custom search
REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Zhou 11/478,095 JENKS 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) ALAWADI, SARAH
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Padmanabhan et al 10/932,662 COLAIANNI 103 HONEYWELL/STW KINGAN, TIMOTHY G
1778 Ex Parte Kung et al 12038879 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. DRODGE, JOSEPH W
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Petronelli 11/182,895 RUGGIERO 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 AT&T Legal Department - JW D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Novak et al 11/196,607 SCHEINER 103 COLEMAN SUDOL SAPONE, P.C. SEVERSON, RYAN J
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2763 Ex parte VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. 90/010,173 6,002,854 08/815,399 COCKS 102 HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP WOOD, WILLIAM H original BRODA, SAMUEL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Domingues 11/614,215 COLAIANNI 102/103 103 General Mills BADR, HAMID R
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Willats et al 11/491,836 BAUMEISTER 103 102/103 PAMELA A. KACHUR FRISTOE JR, JOHN K
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3763 NEXUS MEDICAL LLC Requester v. Patent of VENETEC INTERNATIONAL, INC. (a subsidiary of C.R. BARD, INC.) Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,271 6,447,485 09/797,341 ROBERTSON 112(1)/102/103 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original MENDEZ, MANUEL A
However, consistent with the ‘390 Decision, we do not impart any specific structure from Figures 10A-12 as being required for the claimed channel or portion of the medical line to be “irregularly shaped.” See Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., 635 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2011) (citing Lampi Corp. v. Am. Power Prods., 228 F.3d 1365, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (concluding that the embodiment drawings did not compel a conclusion that the written description is so narrowly tailored to be limited to the embodiments depicted in the drawings).
Lampi Corp. v. American Power Products Inc., 228 F.3d 1365, 56 USPQ2d 1445 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Zhamu et al 11/879,680 COLAIANNI 103/obviousness-type double patenting Bor Z. Jang LEE, REBECCA Y
1772 Ex Parte Butler et al 11/515,679 COLAIANNI 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC DANG, THUAN D
1775 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/442,688 COLAIANNI 102/103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE YOO, REGINA M
1785 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/613,495 PAK 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HESS, BRUCE H
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Feeney et al 11/473,617 HUME 102/103 MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC PHAN, TUANKHANH D
The Federal Circuit has outlined how the prima facie case burden for anticipation is met, and its purpose. Specifically, “the prima facie case is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production.” Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This burden is met by “adequately explain[ing] the shortcomings it perceives so that the applicant is properly notified and able to respond.” Id, at 1370. It is only “when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection” that the prima facie burden has not been met and the rejection violates the minimal requirements of 35 U.S.C. §132. Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2163.04
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Swart et al 09/973,081 NEW 103 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD SALTARELLI, DOMINIC D
2421 Ex Parte Boykin et al 09/907,471 DILLON 102/103 W. Edward Johansen MONTOYA, OSCHTA I
2455 Ex Parte Jablow 09/835,376 HUME 103 CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC LAZARO, DAVID R
When it is necessary to select elements of various teachings in order to form the claimed invention, we ascertain whether there is any suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make the selection made by applicant. Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Kovales et al 09/782,772 KUMAR 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy PHAN, JOSEPH T
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Martin et al 11/416,668 TURNER 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. JABR, FADEY S
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Steinke et al 11/122,263 HORNER 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP SHAY, DAVID M
