tec air, amhil, asahi/america, bell and howell, roton barrier, york prod.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Hong et al 10439856 - (D) WALSH 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Kamleiter et al 10582349 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/102/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. MENON, KRISHNAN S

1786 Ex Parte Schindzielorz et al 10834990 - (D) SMITH 112(2)/103/obviousness-type double patenting FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP SINGH-PANDEY, ARTI R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Dutt et al 10655346 - (D) ARPIN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Oracle (Sun) MHKKG CHOU, ALAN S

Where a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious. See Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2634 Ex Parte Van Houdt et al 10538576 - (D) McNAMARA 102/103 NXP B.V. Intellectual Property and Licensing BOCURE, TESFALDET

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Kelly 10940267 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CANTOR COLBURN LLP PAINTER, BRANON C

3644 Ex Parte Zubkow et al 11531591 - (D) FLOYD 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG BONZELL, PHILIP J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Feygin et al 10807016 - (D) BAHR 112(2)/103 Kaplan Breyer Schwarz & Ottesen, LLP FRISBY, KESHA

3721 Ex Parte Smashey 10371005 - (D) SPAHN 103 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

In addition, we note that the word “substantially” is often used to mean largely but not wholly what is specified. See, e.g., York Products, Inc., v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also, Amhil Enterprises Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d, 1554, 1562, (Fed. Cir. 1996).

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2181

3738 Ex Parte Ernsberger 11702303 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 .MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP HOBAN, MELISSA A

3768 Ex Parte Mahajan et al 11198561 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP WEATHERBY, ELLSWORTH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Beilfuss et al 11288665 - (D) GREEN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON MCMILLIAN, KARA RENITA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Karabinis 11291192 - (D) McNAMARA 103 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC HUYNH, CHUCK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Vigeant et al 12021514 - (D) KAMHOLZ 102 102 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. CULBRETH, ERIC D

3644 Ex Parte Dunn et al 10757109 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 102/103 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT ABBOTT, YVONNE RENEE

3676 Ex Parte McGlothen et al 11458173 - (D) GROSSMAN 103 112(2) SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C. FULLER, ROBERT EDWARD

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Oh 11786854 - (D) PLENZLER 103 103 Imperium Patent Works CHEUNG, CHUN HOI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Sheskey et al 10485655 - (D) FRANKLIN 103/obviousness-type double patenting The Dow Chemical Company FISHER, ABIGAIL L

1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11900637 - (D) PRAISS concurring McKELVEY 103/obviousness-type double patenting THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE WHALEY, PABLO S

1644 Ex Parte Hubbell et al 12563201 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/102 DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC HADDAD, MAHER M

1651 Ex Parte Atala et al 11048097 - (D) JENKS 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN

1654 Ex Parte Rauschkolb-Loffler et al 11089441 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C BRADLEY, CHRISTINA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Galligan et al 12338802 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/103 BASF CORPORATION LI, JUN

1747 Ex Parte Woessner et al 10501591 - (D) WARREN 112(1)/103 Carlson Gaskey & Olds Karin H Butchko ROGERS, MARTIN K

1787 Ex Parte Li et al 11360547 - (D) PAK 112(1) 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - SABIC EXATEC FREEMAN, JOHN D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte McClure et al 12002081 - (D) POTHIER 103 MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC TSAI, SHENG JEN

That is, these paragraphs are conclusory, failing to show with factual evidence the claimed method and product actually existed and worked for its intended purpose. See In re Asahi/America, Inc., 68 F.3d 442, 445 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

Asahi/America Inc., In re, 68 F.3d 442, 37 USPQ2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 715.07

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10675468 - (D) DIXON 103 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) RYAN, PATRICK A

2456 Ex Parte Li 11133755 - (D) MORGAN 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP BARQADLE, YASIN M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Feder et al 11094432 - (D) STEPHENS 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. RAMPURIA, SHARAD K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Burnstein 11858121 - (D) PLENZLER 112(2)/103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC JUNGE, KRISTINA N S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Sweet et al 10608587 - (D) KOHUT 103 Hoffmann & Baron, LLP HILLERY, NATHAN

See Bell & Howell Document Management v. AltekSys., 132 F.3d 701, 706 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The testimony of an inventor and his attorney concerning claim construction is thus entitled to little or no consideration. The testimony of an inventor is often a self-serving, after-the-fact attempt to state what should have been part of his or her patent application ....”); Roton Barrier, Inc. v. Stanley Works, 79 F.3d 1112, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“We have previously stated than an inventor's ‘after-the-fact testimony is of little weight compared to the clear import of the patent disclosure itself.’” (citation omitted)).

3771 Ex Parte Robertson et al 11057727 - (D) BONILLA 102/103 Charles Livingston YU, JUSTINE ROMANG

3781 Ex Parte Beckstead 11389295 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 DON E. ERICKSON MCKINLEY, CHRISTOPHER BRIAN  

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2652 Ex Parte Creamer et al 10730330 - (D) SAADAT 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP ADDY, THJUAN KNOWLIN