ormco

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Lambowitz et al 13254223 - (D) LaVIER 103 TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. HUTSON, RICHARD G

Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“However, a reference that ‘teaches away’ from a given combination may negate a motivation to modify the prior art to meet the claimed invention.")

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Xu 13446048 - (D) KRIVAK 103 TERADATA US, INC. LE, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Cui 13726595 - (D) KOHUT 103 41.50 103 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP LHYMN, SARAH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Berstis 12366951 - (D) COURTENAY 101 Walder Intellectual Property Law, P.C. HUANG, TSAN-YU J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Gerber 13852818 - (D) GRIMES 103 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP JAMIALAHMADI, MAJID

3731 Ex Parte Morsi 13154265 - (D) GRIMES 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP LYNCH, ROBERT A

3742 Ex Parte Temby et al 13339288 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 CORRIGAN LAW OFFICE LAFLAME JR, MICHAEL A

3761 Ex Parte Forden et al 12852042 - (D) MURPHY 103 MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP NEWARK JAMIALAHMADI, MAJID

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte UCHIYAMA et al 14034824 - (D) GRIMES 112(1)/101 101 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC MARX, IRENE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Goesmann et al 14052234 - (D) HEANEY 102 102 CROWELL & MORING LLP LYNCH, VICTORIA HOM

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Overbeck et al 13827964 - (D) BRANCH 103 103 41.50 103 Dority & Manning P.A. and Google LLC BUTTRAM, ALAN T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Elton et al 14123596 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 103 Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. MANNAN, MIKAIL A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Giori et al 13699406 - (D) FLAX 103 Silvia Salvadori, P.C. HOLLOMAN, NANNETTE

1617 Ex Parte Griffiths et al 11570820 - (D) COTTA 103 Syngenta Crop Protection LLC SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D

1627 Ex Parte PASETTI et al 13162355 - (D) COTTA 103/OTDP ARENT FOX LLP SOROUSH, LAYLA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Cantrell et al 12854342 - (D) TIMM 103 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP KRINKER, YANA B

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte ORTTUNG et al 11829823 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Greenberg Traurig LLP - Chicago Office WILSON, KIMBERLY LOVEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2412 Ex Parte Stupar et al 13734822 - (D) BAIN 112(1)/112(2) 103 Holland & Hart T T P/Onaloomm BUTT, WALLI Z

2424 Ex Parte Whitten et al 14012880 - (D) THOMAS 103 Next IP Law Group LLP Cox Communications, Inc. NEWLIN, TIMOTHY R

2431 Ex Parte Slutsker et al 14054611 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. AVERY, JEREMIAH L

2434 Ex Parte KIM 14640532 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. KAPLAN, BENJAMIN A

2456 Ex Parte Grube et al 13372628 - (D) KUMAR 103 Garlick & Markison (IBM) KEEHN, RICHARD G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Piccionelli et al 11368348 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 Gregory A. Piccionelli BODDIE, WILLIAM

2626 Ex Parte Pala et al 12751634 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (DENSO International America, Inc.) TAYLOR JR, DUANE N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Abbott et al 14418003 - (D) HOUSEL 102/103 HP Inc. MRUK, GEOFFREY S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Storey 13443595 - (D) PINKERTON 101/103 BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP MARCUS, LELAND R

3634 Ex Parte Anderson et al 15167271 - (D) STEPINA 103 AKERMAN LLP REDMAN, JERRY E

3646 Ex Parte Diggelen 13026050 - (D) SMEGAL 112(2) 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. ISSING, GREGORY C

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte MacNeille et al 13366426 - (R) MEDLOCK 101 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL REINHARDT, RICHARD G

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Zschau et al 12439271 - (R) GARRIS 103 Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP (Philadelphia) CHANG, AUDREY Y

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Rothman et al 12541842 - (R) LORIN 101 Docket Clerk-GOLD HAMILTON, SARA CHANDLER

SIBIA, ormco, kotzab, fritch

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Vial et al 12991506 - (D) FLAX 103 Winston & Strawn LLP HIRT, ERIN E

A claim can be obvious even where all of the claimed features are not found in specific prior art references, where “there is a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of [the prior art] to the claimed invention.” SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1349,1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (concluding that patent would have been obvious in light of teachings in prior art which provided motivation and suggestion to modify existing techniques to arrive at method in question).

Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

However, “[e]ven when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

“The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

1631 Ex Parte SHIOYAMA et al 13217338 - (D) MILLS 101 SUGHRUE-265550 LIN, JERRY

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Raffa et al 13834262 - (D) PINKERTON 103 International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C. CASAREZ, BENJAMIN X.

2627 Ex Parte Murarka et al 13705384 - (D) SILVERMAN 102 Baker Botts L.L.P./Facebook Inc. DAVIS, DAVID DONALD

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Greenspan et al 12657725 - (D) BROWNE 112(1)/102/103 HolzerlPLaw, PC O'CONNOR, MARSHALL P

3662 Ex Parte DUNKELBERGER et al 12852159 - (D) HOMERE 102 ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP ALSOMIRI, MAJDI A

3747 Ex Parte Pingen et al 13451401 - (D) SHAH 103 MCCOY RUSSELL LLP AMICK, JACOB M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2817 Ex Parte Cohen 12471557 - (D) KAISER 112(1)/103 103 URI COHEN SMITH, BRADLEY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Xu 13066827 - (D) O’HANLON 103 103 HONEYWELL/GRIECCI MCCAFFREY, KAYLA M

3745 Ex Parte Xu 13066838 - (D) O’HANLON 103 103 HONEYWELL/GRIECCI MCCAFFREY, KAYLA M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Iwamoto et al 14098037 - (D) RANGE 103 Cheng Law Group, PLLC ROBINSON, ELIZABETH A

1787 Ex Parte Voge et al 13576143 - (D) KRATZ 103/double patenting Cozen O'Connor SHAH, SAMIR

1788 Ex Parte Bartusiak et al 14234074 - (D) GARRIS 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY DESAI, ANISH P

1793 Ex Parte Palav et al 12590521 - (D) GUPTA 103 FAY SHARPE LLP MUKHOPADHYAY, BHASKAR

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2132 Ex Parte Sela et al 12775956 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 BGL/ MERCADO, RAMON A

2132 Ex Parte Wade et al 14286443 - (D) MacDONALD 112(4)/103 Setter Roche LLP AHMED, ZUBAIR

2164 Ex Parte Dietz et al 11255143 - (D) THOMAS 103 IBM CORPORATION OHBA, MELLISSA M

2182 Ex Parte Guillemin et al 13543673 - (D) HAGY 103 Seed IP Law Group LLP/ST (EP ORIGINATING) MEHTA, JYOTI

2185 Ex Parte BERENBAUM 13004890 - (D) DIXON 112(1) 103 Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC ZAMAN, FAISAL M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Chia-Chen 12262598 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP SHIBRU, HELEN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2865 Ex Parte Singh et al 13173139 - (D) INGLESE 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Lakshminarayanan et al 13623697 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 101 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY MILLER, ALAN S

3637 Ex Parte Watts 13827342 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 103 Pearne and Gordon, LLP AYRES, TIMOTHY MICHAEL

3641 Ex Parte Ehmig et al 13936911 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB ELDRED, JOHN W

3684 Ex Parte Sanguinetti 13966215 - (D) KIM 101 P&T LAW, APC STOPP, COURTNEY L

3686 Ex Parte Baronov et al 13826441 - (D) SCHOPFER 101 Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP GO, JOHN P

3696 Ex Parte Jayaram et al 13622967 - (D) SHAH 101 The Law Office of James Baudino, PLLC PATEL, JAGDISH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte PELISSIER et al 12188191 - (D) GRIMES 103 DRIGGS, HOGG, DAUGHERTY & DEL ZOPPO CO., L.P.A. COOK, CHRISTOPHER L

3778 Ex Parte Hwang et al 13435248 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. DITMER, KATHRYN ELIZABETH

3788 Ex Parte Benedetti et al 12095475 - (D) STEPINA 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC GRANO, ERNESTO ARTURIO

