REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Nahas 11/249,814 SMITH 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER MERKLING, MATTHEW J
1761 Ex Parte Shendy et al 11/099,075 SMITH 103(a) CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A
1764 Ex Parte Liaw et al 11/905,940 SMITH 103(a) Joe McKinney Muncy EXAMINER
HUHN, RICHARD A
1786 Ex Parte Zafiroglu et al 11/364,912 FRANKLIN 103(a) INVISTA NORTH AMERICA S.A.R.L. EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Fontoura et al 10/152,251 DROESCH 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER AVELLINO, JOSEPH E
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Baur et al 11/194,333 McCOLLUM 103(a) Henkel Corporation EXAMINER
GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Paulson et al 11/051,125 SMITH 103(a) Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C. EXAMINER MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL
1763 Ex Parte Roby 10/533,041 FRANKLIN 103(a) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L
1783 Ex Parte Kia et al 10/639,306 SMITH 103(a) Harness Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. EXAMINER SAMPLE, DAVID R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/787,479 DIXON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER
HILLERY, NATHAN
REHEARING
DENIED-IN-PART, GRANTED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1753 Ex Parte 6033542 et al 90/007,824 11/430,299 08/574,693 Ex parte Kobelco Research Institute, Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant ROBERTSON 102/251 FOR PATENT OWNER: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Gregory S. Rosenblatt Wiggin and Dana, LLP EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN original EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
Thus, because In re Tanaka holds that the addition of dependent claims as a hedge against possible invalidity is within a reasonable interpretation of the reissue statute, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 251. Id., at 1251-1252.
DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1762 Ex Parte 6709694 et al 95/000,390 09/890,690 SIRONA DENTAL SYSTEMS, INC. Requester v. 3M ESPE AG Patent Owner 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY DELMENDO 103(a) PATENT OWNER: PAMELA L. STEWARD, ESQ. 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY DORTHY P. WHELAN, ESQ. FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C., P.A. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JOHN D. CARPENTER, ESQ. CHRISTIE PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER MICHENER, JENNIFER KOLB
Sirona’s reliance on cases such as Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) is misplaced. Those cases involved simple mechanical inventions in which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the element in dispute (e.g., the gas spring designed to stably retain a structure in the vertical position as in ICON Health) would serve the same or similar function in either the invention or the prior art.
