REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Hsu 12/156,687 NAGUMO 103(a) PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Shepard 11/541,354 DESHPANDE 102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP EXAMINER LE, DIEU MINH T
2165 Ex Parte Armanino et al 11/130,773 STEPHENS 101/103(a) AT & T Legal Department - BK EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Neo et al 11/164,204 SAADAT 103(a) NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION EXAMINER MALDONADO, JULIO J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 11/302,162 COCKS 112(2)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA
A patent examiner evaluating the patentability of a claimed invention must take care when assessing the teachings of the prior art to refrain from impermissible reliance on hindsight using the inventor’s own disclosure in concluding obviousness. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The record must show that a skilled artisan confronted by the problems faced by the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention would have selected the various elements of the prior art and combined them in the manner claimed. Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Mellott et al 11/514,320 GARRIS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER VETERE, ROBERT A
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Nelson 11/337,098 BAHR 103(a) Jonathan A. Bay EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3671 Ex Parte 6,336,311 et al 95/000,245 THE TORO COMPANY Requester v. TEXTRON INNOVATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant SONG 102/103(a)/112(1) Patent Owner: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. Third Party Requestor James W. Miller EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original EXAMINER PEZZUTO, ROBERT ERIC
AFFIRMED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Aitken et al 11/270,818 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER TABONE JR, JOHN J
2186 Ex Parte Arndt et al 11/066,487 STEPHENS 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Novack et al 10/887,807 GONSALVES 101/103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - GB EXAMINER SHAN, APRIL YING
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Gotsick et al 11/592,680 KRIVAK 103(a) John L. Cordani Carmody & Torrance, LLP EXAMINER YAN, REN LUO
2858 Ex Parte Lubcke et al 10/694,349 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER KOVAL, MELISSA J
REHEARING
DENIED - VACATED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES Concurring BLANKENSHIP 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N
As explained by the Gechter court (supra), vacatur is appropriate when the decision under review “lacks adequate fact findings [and] meaningful review is not possible.” Gechter, 116 F.3d at 1457. The federal circuit courts of appeal vacate trial court decisions “[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291 (1982). See 9 Moore’s Federal Practice § 52.12[1] (3d ed., Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. 1997) (“When the trial court completely fails . . . to make findings on a material issue, the appellate court is entitled to vacate the judgment and remand the action to the district court . . . .” (footnotes omitted)).