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex parte TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8793181 et al 13659050 90013558 - (D) SIU 103 Polsinelli PC Special Reexam Group Third Party Requester: SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL REICHLE, KARIN M original WONG, ERIC TAK WAI

ormco

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Phillips et al 14035665 - (D) PYONIN 102/103 ERICSSON INC. BAIG, SAHAR A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte VALENZUELA et al 12475836 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Rimon P. C. WINTER, JOHN M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Weiss 14125737 - (D) FREDMAN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS HINDENBURG, MAX F

3781 Ex Parte Denner et al 11476001 - (D) SMEGAL 102/103 Baker Botts LLP WEAVER, SUE A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex Parte Loera et al 11695261 - (D) HOELTER 112(1)/103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. KONG, SZE-HON

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Schartner et al 11769261 - (D) SILVERMAN  103 103 41.50 112(2) QUARLES & BRADY LLP SINGH, AMIT K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Hunt 14215482 - (D) SMITH 101/double patenting ALLERGAN, INC. MINNIFIELD, NITA M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2686 Ex Parte Houser et al 13635268 - (D) JEFFERY 112(2)/103 MOORE & VAN AT .TEN PLLC SHERWIN, RYAN W

Moreover, Simpson’s variable release position at least suggests a range of positions within the claimed range of open positions—an overlap triggering a presumption of obviousness. See Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.,463 F.3d 1299, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte HANF et al 12651105 - (D) BAIN 101 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (Cerner Corporation) HUNTER, SEAN KRISTOPHER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Rezai et al 13954181 - (D) CALVE 103/double patenting TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. WU, TONG E

soverain, ormco

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Goldsmith et al 11696554 - (D) GRIMES 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. WESTERBERG, NISSA M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2136 Ex Parte MANTOR et al 12553652 - (D) JEFFERY 112(1)/112(2) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P,C LI, SIDNEY

2194 Ex Parte Schöning 12926223 - (D) ENGELS 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC KRAFT, SHIH-WEI

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Pearce et al 12323002 - (D) CURCURI 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, PLLC DESROSIERS, EVANS

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Tsirline et al 11755600 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Zebra/Alston & Bird CULLER, JILL E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Maroney et al 13361114 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Fowler et al 12847543 - (D) TOWNSEND 102/103 102/103 41.50 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Rube 12736483 - (D) PESLAK 112(2)/102/103 102/103 41.50 103 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY

When a dependent claim is determined to be obvious, the broader claim from which it depends necessarily is also obvious. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria's Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., 778 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Hotter et al 12986203 - (D) STEPINA 103 103 Covidien LP LYNCH, ROBERT A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Saakian 13140259 - (D) ADAMS 103 ASE Pharmaceuticals, LLC RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESW ARI

1662 Ex Parte Sunkar et al 12309128 - (D) FLAX 103 QUINE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, P,C ZHOU, SHUBO

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Denesuk et al 13526424 - (D) HOWARD 102 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - IBM ARC DIVISION PHAM, KHANH B

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2411 Ex Parte Mark 13027158 - (D) NAPPI 112(1) 103 Perman & Green, LLP NGUYEN, CHUONG M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Antoun et al 12411781 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 IBM Corporation - Endicott Drafting Center OBEID, FAHD A


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Mallett 13533098 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 Miracle IP MENDIRATTA, VISHU K

janakiraman, ormco, muchmore, dann

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte King et al 11847612 - (D) REIMERS 103 Universal City Studios LLC c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC MUSTAFA, IMRAN K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Hendricks 12010045 - (D) CHUNG 103 103 ARENT FOX LLP CHAI, LONGBIT

2488 Ex Parte Kim 11607351 - (D) McCARTNEY 112(1)/112(2) 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. PONTIUS, JAMES M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Brunschwiler et al 11957576 - (D) TIMM 102/103 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP HAN, JONATHAN

