pharmastem

custom search

Reversed
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Douglas Robert. Hoffman et al. 12022328 COTTA 103 Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP GREENE, IVAN A

1628 Nolan Zebulon. Frantz 13642576 JENKS 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY RODRIGUEZ, RAYNA B

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Sun, Yabin et al. 14441018 FRANKLIN 103 The Dow Chemical Company MURATA, AUSTIN

1723 Ji Won Park et al. 14229327 HOUSEL 103 Mintz Levin/Special Group DIGNAN, MICHAEL L

1726 Umesh Kumar et al. 12097823 ROSS 103 BLANK ROME LLP TRINH, THANH TRUC

1788 Smith, David A. et al. 13876328 FRANKLIN 103 McNees Wallace & Nurick, LLC SILCOTEK CORP. VAZQUEZ, ELAINE M

An obviousness rejection predicated on selection of one or more components from numerous possible choices may be appropriate if the prior art provides direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful.  PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

1793 Mitsuru Tanaka et al. 13996156 McMANUS 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. TRAN, LIEN THUY

1798 John Eastman 13426831 SMITH 102/103 41.50 112(1) SHERRILL LAW OFFICES TURK, NEIL N

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2139 Dirk Wendel et al. 14445237 DEJMEK 102/103 NXP-LARSON NEWMAN, LLP SADLER, NATHAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Guido Van 'T Noordende 13962579 FRAHM 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. FAROOQUI, QUAZI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Naoki Ohashi et al. 14383212 DIXON 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC MULLINS, BURTON S

2838 Yuichi Katsuki et al. 14839261 SMITH 103 OLIFF PLC AHMAD, SHAHZEB K

2855 Carl Picciotto et al. 13769356 HUGHES 103 NovoTechIP International PLLC DUNLAP, JONATHAN M

2879 John F. Kelso et al. 14038709 DELMENDO 103 OSRAM SYLVANIA Inc. STERN, JACOB R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Thomas Bruce Watson. Adam et al. 14664150 HUTCHINGS 102/103 TOMTOM INTERNATIONAL B.V. IP Creation HOLWERDA, STEPHEN

3685 Yasutaka Nishimura et al. 13238404 LORIN 101/103 DUKE W. YEE YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. WINTER, JOHN M

3691 Patricia A. Frazier et al. 12859092 MacDONALD 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP SHRESTHA, BIJENDRA K

3691 Paul D. Adcock et al. 11416943 PINKERTON 101 IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US) VYAS, ABHISHEK

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Elisha George. Pierce et al. 13831347 ASTORINO 112(1)/112(2)/103 41.50 112(2) Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (SF) NGUYEN, BAO-THIEU L

3745 Siegfried Schmid et al. 14490931 GREENHUT 103 Abel Schillinger, LLP ADJAGBE, MAXIME M

3761 Ryan Bise et al. 13438473 KERINS 103 PENILLA IP, APC and Lam Research Corp. CHOU, JIMMY

3785 Brahm Goldstein et al. 13827240 GREENHUT 103 Servilla Whitney LLC/IKA LOUIS, LATOYA M

3792 Thomas Toellner 14985217 BAHR 103 White & Case, LLP PIATESKI, ERIN M

Affirmed-in-Part
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Heiko Mund et al. 13977793 BENNETT 103 103 TOMTOM INTERNATIONAL B.V. IP Creation TRAN, KIM THANH THI

2661 Mark Charles. Davis 14311802 LENTIVECH 103 102 LENOVO/PANGRLE Pangrle Patent, Brand & Design Law, P.C. SHEN, QUN

2899 Li-Wei Chen et al. 14722730 OGDEN 103 103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. KIM, SU C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3642 Steven Sullivan 11852753 BROWN 102/103 112(1) Symbus Law Group, LLC Cliff Hyra WOLDEMARYAM, ASSRES H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Kurt William Robert. Bessel et al. 14736976 MEYERS 103 112(2) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. FREAY, CHARLES GRANT

Affirmed
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 FARR, Stephen J. et al. 15667112 GRIMES 103 EPA - BOZICEVIC FIELD & FRANCIS LLP BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

1618 Catherine Llorens-Cortes et al. 14367408 TOWNSEND 103 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP CABRAL, ROBERT S

1637 Earl Hubbell et al. 13859360 JENKS OTDP 41.50 OTDP JONES ROBB, PLLC (w/ Life Technologies Corporation CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA

1651 Clara Garcia-Rodenas et al. 14352236 KATZ 103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago PAPCIAK, SHARON M

