See, e.g., Uniroyal, Inc., v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Even when the applied prior art references were combined as proposed, no obviousness can be established if the claimed subject matter would not result from the proposed combination.)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3742 Ex Parte Weber et al 10/918,841 ASTORINO103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER EVANS, GEOFFREY S AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2421 Ex Parte Russ et al 10/253,115 MORGAN102(e)/103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER SALCE, JASON P
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3636 Ex Parte Meyer 11/352,464 BAHR102(b)102(b) GRAYBEAL JACKSON LLP EXAMINER BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL
See Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539, 541-42 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (the preponderance of the evidence standard requires the finder of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence).
3643 Ex Parte Baumann 11/296,405 SAINDON103(a)103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER VALENTI, ANDREA M
3673 Ex Parte Murphy 11/322,638 HORNER103(a)103(a)MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER KELLEHER, WILLIAM J REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED; § 41.50(b)
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 3732 Ex Parte 6,375,659 et al Ex parte ORTHOVITA, INC. Appellant 90/010,652 09/788,930 LEBOVITZ102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) OSTEONICS - SOB;VITA Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER PHILOGENE, PEDRO AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1621 Ex Parte HOSHINO et al 11/850,784 GREEN103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER WITHERSPOON, SIKARL A
1625 Ex Parte Halazy et al 10/381,200 MILLS112(1)/obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CHANG, CELIA C
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1735 Ex Parte Gaag et al 11/809,575 SMITH103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER IP, SIKYIN
2171 Ex Parte McKeon et al 10/916,715 JEFFERY102(e) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2423 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 10/778,494 DANG103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER FEATHERSTONE, MARK D
2451 Ex Parte Saito et al 09/984,741 DILLON103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER MAUNG, ZARNI 2600 Communications 2623 Ex Parte STORZ 09/330,856 MANTIS MERCADER103(a) Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC EXAMINER TRAN, HAI V
2628 Ex Parte Maeng 11/438,829 BAUMEISTER101/103(a) Kelly K. Kordzik Winstead Sechrest & Minick P.C. EXAMINER TUNG, KEE M
2629 Ex Parte Ditzik 11/023,361 BLANKENSHIP103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC EXAMINER BODDIE, WILLIAM
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2811 Ex Parte Drobny et al 11/173,695 HAHN103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER HSIEH, HSIN YI
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1715 Ex Parte Fink et al 10/501,072 NAGUMO102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I
1717 Ex Parte Theodorus van Esbroeck et al09/865,180 PAK 103(a) JOHN S. PRATT, ESQ KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE
1726 Ex Parte Yandrasits et al 11/170,456 WARREN103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER ANTHONY, JULIAN
1728 Ex Parte Kelly et al 11/253,069 COLAIANNI103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER DAM, DUSTIN Q
1742 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/687,471 TIMM103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER HUSON, MONICA ANNE
1772 Ex Parte Farshid et al 10/702,751 COLAIANNI103(a) CHEVRON CORPORATION EXAMINER DANG, THUAN D
1776 Ex Parte Glad et al 11/570,530 SMITH102(b)/103(a) GE HEALTHCARE BIO-SCIENCES CORP. EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3673 Ex Parte Perthou 09/752,015 OWENS103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BARRETT, SUZANNE LALE DINO
Thus, the Examiner has not established that even if the references were combined as proposed by the Examiner, the Appellants’ claimed invention would result. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
3674 Ex Parte Ueda 11/074,695 McCARTHY103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER PICKARD, ALISON K
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3724 Ex Parte Whited 11/358,176 PATE III102(b) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER CHOI, STEPHEN
3727 Ex Parte Koenig 10/692,703 PATE III103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T
3746 Ex Parte Oo et al 10/927,556 PATE III102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER HAMO, PATRICK
3761 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 11/315,278 COCKS 103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA
3781 Ex Parte Smith et al 11/101,932 ADAMS103(a)/obvious-type double patenting BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J
We agree with Appellants that the two-way test is the proper standard for making a determination of obviousness-type double-patenting on this record (see App. Br. 18-22; see also Ex parte Smith et al., (BPAI Nov. 17, 2008).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1765 Ex Parte Guenther et al 11/732,617 COLAIANNI102(b)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2443 Ex Parte Gage 10/072,531 DROESCH102(e)/103(a)102(e)/103(a) GOTTLIEB RACKMAN & REISMAN PC EXAMINER BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H
