seachange, tec air, haruna, gordon

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Stoessel et al 11718692 - (D) WILSON 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP CLARK, GREGORY D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Preisner et al 11578085 - (D) WARREN 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD SIMMONS, JENNIFER E

2882 Ex Parte HOLT 11419793 - (D) WARREN 102(e) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP CORBETT, JOHN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Chepurny et al 11791916 - (D) HOFFMANN 102 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. CHIN, PAUL T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Vosbikian et al 12700041 - (D) WOODS 102/103 ARCHER & GREINER, P.C. SCRUGGS, ROBERT J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Bullinger 10697788 - (D) WOODS 103 102/103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC A, PHI DIEU TRAN

Since teaching away is irrelevant to anticipation, the argument is not probative of any error with respect to the rejection of claim 8 as being anticipated by Knudson. See Seachange Intern., Inc. v. C-COR, Inc. 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
...
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Furthermore, if the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2143.01 , 2144.08

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Xu 12102237 - (D) POLLOCK 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP (Southern Research Institute) PAGONAKIS, ANNA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1735 Ex Parte Kikuchi et al 11883959 - (D) HANLON 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP YUEN, JACKY

1791 Ex Parte Murray et al 10498130 - (D) HASTINGS 103 SIM & MCBURNEY WATTS, JENNA A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Martinez et al 12768112 - (D) WORMMEESTER 103 DeLIO, PETERSON & CURCIO, LLC SHANMUGASUNDARAM, KANNAN

2173 Ex Parte Kretz et al 12099541 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. DURKIN, JAMES T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Absillis et al 11745001 - (D) HOMERE 103 CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC HOPKINS, MATTHEW A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Nordstrom et al 12059189 - (D) CHUNG 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. SHEN, QUN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2844 Ex Parte Hering et al 12398266 - (D) DELMENDO 103 NSIP LAW LUONG, HENRY T

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 SIDENSE CORP. Requester and Respondent v. KILOPASS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6777757 et al 10/133,704 95001468 - (D) WEINBERG 102 102/103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP ANDUJAR, LEONARDO original HO, TU TU V

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3722 Ex parte SGS TOOL COMPANY Ex Parte 7,306,408 B2 et al 11/420,874 90012742 - (D) BROWNE 112(2)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP GELLNER, JEFFREY L original FRIDIE JR, WILLMON

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

tec air

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Bard et al 11/159,412 MILLS 102(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Steins 11/300,006 SPAHN 102(b) Karl M. Steins Steins & Associates EXAMINER OLSZEWSKI, JOHN

3673 Ex Parte Hollander 11/701,980 KAUFFMAN 103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G

Gzybowski’s flexible bag type container, when modified as proposed by the Examiner, could be opened by an adult, thwarting Gzybowski’s purpose of providing a tamperproof container, and rendering Gzybowski’s container unsuitable for its intended purpose. See Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Where the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious.).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Haugaard 10/570,764 KAUFFMAN 103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C
AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Puri et al 10/191,892 ZECHER 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

free motion, ormco, tec air,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Luzzatti 10/079,569 WALSH 103(a) AJAY PATHAK 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Morrow et al 10/830,754 GARRIS 103(a) COMMSCOPE BY MUNCY,GEISSLER, OLDS & LOVE, PLLC 

Ex Parte YAGI et al 11/697,842 PAK 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 

Ex Parte Allibert et al 11/433,713 ROBERTSON 103(a) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Bodin et al 10/105,122 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP 

“The doctrine of claim differentiation creates a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope . . . . The difference in meaning and scope between claims is presumed to be significant to the extent that the absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make a claim superfluous.” Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

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

Ex Parte De Jonge et al 10/820,424 HORNER 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT & LITTON, LLP 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Babbidge et al 10/794,092 BARRETT 103(a) KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC 

Because claims 24 and 25 include all the limitations recited in claim 23, we conclude claim 23 must have been obvious based on our conclusion of obviousness of claims 24 and 25. See Ormco v. Align Tech., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (when a dependent claim is “found to have been obvious, the broader claims . . . must also have been obvious”). 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Strebelle et al 10/534,299 FREDMAN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT P.C. 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Gu et al 10/447,862 BARRY 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Parry et al 09/861,991 HAHN 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Ross et al 11/265,671 OWENS 103(a) CHRISTOPHER P. RICCI 

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

Ex Parte Ruppert et al 11/210,461 BAHR 102(b)/103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 

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