REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Kuo et al 12060356 - (D) SHAW 103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP KINSEY, BRANDON MICHAEL
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2412 Ex Parte LAULAINEN et al 12254361 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON Winston Products LLC PHUNKULH, BOB A
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Breeden et al 12644484 - (D) ASTORINO 102/103 Cooper Legal Group LLC MERCADO, LOUIS A
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Wilkins 11734325 - (D) GREENHUT 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP PAGE, EVAN RANDALL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1624 Ex Parte Xiong et al 12444098 - (D) POLLOCK 112(1)/102/103/improper Markush group 112(1) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. WILSON, JAMES O
The Federal Circuit provides a two-prong analysis to determine whether a new chemical compound is prima facie obvious over particular prior art. The fact finder first determines whether a chemist of ordinary skill would have selected the asserted prior art compounds as lead compounds, or starting points, for further development efforts. Otsuka Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Sandoz Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Court defines a lead compound as "a compound in the prior art that would be most promising to modify in order to improve upon its ... activity and obtain a compound with better activity," Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty. Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir 2007), or "a natural choice for further development efforts." Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 999, 1008 (Fed. Cir 2009). The second step involves determining "whether the prior art would have supplied one of ordinary skill in the art with a reason or motivation to modify a lead compound to make the claimed compound with a reasonable expectation of success." Otsuka, 678 F.3d at 1292 (citing Takeda, 492 F.3d at 1357)
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte MacKinnon et al 12683120 - (D) DERRICK 103 Brooks Kushman P.C. GM Global Technologies Operations Inc. CULLEN, SEAN P
1783 Ex Parte Butterworth 12056695 - (D) Per Curiam 112(2) 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP JOHNSON, NANCY ROSENBERG
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte BAE et al 12017403 - (D) WIEKER 102/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC KEATON, SHERROD L
2183 Ex Parte Cavin 11964604 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 Mnemoglyphics, LLC c/o CPA Global VICARY, KEITH E
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Zhou et al 12176221 - (D) NEW 102 Intellectual Property Investment Law Group / SISA BROWN, RUEBEN M
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Bruecken 11987745 - (D) FETTING 103 LEE & HAYES, PLLC SHEIKH, ASFAND M
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Jager 11792450 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY RAYMOND, KEITH MICHAEL
3753 Ex Parte Cheney et al 12685823 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy CAHILL, JESSICA MARIE
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 CHIMEI INNOLUX DISPLAY CORPORATION, Requester, v. MONDIS TECHNOLOGY LTD., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7475180 et al 10/160,022 95000480 - (D) SIU 102/103 DECHERT LLP For THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: COOLEY LLP ATTN: PATENT GROUP LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original PHAN, RAYMOND NGAN
