Jung, gechter, stepan

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2687 Ex Parte Skillman et al 11830203 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Mahamedi Paradice LLP (QCA) MURPHY, JEROLD B

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2842 Ex Parte Zhang et al 12386775 - (D) OWENS 102 Docket Clerk - SAMS O TOOLE, COLLEEN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Goetz 12682923 - (D) GREENHUT 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A EDWARDS, PHILIP CHARLES

A rejection must be set forth in sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of § 132, such as by identifying where or how each limitation of the rejected claims is met by the prior art references. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 37 C.F.R. § l . 104(c)(2) ("When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified."), Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (PTO must create a record that includes "specific fact findings for each contested limitation and satisfactory explanations for such findings."). It is neither our place, nor Appellant's burden, to speculate as to the basis for rejecting claims. In re Stepan, 660 F. 3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (It is the PTO's obligation to provide prior notice to the applicant of all matters of fact and law asserted prior to an appeal hearing before the Board.).

Jung, In re, 637 F.3d 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 1205.02 1504.01(c)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3762 Ex Parte Moffitt et al 12630633 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 102 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC D ABREU, MICHAEL JOSEPH

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1643 Ex Parte Zhao et al 10335056 - (D) HARLOW 103 ANTICANCER, INC BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte SETO 12892537 - (D) KENNEDY 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP DIGNAN, MICHAEL L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Campagna et al 12050575 - (D) PINKERTON 103 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. TAYLOR, JOSHUA D

2468 Ex Parte Garudadri et al 11129635 - (D) KENNY 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED PHUNG, LUAT

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte YACH 13438373 - (D) HAGY 103 PERRY + CURRIER INC. (BlackBerry) LAI, DANIEL

2648 Ex Parte Huang et al 12361741 - (D) MacDONALD 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL TALUKDER, MD K

2695 Ex Parte Dassanayake et al 12605705 - (D) HAGY 103 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD KIYABU, KARIN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Duvalsaint et al 12388797 - (D) OWENS 103 Keohane & D'Alessandro GRANT, ROBERT J

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Zheng et al 11615457 - (D) OWENS 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP BADR, HAMID R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Itani et al 12062506 - (D) JIVANI 102/103 CRGO LAW NGUYEN, MAIKHANH

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex parte SILGAN PLASTICS LLC Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 6,095,359 et al 09/405,614 90013044 - (D) SONG 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. For Third Party: MOLD-MASTERS (2007) LIMITED LEWIS, AARON J original CRONIN, STEPHEN K

peterson, iron grip, stepan

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Lisa et al 10999580 - (D) POLLOCK 103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA

“[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Such a finding shifts the burden to the Applicant to show that the claimed invention is non-obvious in view of the cited art, for example, by showing that the claimed range is critical and achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. Id.; see also Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Applicant can rebut a presumption of obviousness based on a claimed invention that falls within a prior art range by showing “(1) [t]hat the prior art taught away from the claimed invention . . . or (2) that there are new and unexpected results relative to the prior art.”)

Peterson, In re, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 716.02(d) , 2144.05

Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2144.05

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Graser et al 12094858 - (D) HUGHES 103 WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. IBM CORP. (WIP) HOLDER, BRADLEY W

2473 Ex Parte Allan et al 12259560 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 Daniels IP Services LTD. LIU, JUNG

2619 Ex Parte Smith 11829453 - (D) DIXON 102 CRAIN, CATON & JAMES HARRISON, CHANTE E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Sasamoto et al 11676510 - (D) MURPHY 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 James W. Judge JENNISON, BRIAN W

3752 Ex Parte Shanklin et al 11252347 - (D) GREENHUT 102/obviousness-type double patenting MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION KIM, CHRISTOPHER S

The PTO has a statutory obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to provide timely notice to the applicant of all “matters of fact and law asserted.” See In re Stepan Co., 660 F. 3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(citing 5 U.S.C. § 554(b)). 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) provides that “[a]n appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection.” When this appeal was taken on April 3, 2012, “the rejection” for purposes of § 41.31(c) was that set forth in the Final Office action of January 3, 2012. By failing to designate the rejection set forth in the Examiner’s Answer as a “new ground” under 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(2) the Examiner failed to comply with our rules and, potentially, the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

AFFIRMED–IN–PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Caligiuri et al 11629638 - (D) POLLOCK 103 102 Yankwich & Associates, P.C. RICCI, CRAIG D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Fornage 12804017 - (D) SHIANG 103 103 MOSER TABOADA YANG, JAMES J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Braedt 11689466 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 103 SRAM, LLC MOMPER, ANNA M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Kristen et al 12799184 - (D) MURPHY 103 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC LOPEZ, MICHELLE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Todd 12443830 - (D) Per Curiam 112(2)/102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG KUDDUS, DANIEL A

2198 Ex Parte Novak 12249423 - (D) HUME 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WU, DAXIN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Brown et al 12242216 - (D) HORVATH 101 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG VAUGHAN, MICHAEL R

2447 Ex Parte Tierney et al 12005985 - (D) HUME 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY JOSHI, SURAJ M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Sela 11161051 - (D) THOMAS 103 YOSSY SELA HUYNH, CHUCK

