custom search
FEDERAL CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 IN RE: JOSEPH GIUFFRIDA 2012-1692 11/432,583 PER CURIAM 102/103 103 Great Lakes Neuro Technologies Inc. Deputy Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor Inc. unpublished but incorporated by reference in 13/153,063 SOREY, ROBERT A
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 3749 CALICO BRAND, INC. AND HONSON MARKETING GROUP, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERITEK IMPORTS, INC., Defendant, AND ACME INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant. 2008-1324, -1341; 6,318,992 09/531,083 6,814,569 10/005,230 REYNA JMOL/lost profits reasonable royalty Trojan Law Offices Reed Smith, LLP COCKS, JOSIAH C
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 IN RE DORON ADLER, OFRA ZINATY, DAPHNA LEVY AND ARKADY GLUKHOVSKY 2012-1610 10/097,096 WALLACH 103 Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP United States
Patent and Trademark Office KISH, JAMES M
When the Board relies upon a new ground of rejection not relied upon by the examiner, the applicant is entitled to reopen prosecution or to request a rehearing. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). This court has stated that “[t]he thrust of the Board’s rejection changes when . . . it finds facts not found by the examiner regarding the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, and these facts are the principal evidence upon which the Board’s rejection was based.” In re Leithem, 661 F.3d 1316, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “‘[T]he ultimate criterion of whether a rejection is considered ‘new’ in a decision by the [B]oard is whether [applicants] have had fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the rejection.’” Id. (quoting In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302–03 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (modifications in original)).
HARMON 18: 8-10
DONNER 2: 218
