kao, kollman, cree

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Preisler et al 13762956 - (D) DENNETT 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DANIELS, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2482 Ex Parte AUGST 12725153 - (D) CRAIG 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Wepfer et al 13272524 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC LIN, KO-WEI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Leininger et al 12304535 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) PALENIK, JEFFREY T

1617 Ex Parte Woeller et al 13499861 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 41.50 103 Abel Law Group, LLP ZHANG, YANZHI

“An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut that case.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011). When unexpected results are proffered by Appellants, Appellants must “provide [] an adequate basis to support the conclusion that other embodiments falling within the claim will behave in the same manner” in order to “establish that the evidence is commensurate with [the] scope of the claims.” Id. at 1068. One data point is insufficient to “to ascertain a trend in the exemplified data which would allow [one having ordinary skill in the art] to reasonably extend the probative value thereof.” In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (Fed. Cir. 1979).

Kao, In re, 639 F.3d 1057, 98 USPQ2d 1799 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2111.05 , 2112.01 , 2153.02

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(d) 

1621 Ex Parte Huang et al 13989016 - (D) ADAMS 103 Parker Highlander PLLC MATOS NEGRON, TAINA DEL MAR

1653 Ex Parte Wang et al 13320585 - (D) FREDMAN 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP MARTIN, PAUL C

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Noar 12865765 - (D) DENNETT 103 Acuity Law Group, P.C. PENNY, TABATHA L

1756 Ex Parte Berke et al 11734118 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 BOWDITCH & DEWEY, LLP DINH, BACH T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Kuether et al 11931450 - (D) FISHMAN 103 AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP] ALAM, MUSHFIKH I

2492 Ex Parte Zhang 14494844 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 HAMILTON DESANCTIS & CHA LLP KORSAK, OLEG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Kristensson et al 13514440 - (D) CAPP 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LOUIS, LATOYA M

We think the Examiner has articulated adequate non-hindsight reasoning to sustain the rejection. Id. See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

thorpe, marosi

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Formenti et al 13580437 - (D) SMITH 103 Silvia Salvadori, P.C. SOROUSH, LAYLA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2145 Ex Parte Moscatelli et al 11948806 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP / AI ORR, HENRY W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte FUKASAWA 13167247 - (D) NAGUMO concurring HOUSEL 103 Browdy and Neimark, PLLC SALERNO, SARAH KATE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kleinwaechter et al 13000241 - (D) SMITH 112(2)/102 112(2)/102/103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. FISHER, MELISSA L

We are not persuaded. It is well settled that “[t]he patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Moreover, “[wjhere a product-by-process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (affirming rejections under Sections 102 or 103).

Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 706.02(m) , 2113

1627 Ex Parte Katsikis et al 13418045 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 Saul Ewing LLP (Philadelphia) WANG, SHENGJUN

1675 Ex Parte McInnes et al 13851661 - (D) LaVIER 103/double patenting DORITY & MANNING, P.A. REYNOLDS, FRED H

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Boerrigter 11134507 - (D) GUPTA 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1764 Ex Parte KUEHN et al 13524059 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY c/o The Dow Chemical Company BROOKS, KREGGT

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Duarte et al 12200782 - (D) CHEN 103 Paradice and Li LLP/Qualcomm WONG, WILLIAM

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Kuether et al 11931450 - (D) FISHMAN 103 AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP] ALAM, MUSHFIKH I

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Schoen 13043424 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 101 Facebook/Fenwick SCHMUCKER, MICHAEL W

3643 Ex Parte Van Gemert et al 13123942 - (D) MELVIN 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON VALENTI, ANDREA M

general foods, vogel, eli lilly

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Wilkinson 11041758 - (D) BAHR 103 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS CONLEY, FREDRICK C

AFFIRMED
1786 Ex Parte Quinn et al 13970238 - (D) McGEE 103 Dodd Call Black, PLLC VINEIS, FRANK J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2459 Ex Parte Turk 11897182 - (D) HAGY 103 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Dhayagude et al 11942239 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI double patenting 103 Fish & Richardson PC / Atmel ABDIN, SHAHEDA A

