custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Enenkiel 11165342 - (D) DIXON 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP LIU, HEXING
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Euvino et al 11140790 - (D) KERINS 103 CPA Global CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY LEE, BENJAMIN P
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Kobayashi 11622380 - (D) SAINDON 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SENNIGER POWERS LLP SHAKERI, HADI
See In re Voss, 557 F.2d 812, 816 n.11 (CCPA 1977) (“reversal is not a mandate to the PTO to issue a patent and does not preclude the PTO from reopening prosecution”) (citing In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718 (CCPA 1974) (the Board may not force the granting of patents on inventions that do not comply with the statutes)); see also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 589 (CCPA 1972) (rejecting the notion that the reversal of a rejection indicates that a patent should be granted); In re Fisher, 448 F.2d 1406, 1407 (CCPA 1971) (“we pass only on rejections actually made and do not decree the issuance of patents … the Patent Office can always reopen prosecution”).
Borkowski, In re, 505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974) 715.07
3763 Ex Parte Schneider et al 11646744 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 ST. JUDE MEDICAL, ATRIAL FIBRILLATION DIVISION Kite & Key, LLC SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Gillis et al 11592452 - (D) SAINDON 102 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BROWN, MICHAEL A
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte BANOWSKI et al 11960348 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Henkel Corporation KARPINSKI, LUKE E
“[W]here the general conditions of a claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (citing In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931 (CCPA 1934); In re Waite, 168 F.2d 104 (CCPA 1948)).
Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) 2144.05
1631 Ex Parte Homayouni et al 11215635 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE LLP LIN, JERRY
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Gauthier et al 11613625 - (D) TIMM 103 O'Shea Getz P.C. CHAN, SING P
1746 Ex Parte Gauthier et al 11330776 - (D) TIMM 103 O'Shea Getz P.C. GOFF II, JOHN L
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Wigard et al 11350394 - (D) POTHIER 102 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ludwig 10676249 - (D) JEFFERY 102 Lester F. Ludwig FLETCHER, MARLON T
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Hardison 10674758 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/103 WILLIAMSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, LLC FLICK, JASON E
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2748 Ex parte GRYPHON NETWORKS CORP. 90010978 6130937 08/853,563 PERRY 102/103 HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original FOSTER, ROLAND G
Showing posts with label voss. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voss. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Monday, August 27, 2012
welker, mas-hamilton, mayo, bancorp, resqnet, katz2, voss
custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Triyoso et al 11139765 - (D) KRATZ 103 HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP - FREESCALE DAHIMENE, MAHMOUD
1729 Ex Parte Kim et al 10542642 - (D) HASTINGS 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP DAVIS, PATRICIA A
1732 Ex Parte Sheem et al 11515372 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP STALDER, MELISSA A
1777 Ex Parte Eastwood et al 12182749 - (D) SMITH 102/103 Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC BASS, DIRK R
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Petty 11445064 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC VU, TRISHA U
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex Parte Hecker et al 10546625 - (D) BROWNE 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 KENYON & KENYON LLP NOLAN, PETER D
see also Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2011); and Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, No. 2011-1467, 2012 WL 3037176, at *9 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 26, 2012) (“[A] machine, system, medium, or the like may in some cases be equivalent to an abstract mental process for purposes of patent ineligibility.”).