The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 16 constitutes an implied rejection of the broader claims 1, 2, 13, and 15.Ex parte Janakiraman, 2009 WL 1270322 (BPAI 2009) (Informative); see alsoOrmco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (When the subject matter of dependent claims is determined to have been obvious, the broader subject matter of the claims from which they depend must also be determined to have been obvious.);In re Muchmore, 433 F.2d 824, 824–25 (CCPA 1970) (“Since we agree with the board's conclusion of obviousness as to these narrow claims, the broader claims must likewise be obvious.”). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5, 16, and 17

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Nyhan et al 09900674 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD BOYCE, ANDRE D

While de Mint is silent as to from where these instructions are executed (server side or user computer side), we find that the mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does not establish nonobviousness. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976). The issue is “whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in question ‘is a differen[ce] sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art.’” Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (citation omitted) (finding system for automatic record keeping of bank checks and deposits obvious in view of nature of extensive use of data processing systems in banking industry and “closely analogous” patent for an automatic data processing system used in a large business organization for keeping and updating system transaction files for each department of the organization).

Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) 716.01(a) , 2141 , 2141.03

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Beatty 11183405 - (D) HILL 102(e) 102(e)/103 NIXON PEABODY LLP LIDDLE, JAY TRENT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Heijkants et al 11584682 - (D) PER CURIAM 103/obviousness-type double patenting KENYON & KENYON LLP SERGENT, RABON A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2136 Ex Parte Hoover et al 12117906 - (D) HOMERE 102(e) IBM (ROC-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP TSAI, SHENG JEN

2163 Ex Parte Kang et al 12167324 - (D) TROCK 102 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC BROWN, SHEREE N

2198 Ex Parte De Sio 11230338 - (D) SHAW 103 IBM AUS IPLAW (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC KRETZMER, ERIKA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Dunning et al 10880199 - (D) DANG 103 Daniels IP Services LTD. CHEN, CAI Y

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Chen 11058294 - (D) DANG 103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General MITCHELL, NATHAN A

2642 Ex Parte Obermanns 10590138 - (D) COURTENAY 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte PIETERIS 12700252 - (D) DELMENDO 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC LIAN, MANG TIN BIK

2845 Ex Parte Derneryd et al 11721418 - (D) GARRIS 103/obviousness-type double patenting ERICSSON INC. SMITH, GRAHAM P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Obrea et al 11844020 - (D) CRAWFORD 101/102/103 PITNEY BOWES INC. GARTLAND, SCOTT D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Krumme 12310829 - (D) WOODS 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 D. PETER HOCHBERG CO. L.P.A. ORTIZ, RAFAEL ALFREDO

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Da Palma et al 11297079 - (D) HUME 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG REZA, MOHAMMAD W

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Requester and Cross Appellant v. VOLTSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8,242,359 B2 et al 13/053,007 95002374 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 103 Schneider Rothman IP Law Group Third Party Requester: Snell & Wilmer NGUYEN, LINH M original MAYO III, WILLIAM H

2835 SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Requester and Cross Appellant v. VOLTSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7910833 et al 12/127,592 95002365 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102/103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102/103 Schneider Rothman IP Law Group Third Party Requester: Snell & Wilmer MENEFEE, JAMES A original MAYO III, WILLIAM H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 LOGITECH, INC. Requester, Respondent v. IGO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 6527241 et al 09/988,694 95001357 - (D) SONG 102/103 102/314 DOCKET CLERK Third Party Requester: TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP CLARKE, SARA SACHIE original SCHULTERBRANDT, KOFI A

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex parte AVX CORPORATION Appellant Ex Parte 6477032 et al 09/775,050 90012091 - (D) CHEN 102 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. For Third Party Requester: KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP (GREATBATCH) GE, YUZHEN original DINKINS, ANTHONY

cortright intergraph, ormco, gould2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Futrell et al 12136202 - (D) HILL 101 Cooke Law Firm MENDIRATTA, VISHU K

3744 Ex Parte Swofford 12040154 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP COMINGS, DANIEL C

“Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be
consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.” In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Prior art references may be ‘indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means . . . [and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.’ Accordingly, the PTO's interpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from analogous art.” Id. (Citations omitted).

