REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Bloom et al 10/987,346 DESHPANDE 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER REYES, MARIELA D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Lindsay et al 10/132,639 MacDONALD 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Liang 11/304,325 BAHR 103(a) WEI TE CHUNG FOXCONN INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER CHIN, PAUL T
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Stomp et al 10/677,441 PRATS obviousness-type double patenting MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER ZHENG, LI
In In re Fallaux, 564 F.3d 1313 (2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the Van Ornum rationale:
The harassment justification for obviousness-type double patenting is particularly pertinent here because the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents are not commonly owned. If the Fallaux application and the Vogels patents were commonly owned, the terminal disclaimer filed in this case would have been effective to overcome the double patenting rejection. We note that this defect was of the applicant’s creation as through assignment it allowed ownership of the applications to be divided among different entities. Id. at 1319 (footnote omitted).
REHEARING
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Letant et al 11/140,391 MILLS 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER LAM, ANN Y
