remark, demaco, pentec, McLaughlin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Warrier et al 10577754 - (D) SMITH 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC MARKS, JACOB B

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Sperle et al 11284263 - (D) SHIANG 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP RICHARDSON, JAMES E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Cooper et al 11252320 - (D) HUGHES 102 THOMSON Licensing LLC VANCHY JR, MICHAEL J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Peltier et al 12331621 - (D) HOELTER 103 American Air Liquide, Inc. ADAMOS, THEODORE V

3663 Ex Parte Katsumata et al 11476143 - (D) BROWNE 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP TISSOT, ADAM D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Lloyd 12011415 - (D) SMEGAL 103 102/103 Jerrod R. Lloyd AVILA, STEPHEN P

In ex parte proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, an applicant must show that the claimed features were responsible for the commercial success of an article if the evidence of nonobviousness is to be accorded substantial weight. Merely asserting commercial success of an article-alleged to embody an invention that is being offered for sale by another-is not sufficient. See Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1502-03 (BPAI 1990). Compare Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1394 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988). See also Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (commercial success may have been attributable to extensive advertising and position as a market leader before the introduction of the patented product).

Remark, Ex parte, 15 USPQ2d 1498 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) 716.03 , 716.03(b) , 2144.08

Demaco Corp. v. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   716.01(b) ,   716.01(d) ,   716.03 ,  716.03(a) ,  716.03(b)

Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 716.03(b) , 716.06 , 2141.01(a)


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Ott 11625357 - (D) GOODSON 103 obviousness-type double patenting FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) MAYE, AYUB A

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Fukushima et al 11812272 - (D) HASTINGS 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO BOYLE, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Buller et al 12244764 - (D) STEPHENS 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG SINGH, AMRESH

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Swager et al 12268291 - (D) WINSOR 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Lu et al 12502211 - (D) KATZ 103 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. ALROBAIE, KHAMDAN N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Buhamad 12706858 - (D) SMEGAL 103 LOWE HAUPTMAN & HAM, LLP RISIC, ABIGAIL ANNE

See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971(“[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning”).

McLaughlin, In re, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) 707.07(f) , 2145

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Kleyne 11599496 - (D) KINDER 103 HOWARD EISENBERG, ESQ. SHEARER, DANIEL R

3777 Ex Parte Cain et al 12569061 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 SHAY GLENN LLP NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC

tiffin, remark, huang, cable

REVERSED

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

3673 Ex Parte Martin 11/221,324 SCHAFER 102(b)/103(a) BEYERS COSTIN, P.C. EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1644 Ex Parte Seed et al 10/960,442 FREDMAN 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) QUINE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, P.C. EXAMINER DAHLE, CHUN WU

See In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971) (“objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”)(evidence showing commercial success of thermoplastic foam “cups” used in vending machines was not commensurate in scope with claims directed to thermoplastic foam “containers” broadly). ...

In the case of evidence of commercial success, the Federal Circuit has acknowledged that the Appellant bears the burden of establishing a nexus, stating:

In the ex parte process of examining a patent application… the PTO lacks the means or resources to gather evidence which supports or refutes the applicant's assertion that the sales constitute commercial success. Cf. Ex parte Remark, 15 USPQ2d 1498, 1503 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990) (evidentiary routine of shifting burdens in civil proceedings inappropriate in ex parte prosecution proceedings because examiner has no available means for adducing evidence). Consequently, the PTO must rely upon the applicant to provide hard evidence of commercial success.

In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996). ...

Rather than supporting a conclusion of obviousness, copying could have occurred out of a general lack of concern for patent property, in which case it weighs neither for nor against the nonobviousness of a specific patent. It may have occurred out of contempt for the specific patent in question, only arguably demonstrating obviousness, or for the ability or willingness of the patentee financially or otherwise to enforce the patent right, which would call for deeper inquiry. Even widespread copying could weigh toward opposite conclusions, depending on the attitudes existing toward patent property and the accepted practices in the industry in question. It is simplistic to assert that copying per se should bolster the validity of a patent.
Cable Elec. Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
1648 Ex Parte Jones et al 10/326,908 SCHEINER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER HORNING, MICHELLE S
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Blaker et al 09/845,432 HOMERE 101/102(b) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Lindstrom 10/557,666 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN EXAMINER ZHANG, JUE

REHEARING

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2448 Ex Parte Hessmer et al 09/954,423 HOMERE 103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T