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111 , 2164.04

3748 Ex Parte Frazier et al 11655268 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 Foley & Lardner LLP BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Fukuda et al 11926504 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC HUANG, MIRANDA M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1671 Ex Parte Keggenhoff et al 12851604 - (D) FREDMAN 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC PUTTLITZ, KARL J

Under the “law of the case” doctrine, a court will generally adhere to a decision in a prior appeal in the same case unless one of three exceptions exist: (1) the evidence in a subsequent trial contains new and different
material evidence; (2) there has been an intervening change of controlling legal authority; or (3) the earlier ruling was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice. Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 253 F.3d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Gould, Inc. v. United States, 67 F.3d 925, 930 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

ormco, callaway, hewlett-packard

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kato et al 11/358,102 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ANTHONY, JULIAN
REEXAMINATION

REMANDED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2173 Ex Parte 7363592 et al MICROSOFT CORP. Requester and Respondent v. GARY ODOM, Patent Owner and Appellant Odom v. Microsoft 95/001,208 11/125,276 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner Third Party Requester ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, PC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAO H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2173 Ex Parte 7363592 et al Ex parte GARY ODOM, Appellant 90/009,703 11/125,276 SIU 102(b) 102(b)/102(a)/103(a) Patent Owner Gary Odom Third Party Requester McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAO H
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Hillis et al 11/651,447 WALSH 103(a) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER BRUSCA, JOHN S

See, e.g., Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1309-20 (Fed. Cir 2007). In Ormco Corp,
the Court held that when dependent claims “were found to have been obvious, the broader claims . . . must also have been obvious.” In Ormco, “[dependent] claims 10 and 17 . . . were invalid as obvious” but independent claims 1 and 11 from which claims 10 and 17 depended, had not been determined to be obvious. The Court reasoned that “[b]ecause claims 10 and 17 were found to have been obvious, the broader claims 1 and 11 must also have been obvious.” Ormco, 498 F.3d at 1319. See also, Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A broader independent claim cannot be nonobvious where a dependent claim stemming from that independent claim is invalid for obviousness”) citing Ormco, 498 F.3d at 1319.

1637 Ex Parte Hantash et al 11/588,184 FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HORLICK, KENNETH R

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1728 Ex Parte Bobee et al 11/558,711 GARRIS 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER BARCENA, CARLOS

1765 Ex Parte Slack 11/654,960 GARRIS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

1771 Ex Parte Wen et al 11/887,680 11/887,683 McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WEISS, PAMELA HL

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Elnozahy et al 11/551,168 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) Jack V. Musgrove EXAMINER SAVLA, ARPAN P

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Bouchard et al 10/029,679 WINSOR 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, LAN DAI T

“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir, 1990).

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).. . . . . . . . .2114
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Ming et al 11/133,007 PAK 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

tokai, ormco

REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/15/2011 2836 Ex Parte Henderson 10/925,759 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/15/2011 3628 Ex Parte Bowman et al 10/998,834 MOHANTY 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SALIARD, SHANNON S

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/15/2011 3992 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. 90/008,150 6,020,942 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner: MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP Third party Requester: Bruce K. Lagerman LAGERMAN AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H

Under these circumstances, any commercial success stems from what was known in the prior art so that there can be no nexus. Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If commercial
success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.”); Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[I]f the feature that creates the commercial success was known in the prior art, the success is not pertinent.”).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/15/2011 3991 Ex parte PFIZER, INC. Appellant 90/008,751 6,846,477 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: PFIZER, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MERIAL LIMITED EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/15/2011 1727 Ex Parte Sienkowski et al 11/764,074 TIMM 102(e)/103(a)/provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EXAMINER ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

2600 Communications
07/18/2011 2618 Ex Parte Kinoshita 10/225,289 SMITH 112(1)/103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
07/15/2011 2821 Ex Parte Gibboney 11/269,994 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) NEXSEN PRUET, LLC EXAMINER VU, JIMMY T

bose, energizer holdings, slimfold, ormco, riverwood

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte SHINOHARA 11/682,188 HANLON 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER CAMERON, ERMA C

