REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Skraly 10/661,939 FREDMAN 112(1) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, IQBAL HOSSAIN
“It is not necessary that every permutation within a generally operable invention be effective in order for an inventor to obtain a generic claim, provided that the effect is sufficiently demonstrated to characterize a generic invention.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Kreyenschmidt et al 10/512,081 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M
see also, In re Vaidyanathan, 381 Fed.Appx. 985, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (nonprecedential) (“KSR did not free the PTO’s examination process from explaining its reasoning. In making an obviousness rejection, the examiner should not rely on conclusory statements that a particular feature of the invention would have been obvious or was well known. Instead, the examiner should elaborate, discussing the evidence or reasoning that leads the examiner to such a conclusion.”).
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Genske et al 09/847,811 MacDONALD 102(e)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M
2467 Ex Parte Davis et al 11/962,558 MacDONALD 112(1)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/101 Driggs, Hogg, Daugherty & Del Zoppo Co., L.P.A. EXAMINER SCHEIBEL, ROBERT C
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2863 ABBOTT DIABETES CARE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of DEXCOM, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,039 6,931,327 ROBERTSON 102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner: MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Third-Party Requester: JACKSON & CO., LLP EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original EXAMINER NGHIEM, MICHAEL P
In Belkin International, Inc. et al v. Optimumpath, LLC, an expanded panel recently considered whether the Board has jurisdiction to decide SNQ matters in the context of inter partes reexamination. ... In essence, Belkin held that an SNQ attaches to a particular rejection. Accordingly, the determination that an SNQ exists with respect to a particular rejection does not necessarily permit a third party requestor to pursue proposed rejections not found to raise an SNQ outside of the attached rejection, regardless of whether or not the additional rejections are directed to the same claims. Appeal 2011-003697 (BPAI March 29, 2011) (Reexamination Control 95/001,089, Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,035,281 B1, Panel expanded for consideration of substantial new question of patentability jurisdictional issue).
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Gaudiana et al 11/302,634 OWENS obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER TAI, XIUYU
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Kwon et al 11/163,313 NAPPI 102(e) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER MANDALA, VICTOR A
2893 Ex Parte Bhattacharya et al 10/195,527 NAPPI 102(e) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Bogl 10/517,711 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER MCDONALD, SHANTESE L
REHEARING
GRANTED
2816 Ex Parte Kajita 11/237,909 NAPPI 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER ALMO, KHAREEM E
NEW
REVERSED
1717 Ex Parte Skszek et al 11/140,752 OWENS 103(a)/112(1) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PADGETT, MARIANNE L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3751 Ex Parte Harris 11/000,121 TIERNEY 103(a)/112(1) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D
AFFIRMED
1781 Ex Parte Chou et al 11/375,675 FREDMAN 103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A
3782 Ex Parte Schneider 10/154,221 GARRIS 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP EXAMINER PASCUA, JES F