We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection does not clearly explain or compare the instant claims with claim 1 of the ‘704 Patent. The key question in any obviousness double patenting analysis is: “Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent asserted as supporting double patenting?” General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970)). Answering this question requires that the decision-maker first construe the claims in the patent and the claims under review and determine the differences between them. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2001). After determining the differences, the decision-maker must determine whether the differences in subject matter render the claims patentably distinct.Id. Where the subject matter of a pending claim under review is an obvious variation of the subject matter of a patented claim, the pending claim is not patentably distinct. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) 804 , 804.01 , 804.02 , 1504.06

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 804 , 2144.08 , 2165.01

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte McGuire 13096712 - (D) BARRY 103 THE GRIFFITH LAW FIRM, A P.C. WU, JERRY

“[T]hat two inventions were designed to resolve different problems ... is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

caveney

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Kosuru 13460072 - (D) HOWARD 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise ALLEN, BRITTANY N

See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence)

Caveney, In re, 761 F.2d 671, 226 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   2133.03(b)

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte SADAYUKI et al 13297551 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 McDermott Will and Emery LLP PELTON, NATHANIEL R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Aadal et al 13387094 - (D) FREDMAN 103 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. EPPS -SMITH, JANET L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Baron et al 13436099 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 Bejin Bieneman PLC Ford Global Technologies, LLC CASILLAS, ROLAND J

2177 Ex Parte Pokala et al 11775617 - (D) BUI 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (Ca. Inc.) FABER, DAVID

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Daly 12491876 - (D) BUI 103 Seed IP Law Group LLP/EchoStar (290110) CORBO, NICHOLAS T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte MIYAZAKI 12755946 - (D) FENICK 103 41.50 103 Paratus Law Group, PLLC TAYLOR JR, DUANE N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Kneisl 11308515 - (D) HOELTER 103 SCHLUMBERGER ROSHARON CAMPUS PARSLEY, DAVID J

3654 Ex Parte Furukawa et al 12449447 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 GATES CORPORATION TRUONG, MINH D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Bouvier et al 13639434 - (D) CALVE 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL

zletz

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Mattisson et al 13503168 - (D) BAIN 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC TSVEY, GENNADIY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Huggett 10569969 - (D) WIEKER 103 MOORE & VAN AT .TEN PLLC BRADEN, SHAWN M

[T]he words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We agree with Appellant that an appropriate definition of “residual,” in the context of the claim language and in light of Appellant’s Specification, is “remaining.”

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 715 ,   2111 ,   2111.01 ,   2111.03 ,    2138 ,   2171 ,   2173.05(a) ,   2181 ,   2286 ,   2686.04

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1661 Ex Parte Colova 12461805 - (D) FREDMAN 112(2)/103 Smith & Hopen (private clients) PARA, ANNETTE H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte IMAI 12331944 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. BANTAMOI, ANTHONY

2471 Ex Parte QUIGLEY 13735930 - (D) SHIANG 112(2)/102 double patenting STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CHOU, ALBERT T

2497 Ex Parte Stewart et al 14295636 - (D) HUME 103/double patenting FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ZARRINEH, SHAHRIAR

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Skaaksrud et al 14445676 - (D) BEAMER 103 WITHERS & KEYS, LLC MCCORMACK, THOMAS S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte HEGNA et al 12806098 - (D) BROWNE 103 101 OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC HULKA, JAMES R

3691 Ex Parte Jenkins et al 13740368 - (D) McSHANE 102 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER HAMILTON, LALITA M

3695 Ex Parte Brittingham et al 12861658 - (D) SHAH 112(1)/112(2)/103 101 Docket Clerk-GOLD SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY

altiris

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Casteel et al 12277369 - (D) McMANUS 103 AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. MCDERMOTT, HELEN M

