REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 PERFORMANCE POLYMER SOLUTIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent v. UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON RESEARCH INSTITUTE Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant Ex Parte 7338684 et al 11/057,462 95001935 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 102/103 41.77 102/103 Endurance Law Group, PLC TORRES VELAZQUEZ, NORCA LIZ original CHEN, BRET P
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 ARTERIS, INC., Requester, v. SONICS, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 6961834 et al 95000669 - (D) SIU 112(1)/103 112(2)/112(4)/102/103 41.77 112(1)/103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original NGUYEN, THAN VINH
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 JARROW FORMULAS, INC. Respondent and Requester v. SOFT GEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8124072 et al 10/674,268 95002396 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. Third Party Requester: McCARTER & ENGLISH LLP HUANG, EVELYN MEI original KOSSON, ROSANNE
1657 JARROW FORMULAS, INC. Respondent and Requester v. SOFT GEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8105583 et al 10/953,328 95002405 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. Third Party Requester: McCARTER & ENGLISH LLP HUANG, EVELYN MEI original KOSSON, ROSANNE
To decide whether a composition would have been obvious in light of the prior art, it must be determined whether, at the time of invention, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to attempt to make the . . . [composition], . . . and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
2007).
