REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Fink et al 10/501,072 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I
1717 Ex Parte Theodorus van Esbroeck et al 09/865,180 PAK 103(a) JOHN S. PRATT, ESQ KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE
1726 Ex Parte Yandrasits et al 11/170,456 WARREN 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER ANTHONY, JULIAN
1728 Ex Parte Kelly et al 11/253,069 COLAIANNI 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER DAM, DUSTIN Q
1742 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/687,471 TIMM 103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER HUSON, MONICA ANNE
1772 Ex Parte Farshid et al 10/702,751 COLAIANNI 103(a) CHEVRON CORPORATION EXAMINER DANG, THUAN D
1776 Ex Parte Glad et al 11/570,530 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) GE HEALTHCARE BIO-SCIENCES CORP. EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Perthou 09/752,015 OWENS 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BARRETT, SUZANNE LALE DINO
Thus, the Examiner has not established that even if the references were combined as proposed by the Examiner, the Appellants’ claimed invention would result. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
3674 Ex Parte Ueda 11/074,695 McCARTHY 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER PICKARD, ALISON K
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Whited 11/358,176 PATE III 102(b) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER CHOI, STEPHEN
3727 Ex Parte Koenig 10/692,703 PATE III 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T
3746 Ex Parte Oo et al 10/927,556 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER HAMO, PATRICK
3761 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 11/315,278 COCKS 103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA
3781 Ex Parte Smith et al 11/101,932 ADAMS 103(a)/obvious-type double patenting BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J
We agree with Appellants that the two-way test is the proper standard for making a determination of obviousness-type double-patenting on this record (see App. Br. 18-22; see also Ex parte Smith et al., (BPAI Nov. 17, 2008).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Guenther et al 11/732,617 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Gage 10/072,531 DROESCH 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) GOTTLIEB RACKMAN & REISMAN PC EXAMINER BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H
2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,639 HAHN 102(e)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C
2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,531 HAHN 103(A)/obviousness-type double patenting SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Shum et al 10/286,396 PATE III 103(a) 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER YOO, JASSON H
3765 Ex Parte Vattes et al 11/143,538 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Kolter et al 10/096,835 SCHEINER 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER TRAN, SUSAN T
1634 Ex Parte Lee 11/957,334 GRIMES 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER MYERS, CARLA J
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte SAMOILOV 11/752,477 SMITH 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN
1729 Ex Parte Fereshtehkhou et al 11/091,223 COLAIANNI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA
1741 Ex Parte Fazlani 11/268,286 COLAIANNI 103(a) Charles Muserlain EXAMINER SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA
1762 Ex Parte Drzal et al 11/435,471 GAUDETTE concurring NAGUMO 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) Ian C. McLeod McLeod & Moyne, P.C. EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS
1763 Ex Parte Kinney et al 11/281,006 MILLS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I
1772 Ex Parte Merrill et al 11/515,539 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER DANG, THUAN D
1784 Ex Parte Arsenault et al 11/768,955 GUEST 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global LEE
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte McCarthy et al 11/148,967 KRIVAK concurring MacDONALD 103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler EXAMINER GUTIERREZ, ANDRES E
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Pihlajamaki et al 10/899,322 HUGHES 103(a) AlbertDhand LLP EXAMINER ANWARI, MACEEH
2467 Ex Parte Rabie et al 10/868,568 SMITH 112(1)/103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER FOUD, HICHAM B
2854 Ex Parte Roland 10/576,031 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E
A flexible teachings, suggestions, or motivations (TSM) test remains the primary guarantor against a non-statutory hindsight analysis. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A]s the Supreme Court suggests, a flexible approach to the TSM test prevents hindsight and focuses on evidence before the time of invention.”).
The TSM test, flexibly applied, merely assures that the obviousness test proceeds on the basis of evidence-teachings, suggestions (a tellingly broad term), or motivations (an equally broad term)-that arise before the time of invention as the statute requires. As KSR requires, those teachings, suggestions, or motivations need not always be written references but may be found within the knowledge and creativity of ordinarily skilled artisans.”
Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2895 Ex Parte Metz et al 11/037,644 HOFF 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER GARCIA, JOANNIE A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Spelman 09/814,210 KAUFFMAN 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER DAVIS, CASSANDRA HOPE
3632 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/941,231 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) Michael B. McNeil Liell & McNeil Attorneys PC EXAMINER LE, TAN
3651 Ex Parte Guldenfels et al 10/567,634 LEE 103(a) HODGSON RUSS LLP EXAMINER DEUBLE, MARK A
3657 Ex Parte Scheckelhoff et al 11/347,389 BROWN 103(a) 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Hugick et al 11/139,830 PATE III 112(2)/103(a) PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP EXAMINER ADDISU, SARA
A trademark simply does not function in this manner. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (BPAI 1982).
...
Appellants cite PolyVision Corp. v. Smart Technologies Inc., 501 F.Supp. 2d 1042 (W.D. Mich. 2007). App. Br. 10. In that case, the District Court declined to follow Simpson, admitting that it acted to preserve the validity of patent claims at issue, in spite of the Court’s inclination to conclude that the reference to the Windows® trademark rendered the claims indefinite. Id. at 1065. The Court stated it was following “the Federal Circuit’s admonition to construe claims so as to sustain their validity, if possible.” Id. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, while the patent owner argued that the trademark was used as an adjective rather than as a noun, the court expressly rejected this argument, as do we.
3766 Ex Parte MacAdam et al 11/120,633 PATE III 103(a) Leason Ellis LLP EXAMINER GEDEON, BRIAN T
REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Recker et al 10/888,542 WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J
REMANDED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Moehlenbruck et al 10/543,931 SCHEINER obviousness-type double patenting/102(e)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER MACFARLANE, STACEY NEE