1662 Ekkehard Neuhaus et al. 13637908 NEW 112(1)/103 MCHALE & SLAVIN, P.A. LOGSDON, CHARLES

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Rajeev G. Kamat et al. 14470712 FRANKLIN 103 OTDP ARCONIC INC. C/O GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP ZHENG, LOIS L

1734 Daniel M. Hasenberg et al. 14221327 KENNEDY 103 MERCHANT & GOULD CHEVRON PHILLIPS NASSIRI MOTLAGH, ANITA

1783 Darius Maseiker et al. 13469114 HOUSEL 103 KF ROSS PC PLESZCZYNSKA, JOANNA

1791 Sharma, Shri K. et al. 13501013 FRANKLIN 112(2) 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke) BEKKER, KELLY JO

1791 Zicker, Steven et al. 15635386 ROBERTSON 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY SAYALA, CHHAYA D

1794 Shunpei Yamazaki 13954012 HOUSEL 102 OTDP Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C. LIN, JAMES

1799 Deutschle, Gregor et al. 14696078 ROBERTSON 103 OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP KIPOUROS, HOLLY MICHAELA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Erich Vlach et al. 14547895 POTHIER 103 BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC BORROMEO, JUANITO C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Suzanne M. Beaumont et al. 14673969 HOFF 103 LENOVO - JVL SAVENKOV, VADIM

2442 William K. Bittner et al. 13777218 CYGAN 103 TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP IBM Austin MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

2448 Ilya Firman et al. 13411048 BAIN 103 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. SOWA, TIMOTHY JOHN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2647 Joaquin Rodriguez 15256385 McNEILL 103 QuickChore Corp. NGUYEN, LEE

2685 Carsten Kohlmeier-Beckmann et al. 14570670 DIXON 103 Dickinson Wright PLLC TANG, SON M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Andrew E. Seman et al. 13716317 CUTITTA 103 Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. TORRES RUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA

2895 Phua, Yoke Hor et al. 13937952 FRANKLIN 112(1)/112(2) STATS ChipPAC/PATENT LAW GROUP: Atkins and Associates, P.C. CHANG, JAY C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Kourosh Modarresi 14097998 LENTIVECH 103 101 Adobe / Finch & Maloney PLLC ANDERSON, FOLASHADE

3624 Yuh-Shen Song et al. 11254077 FETTING 101 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP BEHNCKE, CHRISTINE M

3625 Sonstegard, Lois J. et al. 13112867 JEFFERY 101 Kunzler Bean & Adamson DURAISAMYGURUSAM, LALITH M

3626 Sumathi Paturu 10460788 PYONIN 112(2)/101 DR. SUMATHI PATURU, B.SC, MBBS, MD SOREY, ROBERT A

3629 David J. Schram et al. 14104896 DIXON 103 S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. WHITAKER, ANDREW B

3629 Zohar Beeri 12729434 CRAWFORD 101 M&B IP Analysts, LLC OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

3638 ENDRES et al. 13810921 WOODS 103 Workman Nydegger LEWIS, JUSTIN V

3672 William Fowler et al. 14643480 GREENHUT 102/103 EPA - BOZICEVIC FIELD & FRANCIS LLP BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS KRECK, JANINE MUIR

3672 William Fowler et al. 14827744 GREENHUT 102/103 EPA - BOZICEVIC FIELD & FRANCIS LLP BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS KRECK, JANINE MUIR

3681 Christopher J. Dawson et al. 12115706 HUTCHINGS 103 101 Keohane & D'Alessandro SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

3685 Brian P. Theado et al. 13332748 JURGOVAN 103 VERIZON PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP NEUBIG, MARGARET M

3686 Eui Chung et al. 14104070 KHAN 101 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD CHNG, JOY POH AI

3689 Michael D. Brookbanks et al. 12630079 BUSCH 101/103 Keohane & D'Alessandro FISHER, PAUL R

3693 Benjamin Scott. Boding et al. 13949137 COURTENAY 103 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP/VISA CHAKRAVARTI, ARUNAVA

3696 Andrew J. Kalotay 14317812 TOWNSEND 112(1)/101 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC TROTTER, SCOTT S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Jeremy M. Strange et al. 14337454 FITZPATRICK 103 Locke Lord LLP CLASS-QUINONES, JOSE O

3775 Kenny Koay et al. 14193317 FITZPATRICK 103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP WAGGLE, JR, LARRY E

Rehearing

Denied
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Haritha Samaranayake et al. 13877246 LEBOVITZ 112(2) Pharmaceutical Patent Attorneys, LLC SGAGIAS, MAGDALENE K

