SEARCH

PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Thursday, November 22, 2012

landgraf, lintner, muchmore, serrano, spitzglass

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Olson et al 12119885 - (D) BONILLA 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

3774 Ex Parte Rhodes et al 11425921 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP GANESAN, SUBA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Yoshioka et al 11680118 - (D) DELMENDO 103 ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP FORD, NATHAN K

1745 Ex Parte Maddaleni et al 10589007 - (D) SCHAFER 103 BREINER & BREINER, L.L.C. BELL, WILLIAM P

A claim is unpatentable if it encompasses an unpatentable embodiment. See In re Landgraf, 436 F.2d 1046, 1050 (CCPA1971); In re Muchmore, 433 F.2d 824, 826 (CCPA 1970) (Claims that read on patentable as well as unpatentable subject matter are unpatentable.)


1793 Ex Parte Chatel et al 11313483 - (D) OBERMANN 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD, TRAN, LIEN THUY

In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972) (“The fact that appellant uses sugar for a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that its use in a prior art composition would be prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the references.”).

Lintner, In re, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) 2142, 2143.01, 2144, 2144.08, 2145

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Dahan et al 10322893 - (D) BUSCH 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED PYZOCHA, MICHAEL J

2451 Ex Parte Sinclair et al 10616515 - (D) NAPPI 103 AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler MADAMBA, GLENFORD J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Kawai et al 11183041 - (D) FITZPATRICK 103 HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC MICHENER, JOSHUA J

3643 Ex Parte Osborn et al 11084785 - (D) JENKS 103 CARGILL, INCORPORATED PARSLEY, DAVID J

See Serrano v. Telular Corp., 111 F.3d 1578, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(“The inventors’ definition and explanation of the meaning of the word … as evidenced by the specification, controls the interpretation of that claim term).

3677 Ex Parte Biro 10975333 - (D) PLENZLER 103 COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP BATSON, VICTOR D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Pacey et al 10657650 - (D) GREENHUT 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP HOEL, MATTHEW D

3734 Ex Parte Jones et al 11821340 - (D) WALSH 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON HOLLM, JONATHAN A

3775 Ex Parte Cragg 10430751 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP NELSON, CHRISTINE L

see also, e.g., In re Spitzglass, 96 F.2d 1002, 1005 (CCPA 1938) (construing functional limitations in such a manner prior to the enactment of what became 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph).

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Ainsworth et al 11453881 - (D) WINSOR 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP KUNDU, SUJOY K