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Wakayama 10533650 - (D) ABRAMS 103 MARK D. SARALINO (GENERAL) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP MICHALSKI, SEAN M
3748 Ex Parte Wickert et al 11120496 - (D) KILE 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL
In this “arrangement for” is a nonce expression or verbal construct that is simply a substitute for the term “means for.” See e.g., Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1213-15 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 48 USPQ2d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . 2181
3751 INTELLIGENT HOSPITAL SYSTEMS LTD. Requester and Appellant v. FORHEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95000335 6,877,530 10/457,066 CHANG 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 Leason Ellis LLP WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original MAUST, TIMOTHY LEWIS
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Shook 11452552 - (D) BEST 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. OSTERHOUT, BENJAMIN LEE
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Roach et al 09957459 - (D) STEPHENS 112(2)/103 103 CAHN & SAMUELS LLP TO, BAOQUOC N
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Shimamura et al 10574032 - (D) KIMLIN 103 YOUNG BASILE ARCIERO, ADAM A
1732 Ex Parte Bauer et al 12055539 - (D) KIMLIN 103 CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP SLIFKA, COLIN W
1742 Ex Parte Dairoku et al 10764444 - (D) OBERMANN 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC HUSON, MONICA ANNE
1762 Ex Parte Krebs et al 10822625 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(1)/112(2)/102/102/obviousness-type double patenting WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Muralidharan et al 10681730 - (D) DESHPANDE 101/103 GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
2166 Ex Parte Coult 09946009 - (D) Per Curiam 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP AHN, SANGWOO
2171 Ex Parte Scott 10930727 - (D) BARRY 103 RIM/FINNEGAN PAN, YONGJIA
2177 Ex Parte McMullin 10607127 - (D) DANG 101/102 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. QUELER, ADAM M
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Sharma 09800397 - (D) STEPHENS 103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP ZHONG, JUN FEI
2427 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 09947890 - (D) STRAUSS 103 MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY DUFFIELD, JEREMY S
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 ONE NUMBER CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant v. GOOGLE INC. Third Party Requester/Respondent and Cross-Appellant 95001408 7,440,565 12/033,042 GIANNETTI 103 KRIEG DEVAULT LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original GAUTHIER, GERALD
Principally, Patent Owner relies on the Federal Circuit’s decision in ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 865-66 (Fed. Cir. 2010), where the Court concluded that two user’s manuals for a software product were not printed publications. Relying on the Board’s informative decision Ex parte Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing L.P., 2011 WL 1676313 at *6 (BPAI May 2, 2011), Third Party Requester points to indicia of publication in the Tekelec documents themselves (copyright notice, references to the publisher) and to the fact that the documents reflect an on-the-market product. TPR Resp. 7-8. Requester distinguishes ResQNet in that the manuals in that case were not marked with any indicia of publication and one, in fact, purported to be “an unpublished work and is considered a trade secret…” Id. at 9 (quoting ResQNet.com, 594 F.3d at 865). Moreover, although not explicitly stated in the decision, the evidentiary standard in ResQNet was clear and convincing evidence; as noted by the Examiner the PTO standard is “preponderance of the evidence.”
2615 LENCORE ACOUSTICS CORP. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of ACENTECH, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95000499 7,194,094 10/280,104 BLANKENSHIP 103 WEINGARTEN, SCHURGIN, GAGNEBIN & LEBOVICI LLP LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original LEE, PING
2617 Ex Parte Mahini 10627896 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON BALAOING, ARIEL A
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex parte PRICEPLAY, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90009444 6,978,253 09/342,866 TURNER 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP RIMELL, SAMUEL G original SMITH, JEFFREY A
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Gauselmann 11252429 - (D) ROBERTSON 103/112(2) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP DEODHAR, OMKAR A
3736 Ex Parte Miller et al 12020294 - (D) BROWNE 112(1)/102/103 Hologic/Vista IP - Suros Division c/o Vista IP Law Group LLP STOUT, MICHAEL C
3736 Ex Parte Noble et al 12333526 - (D) GRIMES 103 Covidien HENSON, DEVIN B
REHEARING
GRANTED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Hallowell et al 10256818 - (D) SAINDON CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP. C/O NIXON PEABODY LLP SHAPIRO, JEFFREY ALAN
see also In re Voss, 557 F.2d 812, n. 11 (CCPA 1977) (“reversal is not a mandate to the PTO to issue a patent and does not preclude the PTO from reopening prosecution”).
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Triyoso et al 11139765 - (D) KRATZ 103 HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP - FREESCALE DAHIMENE, MAHMOUD
1729 Ex Parte Kim et al 10542642 - (D) HASTINGS 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP DAVIS, PATRICIA A
1732 Ex Parte Sheem et al 11515372 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP STALDER, MELISSA A
1777 Ex Parte Eastwood et al 12182749 - (D) SMITH 102/103 Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC BASS, DIRK R
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Petty 11445064 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC VU, TRISHA U
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex Parte Hecker et al 10546625 - (D) BROWNE 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 KENYON & KENYON LLP NOLAN, PETER D
see also Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2011); and Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, No. 2011-1467, 2012 WL 3037176, at *9 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 26, 2012) (“[A] machine, system, medium, or the like may in some cases be equivalent to an abstract mental process for purposes of patent ineligibility.”).