2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,639 HAHN102(e)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C
2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,531 HAHN103(A)/obviousness-type double patenting SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3718 Ex Parte Shum et al 10/286,396 PATE III103(a)103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER YOO, JASSON H
3765 Ex Parte Vattes et al11/143,538 SPAHN103(a)103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1615 Ex Parte Kolter et al 10/096,835 SCHEINER103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER TRAN, SUSAN T
1634 Ex Parte Lee 11/957,334 GRIMES103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER MYERS, CARLA J
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1713 Ex Parte SAMOILOV 11/752,477 SMITH103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN
1729 Ex Parte Fereshtehkhou et al 11/091,223 COLAIANNI103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA
1741 Ex Parte Fazlani 11/268,286 COLAIANNI103(a) Charles Muserlain EXAMINER SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA
1762 Ex Parte Drzal et al 11/435,471 GAUDETTEconcurring NAGUMO112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Ian C. McLeod McLeod & Moyne, P.C. EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS
1763 Ex Parte Kinney et al 11/281,006 MILLS103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I
1772 Ex Parte Merrill et al11/515,539 COLAIANNI103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER DANG, THUAN D
1784 Ex Parte Arsenault et al 11/768,955 GUEST103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global LEE
2100 Computer Architecture and Software 2172 Ex Parte McCarthy et al 11/148,967 KRIVAKconcurring MacDONALD103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler EXAMINER GUTIERREZ, ANDRES E
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 2451 Ex Parte Pihlajamaki et al 10/899,322 HUGHES103(a) AlbertDhand LLP EXAMINER ANWARI, MACEEH
2467 Ex Parte Rabie et al 10/868,568 SMITH112(1)/103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER FOUD, HICHAM B
2854 Ex Parte Roland 10/576,031 WHITEHEAD, JR.103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E
A flexible teachings, suggestions, or motivations (TSM) test remains the primary guarantor against a non-statutory hindsight analysis. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A]s the Supreme Court suggests, a flexible approach to the TSM test prevents hindsight and focuses on evidence before the time of invention.”).
The TSM test, flexibly applied, merely assures that the obviousness test proceeds on the basis of evidence-teachings, suggestions (a tellingly broad term), or motivations (an equally broad term)-that arise before the time of invention as the statute requires. As KSR requires, those teachings, suggestions, or motivations need not always be written references but may be found within the knowledge and creativity of ordinarily skilled artisans.”
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 2895 Ex Parte Metz et al 11/037,644 HOFF102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER GARCIA, JOANNIE A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 3611 Ex Parte Spelman 09/814,210 KAUFFMAN103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER DAVIS, CASSANDRA HOPE
3632 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/941,231 PATE III102(b)/103(a) Michael B. McNeil Liell & McNeil Attorneys PC EXAMINER LE, TAN
3657 Ex Parte Scheckelhoff et al 11/347,389 BROWN103(a) 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 3724 Ex Parte Hugick et al 11/139,830 PATE III112(2)/103(a) PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP EXAMINER ADDISU, SARA
A trademark simply does not function in this manner. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (BPAI 1982).
... Appellants cite PolyVision Corp. v. Smart Technologies Inc., 501 F.Supp. 2d 1042 (W.D. Mich. 2007). App. Br. 10. In that case, the District Court declined to follow Simpson, admitting that it acted to preserve the validity of patent claims at issue, in spite of the Court’s inclination to conclude that the reference to the Windows® trademark rendered the claims indefinite. Id. at 1065. The Court stated it was following “the Federal Circuit’s admonition to construe claims so as to sustain their validity, if possible.” Id. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, while the patent owner argued that the trademark was used as an adjective rather than as a noun, the court expressly rejected this argument, as do we.
3766 Ex Parte MacAdam et al11/120,633 PATE III103(a) Leason Ellis LLP EXAMINER GEDEON, BRIAN T REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 1741 Ex Parte Recker et al 10/888,542 WARREN103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J REMANDED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1649 Ex Parte Moehlenbruck et al 10/543,931 SCHEINERobviousness-type double patenting/102(e)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER MACFARLANE, STACEY NEE