In determining whether a claimed method must be performed in a particular sequence, “[f]irst, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, they must be performed in the order written.”  Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 65 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2111.01

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Brown 13472246 - (D) LORIN 112(1)/103 41.50 101 Charles P. Brown RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte MIZUTA 13425780 - (D) HOMERE 102/double patenting 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. FLANDERS, ANDREW C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Gallyas et al 13002074 - (D) MILLS 103 Jason D. Voight CRUZ, KATHRIEN ANN

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte HOCHGRAF et al 12187069 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103/double patenting MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION WANG, EUGENIA

1792 Ex Parte Propst 12995311 - (D) SNAY 103 POLSINELLI PLLC THAKUR, VIREN A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Cok et al 13074425 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP ZUBERI, MOHAMMED H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Danelski 13673376 - (D) STEPINA 103 Interfacial Solutions IP, LLC ANDERSON, DON M

kerkhoven

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Walton et al 12271836 - (D) DEJMEK 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED BOLOURCHI, NADER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte LI et al 13470432 - (D) JESCHKE 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC LAFLAME JR, MICHAEL A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1647 Ex Parte Park et al 13756063 - (D) GRIMES 112(1) 112(1) Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing BUNNER, BRIDGET E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Cahn 13219239 - (D) KENNEDY 112(1)/112(2)/112(4)/103 103 MARSH, FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP KASTLER, SCOTT R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Sakai et al 11523803 - (D) FREDMAN 103 CLARK & ELBING LLP PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

“It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980).

Kerkhoven, In re, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) 2144.06

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Stopek et al 12486352 - (D) PESLAK 112(1) 102/103 Covidien LP OU, JING RUI

farrenkopf, orthopedic

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3675 Ex Parte Weinraub 12606416 - (D) BROWNE 103 LAW OFFICES OF LARRY K. ROBERTS, INC. FULTON, KRISTINA ROSE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Macinga et al 13377839 - (D) PRATS 112(2)/103 103 Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP BROWE, DAVID

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Masignani et al 13375759 - (D) FREDMAN 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP OGUNBIYI, OLUWATOSIN A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Kopchick et al 13609821 - (D) PRAISS 103 VIVACQUA LAW, PLLC HA, STEVEN S

See In re Farrenkopf 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“additional expense associated with the addition of inhibitors would not discourage one of ordinary skill in the art”); Orthopedic Equipment Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Farrenkopf, In re, 713 F.2d 714, 219 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2145

Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 716.04

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Bolz et al 12855602 - (D) FENICK 103 Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA TRAN, KIM THANH THI

2682 Ex Parte Subbian et al 12787524 - (D) FENICK 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH DORSEY, RENEE

affinity, alice

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Brown et al 13435503 - (D) GARRIS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY DULKO, MARTA S

1782 Ex Parte Brandenburger et al 12663930 - (D) INGLESE 103 OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP LAN, YAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Sundstrom 14026622 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/102 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC COUPE, ANITA YVONNE

3626 Ex Parte MCCOY 12256502 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 101 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 HUNTER, SEAN KRISTOPHER

Adding generic computer parts and functions to a container does not elevate the claims to eligibility. Rather, we find that the steps of the claims, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (“Limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render any claims any less abstract.”)

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) 2103 , 2106

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Tyrer 13387238 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 112(2) MAIER & MAIER, PLLC SZAFRAN, BRIEANNA TARAH LARELL

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Lenze et al 13156260 - (D) RANGE 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. LEE, REBECCA Y

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2878 Q.I. PRESS CONTROLS B.V., Requester, v. QUAD/TECH, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 6867423 et al 10/245,469 95000526 - (D) SIU 103 Foley & Lardner LLP Quad/Graphics NGUYEN, MINH T original LEE, PATRICK J

veritas, Phillips

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Shih 12564814 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 SAP SE CHAUDHURI, ANITA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Deshpande et al 13084424 - (D) ENGLE 103 41.50 103 CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP PARK, SUNGHYOUN