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Wakayama 10533650 - (D) ABRAMS 103 MARK D. SARALINO (GENERAL) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP MICHALSKI, SEAN M
3748 Ex Parte Wickert et al 11120496 - (D) KILE 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL
In this “arrangement for” is a nonce expression or verbal construct that is simply a substitute for the term “means for.” See e.g., Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1213-15 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 48 USPQ2d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . 2181
3751 INTELLIGENT HOSPITAL SYSTEMS LTD. Requester and Appellant v. FORHEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95000335 6,877,530 10/457,066 CHANG 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 Leason Ellis LLP WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original MAUST, TIMOTHY LEWIS
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Shook 11452552 - (D) BEST 103 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. OSTERHOUT, BENJAMIN LEE
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Roach et al 09957459 - (D) STEPHENS 112(2)/103 103 CAHN & SAMUELS LLP TO, BAOQUOC N
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Shimamura et al 10574032 - (D) KIMLIN 103 YOUNG BASILE ARCIERO, ADAM A
1732 Ex Parte Bauer et al 12055539 - (D) KIMLIN 103 CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP SLIFKA, COLIN W
1742 Ex Parte Dairoku et al 10764444 - (D) OBERMANN 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC HUSON, MONICA ANNE
1762 Ex Parte Krebs et al 10822625 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(1)/112(2)/102/102/obviousness-type double patenting WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Muralidharan et al 10681730 - (D) DESHPANDE 101/103 GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
2166 Ex Parte Coult 09946009 - (D) Per Curiam 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP AHN, SANGWOO
2171 Ex Parte Scott 10930727 - (D) BARRY 103 RIM/FINNEGAN PAN, YONGJIA
2177 Ex Parte McMullin 10607127 - (D) DANG 101/102 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. QUELER, ADAM M
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Sharma 09800397 - (D) STEPHENS 103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP ZHONG, JUN FEI
2427 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 09947890 - (D) STRAUSS 103 MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY DUFFIELD, JEREMY S
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 ONE NUMBER CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant v. GOOGLE INC. Third Party Requester/Respondent and Cross-Appellant 95001408 7,440,565 12/033,042 GIANNETTI 103 KRIEG DEVAULT LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original GAUTHIER, GERALD
Principally, Patent Owner relies on the Federal Circuit’s decision in ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 865-66 (Fed. Cir. 2010), where the Court concluded that two user’s manuals for a software product were not printed publications. Relying on the Board’s informative decision Ex parte Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing L.P., 2011 WL 1676313 at *6 (BPAI May 2, 2011), Third Party Requester points to indicia of publication in the Tekelec documents themselves (copyright notice, references to the publisher) and to the fact that the documents reflect an on-the-market product. TPR Resp. 7-8. Requester distinguishes ResQNet in that the manuals in that case were not marked with any indicia of publication and one, in fact, purported to be “an unpublished work and is considered a trade secret…” Id. at 9 (quoting ResQNet.com, 594 F.3d at 865). Moreover, although not explicitly stated in the decision, the evidentiary standard in ResQNet was clear and convincing evidence; as noted by the Examiner the PTO standard is “preponderance of the evidence.”
2615 LENCORE ACOUSTICS CORP. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of ACENTECH, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95000499 7,194,094 10/280,104 BLANKENSHIP 103 WEINGARTEN, SCHURGIN, GAGNEBIN & LEBOVICI LLP LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original LEE, PING
2617 Ex Parte Mahini 10627896 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON BALAOING, ARIEL A
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex parte PRICEPLAY, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90009444 6,978,253 09/342,866 TURNER 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP RIMELL, SAMUEL G original SMITH, JEFFREY A
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Gauselmann 11252429 - (D) ROBERTSON 103/112(2) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP DEODHAR, OMKAR A
3736 Ex Parte Miller et al 12020294 - (D) BROWNE 112(1)/102/103 Hologic/Vista IP - Suros Division c/o Vista IP Law Group LLP STOUT, MICHAEL C
3736 Ex Parte Noble et al 12333526 - (D) GRIMES 103 Covidien HENSON, DEVIN B
REHEARING
GRANTED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Hallowell et al 10256818 - (D) SAINDON CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP. C/O NIXON PEABODY LLP SHAPIRO, JEFFREY ALAN
see also In re Voss, 557 F.2d 812, n. 11 (CCPA 1977) (“reversal is not a mandate to the PTO to issue a patent and does not preclude the PTO from reopening prosecution”).
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)