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 MOVEA SA. Patent Owner and Appellant v. HILLCREST LABORATORIES, INC. Requester and Respondent Ex Parte 8010313 et al 09/989,011 95000645 - (D) BRANCH 103 DERGOSITS & NOAH LLP Third Party Requester: FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original BHAT, NINA NMN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 INTEGRATED MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. Requester, Respondent v. KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8,029,437 B2 et al 12/413,891 95002301 - (D) SONG 112(1)/120 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC Third Party Requester: Troutman Sanders LLP WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN

klein, dann, stepan

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Kemper et al 10/732,162 BAHR 103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP EXAMINER REDDING, DAVID A

3732 Ex Parte Shirasuka 11/582,111 FRANKLIN 103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

3734 Ex Parte Quijano et al 11/263,302 FRANKLIN 102(b) Paul T. Parker PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D

3764 Ex Parte Stenberg 09/879,151 BONILLA 102(e)/103(a) Ronald L. Grudziecki BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Ruddle et al 11/227,934 PRATS 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C. EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (A reference is analogous prior art when it is “from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed . . . .”) (emphasis added).

AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Colin et al 10/675,363 BISK 103(a) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION EXAMINER AHMED, SALMAN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2852 Ex Parte Hoffman 11/196,139 PER CURIAM 102(e) FLETCHER YODER P.C. EXAMINER FULLER, RODNEY EVAN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Nazginov 10/964,436 HOELTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL

3687 Ex Parte Love et al 11/416,946 FISCHETTI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KING & SPALDING EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

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)

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

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1711 Ex Parte 6359022 et al Ex parte STEPAN COMPANY Appellant 90/006,824 and 90/007,619 09/289,043 PER CURIAM 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(a)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER GORR, RACHEL F

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s Decision in the above-identified ex parte reexamination proceedings, and remanded the proceedings with instructions to designate the Decision as including a new ground of rejection. In re Stepan Co., 660 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

otto, thibault, kumar, stepan

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Zimran et al 11/343,313 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) RICHARD AUCHTERLONIE NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER LODHI, ANDALIB FT

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Bernier 10/224,780 DANG 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER LONSBERRY, HUNTER B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Omar 11/095,887 GRIMES 103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. EXAMINER DUNN, DAVID R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Hacker et al 11/701,228 FETTING 103(a) James P. Broder Roeder & Broder LLP EXAMINER COLLINS, DOLORES R

3716 Ex Parte Mothwurf et al 10/991,308 PETRAVICK 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER KIM, KEVIN Y
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Grenier et al 11/490,319 FRANKLIN 103(a)/112(2) ERAGEN BIOSCIENCES, INC. EXAMINER LU, FRANK WEI MIN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Jones et al 10/832,322 DIXON 103(a)/103(a) Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole, P.C. EXAMINER REYES, MARIELA D

2176 Ex Parte Errico et al 10/155,269 BARRY 103(a)/103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Peterka et al 10/882,606 FETTING 103(a)/103(a) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP EXAMINER MOLINA, ANITA C

"[E]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 940 (CCPA 1963).

Otto, In re, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2115
Thibault, Ex parte, 164 USPQ 666 (Bd. App. 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Britto et al 10/274,301 FETTING 103(a)/103(a) Eric S. Britto True Bounce, Inc. EXAMINER CHAMBERS, MICHAEL S
REEXAMINATION REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2643 Ex Parte 6985569 et al JINGLE NETWORKS, INC. Third Party Requestor, Appellant v. GRAPE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent, Appellant 95/001,163 TURNER 314(a)/102(b) PATENT OWNER: SOFER & HAROUN LLP. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER BARNIE, REXFORD N
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Kahn et al 11/315,391 MILLS 103(a) Amersham Biosciences Corp EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J

1636 Ex Parte Kenten et al 10/726,069 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER KETTER, JAMES S

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Fournier et al 10/740,584 GUEST 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHU HOANG

1781 Ex Parte Chang et al 11/338,972 PRATS 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Banavar et al 10/434,815 COURTENAY 102(e) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER VU, THONG H

2159 Ex Parte Brown et al 11/334,615 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION EXAMINER BURKE, JEFF A

2168 Ex Parte Yan et al 11/096,165 DESHPANDE 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER MENG, JAU SHYA

2191 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/870,222 LUCAS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER NAHAR, QAMRUN

“In a series of opinions, both this court and our predecessor court, the United States Court of Customs & Patent Appeals (“Patent Court”), have recognized that if the appellant has not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Board's actual basis of rejection, the administrative validity proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) should be allowed to continue. See In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1367–68 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing numerous Patent Court cases).” In re Stepan Co., 660 F.3d 1341, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Reith et al 10/472,326 DROESCH 103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER REZA, MOHAMMAD W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Agarwal et al 11/228,583 FETTING 103(a) Straub & Pokotylo EXAMINER BROWN, ALVIN L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Huber et al 10/535,067 McCARTHY 103(a) Merchant & Gould, P.C. EXAMINER COMLEY, ALEXANDER BRYANT