para-ordnance

REVERSED
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Petersen 10/987,602 GRIMES 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

3733 Ex Parte Guzman et al 10/480,053 McCOLLUM 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Barnes & Thornburg EXAMINER HOFFMAN, MARY C

3736 Ex Parte Larkin 11/789,182 McCOLLUM 103(a) DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA EXAMINER NGUYEN, HUONG Q

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Grossman 11/636,778 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) MCAFEE & TAFT EXAMINER GILBERT, WILLIAM V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Schmidt 10/389,761 BAHR 103(a) 103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER KOEHLER, CHRISTOPHER M

AFFIRMED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Salo et al 09/893,421 BARRY 101/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD EXAMINER SALTARELLI, DOMINIC D

2474 Ex Parte Tischer 10/735,931 ZECHER 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER HAILE, AWET A

"What the prior art teaches and whether it teaches toward or away from the claimed invention … is a determination of fact.” Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Zhou et al 10/542,910 STRAUSS 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MANDEVILLE, JASON M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Beaulieu et al 11/115,936 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER ARORA, AJAY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Torgerson et al 11/184,717 FREDMAN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER DIETRICH, JOSEPH M
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Basilier et al 10/171,525 DANG 101/103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER LIN, KENNY S

gurley, para-ordnance, harza, freeman,

REVERSED 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Koh et al 09/802,857 THOMAS 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER YIGDALL, MICHAEL J 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Guglielmotti et al 10/560,836 WALSH 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI Ex Parte Shy 11/123,360 WALSH 103(a) STINSON MORRISON HECKER LLP 

See Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553; see also, Para-Ordnance Manufacturing v. SGS Importers International Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed Cir. 1995) (a warning against use of an element, rather than omission of mention of the element, is required to find teaching away). 

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

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Forman et al 10/835,684 HOMERE 101/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D 

Ex Parte Nutter et al 10/145,374 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DALE B. HALLING EXAMINER LE, MIRANDA 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Sharp 09/765,985 LORIN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP EXAMINER MITTAL, KRISHAN K 

Cf. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 774 (CCPA 1960) ("It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced".) 

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

REEXAMINATION 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC. 90/008,132 6,624,096 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: HAMMER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MICHAEL F. SNYDER VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L 

Collateral estoppel (also called issue preclusion) “precludes relitigation in a second suit of issues actually litigated and determined in the first suit.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994). This doctrine applies only if: “(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” Id. 

Freeman, In re, 30 F.3d 1459, 31 USPQ2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . 706.03(w), 2250, 2666.01