1733 Ex Parte Asahi et al 10/410,014 HASTINGS 103(a)/112(2) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

Furthermore, a lack of antecedent basis is not per se a reason for finding a claim indefinite. “In Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) the court held that despite the absence of explicit antecedent basis, ‘[i]f the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.”’ Energizer Holdings Inc. v. International Trade Com’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Antecedent basis can be present by implication. See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 61 USPQ2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . 2173.05

Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . 2173.05(e)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Freund et al 11/220,015 SILVERBERG 102(b)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER PAYER, HWEI SIU CHOU

3737 Ex Parte Davis et al 10/942,115 O’NEILL 103(a) Bell & Manning, LLC EXAMINER LAURITZEN, AMANDA L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Buchalter 11/237,438 FREDMAN 103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER BECKHARDT, LYNDSEY MARIE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Viviano 11/453,657 SAINDON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) FLOYD B. CAROTHERS CAROTHERS AND CAROTHERS EXAMINER CAJILIG, CHRISTINE T

Because a dependent claim includes all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends, the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 9 is obvious is also a conclusion that claim 1 is obvious for the same reasons. See Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (when a dependent claim is “found to have been obvious, the broader claims . . . must also have been obvious”).

3637 Ex Parte Becke et al 10/816,371 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER WILKENS, JANET MARIE

3663 Ex Parte Blaudin De The 10/583,626 BROWN 112(2)/103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Srinivasan 10/997,338 O’NEILL 103(a) Mark D. Sarallno Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP EXAMINER LAURITZEN, AMANDA L
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2656; 3711 ACUSHNET COMPANY Requester and Respondent v. Patents of CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,122; 95/000,120; 95/000,121; & 95/000,123 6,506,130 B2; 6,210,293 B1; 6,503,156 B1; & 6,595,873 B2 DELMENDO 103(a) Patent Owner: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH & RICHARDSON PC Third-Party Requester: CLINTON H. BRANNON MAYER BROWN LLP EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER GORDEN, RAEANN EXAMINER GRAHAM, MARK S

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2301 Ex parte Clear With Computers, LLC Appellant and Patent Owner 90/010,185 5,367,627 TURNER 102(b) Hershkovitz & Associates, LLC EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER BAYERL, RAYMOND J
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Ikawa et al 10/377,799 WALSH 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER NAFF, DAVID M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Hargett 10/249,011 GARRIS 103(a) SUMMA, ADDITON & ASHE, P.A. EXAMINER HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA

1796 Ex Parte CREWS et al 12/039,205 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC EXAMINER FIGUEROA, JOHN J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Shear 10/042,260 DESHPANDE 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R

2185 Ex Parte Brown et al 11/002,560 DANG 103(a) DILLON & YUDELL LLP EXAMINER AYASH, MARWAN

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Hatin et al 11/225,558 SAADAT 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER LIANG, REGINA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Imundo et al 09/853,945 CHEN 103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER COZART, JERMIE E

[A]n admission of prior art can be relied upon for an obviousness determination, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 66 USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . .706.02, 2129, 2141.01
3769 Ex Parte Knopp et al 10/124,891 CHEN 103(a)/judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER SHAY, DAVID M
REHEARING

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte DelRegno et al 10/860,803 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER AHMED, SALMAN

NEW

REVERSED

3753 Ex Parte Lang et al 10/487,330 STAICOVICI 103(a) American Air Liquide, Inc. EXAMINER RIVELL, JOHN A

3744 Ex Parte Mayer et al 11/074,682 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 102(b) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3765 Ex Parte Franke et al 10/954,656 SILVERBERG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER TOMPKINS, ALISSA JILL

3735 Ex Parte Guenst et al 10/804,391 SILVERBERG 103(a) Medtronic CardioVascular EXAMINER LACYK, JOHN P

AFFIRMED

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

1628 Ex Parte Liversidge et al 11/376,553 GREEN 103(a) Fox Rothschild, LLP EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L

3652 Ex Parte Weiss 10/610,545 STAICOVICI 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER FOX, CHARLES A