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2677 Lebrun, Alexandre 14686771 ARPIN 101 Facebook/Fenwick LELAND III, EDWIN S
Affirmed-in-Part 2423 James S. Manchester et al. 13678593 BRANCH 102/103 102/103 HUANG, JEN-SHI HUANG, JEN-SHI

pharmastem

custom search

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 PERFORMANCE POLYMER SOLUTIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent v. UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON RESEARCH INSTITUTE Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant Ex Parte 7338684 et al 11/057,462 95001935 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 102/103 41.77 102/103 Endurance Law Group, PLC TORRES VELAZQUEZ, NORCA LIZ original CHEN, BRET P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 ARTERIS, INC., Requester, v. SONICS, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 6961834 et al 95000669 - (D) SIU 112(1)/103 112(2)/112(4)/102/103 41.77 112(1)/103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original NGUYEN, THAN VINH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 JARROW FORMULAS, INC. Respondent and Requester v. SOFT GEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8124072 et al 10/674,268 95002396 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. Third Party Requester: McCARTER & ENGLISH LLP HUANG, EVELYN MEI original KOSSON, ROSANNE

1657 JARROW FORMULAS, INC. Respondent and Requester v. SOFT GEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8105583 et al 10/953,328 95002405 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. Third Party Requester: McCARTER & ENGLISH LLP HUANG, EVELYN MEI original KOSSON, ROSANNE

To decide whether a composition would have been obvious in light of the prior art, it must be determined whether, at the time of invention, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to attempt to make the . . . [composition], . . . and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
2007).

mayo, bilski, pitney bowes, boehringer, corkill, maziere, mentor, merck2, pharmastem, susi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Freer et al 11641362 - (D) METZ 112(1)/103 MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Kirschner et al 11162178 - (D) PLENZLER 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 112(2) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP NGO, LIEN M

3765 Ex Parte Davis et al 10839695 - (D) GRIMES 101/102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. HOEY, ALISSA L

“Phenomena of nature …, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). The machine-or-transformation test, while “a useful and important clue … is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible ‘process.”’ Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010).

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) 2106.01

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) , 2103, 2106
...

See Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]f the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.”). See also Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[P]reamble language will limit the claim if it recites not merely a context in which the invention may be used, but the essence of the invention without which performance of the recited steps is nothing but an academic exercise.”).

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111.02

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Alcorn et al 11737928 - (D) SIU 102 102/103 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. OBERLY, VAN HONG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Coalter et al 12032892 - (D) TORCZON 103 The Dow Chemical Company LU, C CAIXIA

1776 Ex Parte Kiener et al 12297666 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP JONES, CHRISTOPHER P

An obviousness rejection predicated on selection of one or more components from numerous possible choices may be appropriate if the prior art provides direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful. See PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1364 (Fed Cir. 2007). The fact that a reference “discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citing In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed.Cir.1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations, even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among ‘thousands' of compounds”)); see also, In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

Corkill, In re, 711 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.02(a) , 2107.02

Susi, In re, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) 2123, 2144.08

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte McDaniel 11603462 - (D) SIU 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION ROSWELL, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Hayhurst 10491511 - (D) SMITH 103 HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP HICKS, CHARLES N

2448 Ex Parte HILT 12965121 - (D) MacDONALD 251/102 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LUU, LE HIEN

The recapture rule prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue the subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims. See Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 27 USPQ2d 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 1412.02

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Lim et al 11240442 - (D) SIU 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY YANG, RYAN R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2876 Ex Parte Morris et al 10768711 - (D) KRIVAK 103 SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD HESS, DANIEL A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Scott 11238794 - (D) MILLS 102/103 INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS GOOD, SAMANTHA M

Appellant argues that

MPEP §608.01(p) I.B., specifically states that limitations on incorporation by reference do not apply to establishing an earlier effective filing date. MPEP §608.01(p) I.B states:

The limitations on the material which may be incorporated by reference in U.S. patent applications which are to issue as U.S. patents do not apply to applications relied on only to establish an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 120. Neither 35 U.S.C. 119(a) nor 35 U.S.C. 120 places any restrictions or limitations as to how the claimed invention must be disclosed in the earlier application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Accordingly, an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. See Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705, 1706-07 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
...

  Appellant argues that a Board Decision, Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (BPAI 1993) supports Appellant's priority position. (App. Br. 11.) We are not convinced by Appellant‟s citation to Maziere. We do not dispute that an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. That being said, the host document or parent application still must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. That has not been done in the present case.

