte Kiefer et al 11543473 - (D) DELMENDO 112(1)/103/double patenting CANTOR COLBURN LLP DEES, NIKKI H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Castellanos et al 13070056 - (D) MacDONALD 102 Hewlett Packard Enterprise FAN, SHIOW-JY

2185 Ex Parte Mei et al 13091511 - (D) FISHMAN 112(1)/112(2)/103/double patenting J.B. KRAFT ATTORNEY CLEARY, THOMAS J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Issa et al 12174935 - (D) HOWARD 103 Concert Technology Corporation GAO, JING

Appellants have not demonstrated that “a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed
Cir. 1994). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl'ns. S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). At best, the prior art here merely discloses an alternative, which is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate a teaching away. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2123 , 2145

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2123 , 2141.02 , 2143.01 , 2145

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Ghosh et al 12906739 - (D) HOELTER 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise FEENEY, BRETT A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Bangel et al 11427536 - (D) SHAH 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC JARRETT, SCOTT L

3686 Ex Parte Carter et al 12807743 - (D) KIM 103 Jeffrey D. Carter HOLCOMB, MARK

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of ZIMMER SPINE, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 6,936,050 B2 et al 10/409,805 95000451 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C. JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original REIP, DAVID OWEN

optivus

mobile search

REVERSED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Nicholls et al 10992959 - (D) LORIN 101/102/103 Jackson Walker LLP HOLLY, JOHN H

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Duong 12055621 - (D) MARTIN 103 ROHM AND HAAS ELECTRONIC MATERIALS c/o The Dow Chemical Company  SCRUGGS, ROBERT J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Bruce 11142109 - (D) MARTIN 112(1) 103 HONEYWELL/IFL RALIS, STEPHEN J

See e.g., Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989-90 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (affirming a finding of obviousness, in a situation where no missing elements were noted, over patent holder’s argument that the proposed combination “would result in a ‘death ray’ and thus teaches away” from the claimed invention; and finding that one of skill in the art would understand the combination to be an operable apparatus).

AFFIRMED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Christfort et al 09947910 - (D) DILLON 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE PATEL, CHIRAG R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Chueh et al 11126242 - (D) NEW 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC FITZGERALD, JOHN P

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Dewing et al 11206654 - (D) BROWNE 103 IPLM GROUP, P.A. PATEL, NATASHA

NTP, medichem, woodland trust, borden, optivus

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Hansen 11/595,141 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER LUK, VANESSA TIBAY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/737,124 MACDONALD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER DANG, KHANH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Roginsky et al 09/999,643 POTHIER 103(a) Robert V. Wilder EXAMINER TRUONG, LAN DAI T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Thiers et al 10/216,821 BAHR 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Goicoechea et al 09/977,826 COCKS 112(1) BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/172,021 GAUDETTE 112(1) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

1736 Ex Parte KURATA et al 12/130,179 GARRIS 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER WALCK, BRIAN D

1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,659 GAUDETTE 103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

A party seeking to antedate a reference based on reduction to practice must present evidence of the actual reduction to practice of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference. 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b). An inventor cannot rely on uncorroborated testimony to establish a prior invention date. Id. It has long been the case that an inventor’s allegations of earlier invention alone are insufficient—an alleged date of invention must be corroborated. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc., 148 F.3d 1368, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[E]vidence is assigned probative value and collectively weighed to determine whether reduction to practice has been achieved.” Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1170. “Sufficiency of corroboration is determined by using a ‘rule of reason’ analysis, under which all pertinent evidence is examined when determining the credibility of an inventor’s testimony.” Id.

In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,853 GAUDETTE 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU) EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Raley et al 10/425,647 HOMERE concurring BLANKENSHIP obviousness-type double patenting/102(e) Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER NOBAHAR, ABDULHAKIM
REHEARING

GRANTED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Giordano et al 12/038,177 KIM 102(b) MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC FOR BOFA EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[a]ny bases for asserting error, whether factual or legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived”); see also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“an issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

kamal, sneed, moore, sarett, optivus, scholl

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Ellington et al 10/431,634 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Yagi et al 10/942,107 KIMLIN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE – 265550 

It is by now axiomatic that claim language is not to be read in a vacuum but in light of the supporting specification as it would reasonably be read by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971). Also, claims are not to be read in manner that renders them inoperative. In re Kamal, 398 F.2d 867, 872 (CCPA 1968); In re Sarett, 327 F.2d 1005, 1019 (CCPA 1964). 

Sneed, In re, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1445, 2145 

Moore, In re, 439 F.2d 1232, 169 USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . .1504.04, 2164.08, 2172 

Sarett, In re, 327 F.2d 1005, 140 USPQ 474 (CCPA 1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Ginggen et al 11/098,071 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) CHERYL F. COHEN, LLC 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Moriyama et al 10/263,642 ADAMS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Kuwahara et al 10/702,661 RUGGIERO 102(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC 

See Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A. , 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived.”) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ex parte Scholl, No. 2007-3653, slip op. at 18 n.13 (BPAI Mar. 13, 2008) (informative), available at  http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd073653.pdf.