1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Marmo 10/811,690 GAUDETTE 103(a) Klein, O’Neill & Singh, LLP EXAMINER NUTTER, NATHAN M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Babb et al 10/041,405 BARRY 101/103(a) HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAM LINH T
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Butler et al 10/981,359 NAPPI 112(2)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER SOBUTKA, PHILIP
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Emanuel et al 10/963,127 SILVERBERG 103(a) THOMAS A. GALLAGHER EXAMINER ELLIS, CHRISTOPHER P
Ex Parte Kusterbeck 10/417,125 FETTING 103(a) KILE GOEKJIAN REED & MCMANUS EXAMINER FRENEL, VANEL
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Opie et al 10/444,773 SILVERBERG 102(e)/103(a) SQUIRE SANDERS & DEMPSEY LLP EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M
Ex Parte Viswanathan 10/962,174 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER LAMPRECHT, JOEL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Todd et al 11/046,043 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA
See, e.g., Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S.Ct. 1696, 1706 (2009) (citations omitted) (“Lower court cases make
clear that courts have correlated review of ordinary administrative proceedings to appellate review of civil cases in this respect. . . . the party seeking reversal normally must explain why the erroneous ruling caused harm.”) See also, In re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010), (discussing the role of harmless error in appeals from decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”)).
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Valles Camps et al 09/948,601 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) JAMES C. WRAY EXAMINER MILLER, WILLIAM L
Appellants seek review as to whether the Examiner erred in not supplying a full translation of a foreign reference during prosecution of an application (Reply Br. 12; App. Br. 5-6). Appellants cite Ex parte Jones, 62 USPQ2d 1206, 1208-1209 (BPAI 2001) in support of their position. In Jones, our colleagues held that:
When an examiner cites and relies only on an abstract, the applicant mayWe agree with our colleagues that this matter is reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201) and is, thus, not within the jurisdiction of the Board. In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967). Accordingly, this issue can not be treated in this appeal.
wish to obtain a copy of the underlying document and submit a copy to the
examiner when responding to a rejection relying on an abstract. In the event a
reference is in a foreign language, if the applicant does not wish to expend
resources to obtain a translation, the applicant may wish to request the
examiner to supply a translation. If a translation is not supplied by the
examiner, the applicant may wish to consider seeking supervisory relief by way
of a petition (37 CFR § 1.181) to have the examiner directed to obtain and
supply a translation. Id. at 1208-1209 (Emphasis added)
Jones, Ex parte, 62 USPQ2d 1206, 1208 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2001). . . . . . . . 706.02
Ex Parte Feliss et al 10/995,613 HORNER 112(1)/103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER MEYER, JACOB B
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
ex parte
2900 Designs
Ex parte FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. 90/007,640 D498,187 S SONG 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL EXAMINER ARONOVICH, ADIR
"[T]he teachings of prior art designs may be combined only when the designs are 'so related that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those features to the other.'" In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed Cir. 1996) (citing In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450 (CCPA 1956).
Borden, In re, 90 F.3d 1570, 39 USPQ2d1524 (Fed. Cir. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1504.03
Glavas, In re, 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 50 (CCPA 1956) . . . . . . .. . . . . . .1504.02, 1504.03