Maziere, Ex parte, 27 USPQ2d 1705 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) 608.01(p)

3742 Ex Parte Magg et al 10587162 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION ALEXANDER, REGINALD

pharmastem

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Kitsunai et al 10/912,177 GAUDETTE 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

1783 Ex Parte Brennan 11/303,412 GARRIS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER GUGLIOTTA, NICOLE T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Blanchard et al 11/442,726 BAHR 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) Avery Dennison Corporation EXAMINER NICHOLSON III, LESLIE AUGUST

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Lehr et al 10/045,151 PETRAVICK 102(b) 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FISHER, MICHAEL J
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Stegink et al 10/961,263 PER CURIAM 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P

1775 Ex Parte Haq 11/688,491 PER CURIAM 102(b)/103(a) David W. Highet, VP & Chief IP Counsel Becton, Dickinson and Company EXAMINER BEISNER, WILLIAM H

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Faiman et al 11/035,559 COURTENAY 102(e) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M

2189 Ex Parte Dwyer et al 09/975,764 THOMAS 103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER LANE, JOHN A

“Admissions in the specification regarding the prior art are binding on the patentee for purposes of a later inquiry into obviousness.” PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
REHEARING

DENIED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Spanke 10/712,005 HORNER 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER SOTOMAYOR, JOHN B

saab, pfizer, pharmastem

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Guldberg 10/399,899 ADAMS 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 10/984,355 SMITH 103(a) BURR & BROWN EXAMINER CROUSE, BRETT ALAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte E et al 10/202,312 STEPHENS 102(e)/103(a) MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C

A prima facie case is established when the party with the burden of proof points to evidence that is sufficient, if uncontroverted, to entitle it to prevail as a matter of law. See Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. United States, 434 F.3rd 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir 2006)

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Hoffman et al 10/799,961 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/112(4) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KRAIG, WILLIAM F

A dependent claim in a patent that fails to “‘specify a further limitation of the subject matter’ of the [independent] claim to which [the dependent claim] refers” is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Casco-Arias et al 10/439,570 KIM 103(a) MARCIA L. DOUBET LAW FIRM EXAMINER KARDOS, NEIL R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Halliburton et al 10/777,770 STAICOVICI 103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER PANDYA, SUNIT

3751 Ex Parte Helmetsie et al 10/774,339 SONG 102(b)/103(a) Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Ahmed et al 11/862,475 TIMM 103(a) H.B. FULLER COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2771 Ex Parte 6076094 et al Ex parte IO RESEARCH PTY. LIMITED, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,058 TURNER 103(a) PATENT OWNER: GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Richard Kim MORRISON & FOESTER LLP EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER HO, RUAY L

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex Parte 7000325 et al Bunzl Processor Distribution LLC, Requester and Appellant, v. Patent of Bettcher Industries, Inc., Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,130 ROBERTSON 103(a) PATENT OWNER: TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: CLYDE L. SMITH THOMPSON COBURN LLP EXAMINER WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original EXAMINER CHOI, STEPHEN

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1651 Ex Parte 5741705 et al Ex parte KERRY GROUP, PLC Appellant 90/010,527 LEBOVITZ 103(a)/112(1)/305 FOR PATENT OWNER: IAN McLEOD FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WEINGARTEN, SCHURGIN, GAGNEBIN & LEBOVICI, LLP EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K

To decide whether a composition, device, or process would have been obvious in light of the prior art, it must be determined whether, at the time of invention, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to attempt to make the composition or device, or carry out the claimed process, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1723 Ex Parte 7281842 et al Vita-Mix Corporation Requester v. K-TEC, Inc. Patent Owner 95/000,339 ROBERTSON 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: HOLLAND & HART THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER COOLEY, CHARLES E
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kramer et al 10/981,663 MILLS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M

1644 Ex Parte Ringler et al 10/118,600 ADAMS 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery EXAMINER SCHWADRON, RONALD B

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Strebelle 10/567,263 WARREN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LORENGO, JERRY A

1762 Ex Parte Vandaele 11/498,336 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Ahmed 10/353,110 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER JARRETT, RYAN A

2161 Ex Parte Aman et al 10/428,893 DANG 103(a) Richard Lau INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

2169 Ex Parte Kwon 11/193,347 BLANKENSHIP 101/102(e) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER VO, CECILE H

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Murphy et al 10/408,365 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP EXAMINER AILES, BENJAMIN A

2445 Ex Parte Li et al 10/025,790 MORGAN 103(a) David T. Nikaido RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, PLLC EXAMINER JOO, JOSHUA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Forbes et al 10/225,605 ROBERTSON 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER NADAV, ORI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Eason et al 10/477,055 SCHAFER 103(a) Davidson Davidson & Kappel EXAMINER DEMILLE, DANTON D