REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Adkesson et al 10/839,188 PRATS GRIMES GREEN 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER KEYS, ROSALYND ANN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Muhs et al 10/824,291 COLAIANNI GARRIS HANLON 103(a) ORNL-UTB-LUEDEKA, NEELY & GRAHAM EXAMINER MOWLA, GOLAM
"[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Segner et al 10/632,145 GRIMES ADAMS GREEN 102(b)/103(a) POPOVICH, WILES & O'CONNELL, PA EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte MacNeil et al 11/797,365 6,550,486 COLAIANNI KIMLIN TIMM 103(a)VERMETTE & CO. EXAMINER STINSON, FRANKIE L
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Pearson et al 10/080,479 LORIN CRAWFORD FISCHETTI 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J
A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) involves two analytical steps. FN6 First, the Board must interpret the claim language, where necessary. Because the PTO is entitled to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, our review of the Board's claim construction is limited to determining whether it was reasonable. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed.Cir.1997). Secondly, the Board must compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference." Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181
Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . 2123, 2131.05
Crish, In re, 393 F.3d 1253, 73 USPQ2d1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.03, 2112
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Dlugos 11/182,070 STAICOVICI KERINS SILVERBERG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER LACYK, JOHN P
3754 Ex Parte Lassota 10/819,828 LEE TORCZON LANE 103(a) JAMES W. POTTHAST LAW OFFICES OF POTTHAST & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER CARTAGENA, MELVIN A
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1755 ICE BAN AMERICA, INC. & EARTH FRIENDLY CHEMICALS, INC. Requesters v. Patent of SEARS ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS CO., LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,136 6,299,793 DELMENDO TORCZON LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) For Patent Owner: MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP For Third Party Requesters: JAMES J. KELLY OBLON SPIVAK MCCELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER GREEN, ANTHONY J
“In civil litigation, a challenger who attacks the validity of patent claims must overcome the presumption of validity [under 35 U.S.C. § 282] with clear and convincing evidence that the patent is invalid.” In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “If this statutory burden is not met, “‘[c]ourts do not find patents ‘valid,’ only that the patent challenger did not carry the ‘burden of establishing invalidity in the particular case before the court.’’” Id. (quoting Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1429 n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). By contrast, “[i]n PTO examinations and reexaminations, the standard of proof – a preponderance of the evidence – is substantially lower than in a civil case.” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377 (citation omitted). Also, “unlike in district courts, in reexamination proceedings ‘[c]laims are given ‘their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification . . . .’’” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377-78 (internal citations omitted). Thus, “[t]he two forums take different approaches in determining validity and on the same evidence could quite correctly come to different conclusions.” Ethicon, 849 F.2d at 1428. Moreover, the PTO was not a party to the patent infringement action and thus cannot be estopped by its holdings. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297-98 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 7 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . .1442.02, 2242,2286, 2642, 2686.04
Trans Texas Holdings Corp., In re, 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2286, 2686.04
AFFIRMED
1612 Ex Parte Buck et al 11/328,247 MILLS EXAMINER SUTTON, DARRYL C
3612 Ex Parte Compton et al 11/202,793 BAHR EXAMINER BLACK, MELISSA ANN
1633 Ex Parte Cosenza 10/735,203 WALSH EXAMINER WEHBE, ANNE MARIE SABRINA
1628 Ex Parte Ebens et al 11/141,344 MILLS EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
1782 Ex Parte Elder et al 10/931,021 LANE EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A
1785 Ex Parte Hansson et al 10/440,317 TIERNEY EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L
3686 Ex Parte Hartlaub 10/002,669 FETTING EXAMINER I NAJARIAN, LENA
2456 Ex Parte Huynh et al 10/611,698 DANG EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
2123 Ex Parte Kalley 09/983,597 BARRY EXAMINER PROCTOR, JASON SCOTT
1627 Ex Parte Levy et al 11/529,199 GREEN EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN
2193 Ex Parte MacInnis et al 10/786,195 J. THOMAS EXAMINER MALZAHN, DAVID H
1618 Ex Parte Pandey et al 11/431,275 GREEN EXAMINER JONES, DAMERON LEVEST
3731 Ex Parte Simonson 10/899,707 McCARTHY EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANH TUAN TUONG
1656 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/360,284 WALSH EXAMINER DESAI, ANAND U
REHEARING DENIED
1729 Ex Parte Fujikawa et al 11/437,328 FRANKLIN EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG
2174 Ex Parte Hackbarth et al 09/886,876 BLANKENSHIP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F
1742 Ex Parte Klotz 10/403,545 FRANKLIN EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D
3621 Ex Parte Marcon 10/266,660 LORIN EXAMINER FISCHER, ANDREW J
1649 Ex Parte Schenk 10/777,792 WALSH EXAMINER KOLKER, DANIEL E
3732 Ex Parte Shluzas et al 10/926,579 PATE III EXAMINER MAI, HAO D
1746 Ex Parte Sjoberg et al 11/129,497 KIMLIN EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L
1781 Ex Parte Zeller 10/919,472 KRATZ EXAMINER HEGGESTAD, HELEN F