 Appellants rely on the Specification describing “the claimed patterns as ‘vectors’ where a sequence of zeros and ones indicates whether a frame is dropped in that pattern.” Reply Br. 5. But such vectors “are all couched in terms of specific embodiments, not general requirements of the invention.” Veritas Techs. LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., 835 F.3d 1406, 1412 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[Although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Graumann et al 12284440 - (D) KIM 102 Jordan IP Law, LLC KUE, KAYING

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2135 Ex Parte Ware et al 12482626 - (D) ENGLE 103 103 RAMBUS / FENWICK SAIN, GAUTAM

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte BOLANDER et al 13652085 - (D) HILL 103 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY LE, HUYEN D

3754 Ex Parte Baranowski et al 13607581 - (D) WOODS 102 102/103 41.50 102/103 S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. DURAND, PAUL R

3774 Ex Parte Rojo 11256362 - (D) SCHOPFER 102/103 112(1)/112(2) VENABLE LLP PREBILIC, PAUL B

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1662 Ex Parte Malvar et al 12909466 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 DENTONS US LLP DEVEAU ROSEN, JASON

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte IRELAND et al 12774749 - (D) GUEST 103 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 LEE, DOUGLAS

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2126 Ex Parte Johal et al 13485448 - (D) KUMAR 103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY JUNG, JAY YOUNG

2141 Ex Parte Boudreau et al 12172037 - (D) KUMAR 103 Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P.L. TAKELE, MESEKER

2165 Ex Parte Hadar et al 13107233 - (D) MORGAN 103 Baker Botts LLP/CA Technologies PEACH, POLINA G

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Zhang et al 13520303 - (D) KUMAR 112(2)/102/103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT LAMONT, BENJAMIN S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Reeser 11618253 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/103 REISING ETHINGTON P.C. General Motors Corporation MINCARELLI, JAN P

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Molnar et al 12873964 - (D) BROWNE 103 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A KOHARSKI, CHRISTOPHER

REEXAMINATION

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte ROBERT BOSCH LLC Ex Parte 6,968,375 B1 et al 09/658,209 90013273 - (D) HOFF double patenting Robert Bosch LLC NGUYEN, MINH DIEU T

oetiker

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Paavola et al 12602591 - (D) BENNETT 103 41.50 112(2) Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. GEE, ALEXANDER

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Kraft et al 11259733 - (D) HUGHES 103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation WYCHE, MYRON

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Sanders 12790521 - (D) KORNICZKY Dissenting STEPHENS 103 Maschoff Brennan JUNGE, KRISTINA N S

For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s argument that Kimmet does not teach an “edge lit panel” is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant’s additional arguments relating to claim 1 and the remaining claims are similarly not persuasive of error. Accordingly, I would affirm the Examiner’s rejections.

The word “persuasive” is not meant to suggest Appellant bears the ultimate burden of proving patentability. “After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant in response [to a prima facie case of unpatentability], patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (emphasis added); see also id. at 1445—46 (“The Board explained why it was unpersuaded by [Appellant’s] arguments on appeal. We discern no irregularity in the procedure.”). My conclusion “was reached after careful consideration of the appealed claims, the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner and the arguments advanced by the appellant and the examiner.” Id. at 1445 (internal quotation omitted).

Oetiker, In re, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)  707.07(f) ,   716.01(d) ,   1504.01(a) ,   2107.02 ,   2142 ,   2145 ,   2164.07

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Tamura 11926251 - (D) REIMERS 103 41.50 101 BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC GUPTA, VANI

3781 Ex Parte Aso 13876676 - (D) WARNER 103 OLIFF PLC MATHEW, FENN C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Bayer et al 13856677 - (D) POLLOCK 102/double patenting 102/103 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO SHEN, BIN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Schwartz et al 12104031 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 102/103 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD RYAN, PATRICK A

2457 Ex Parte Cilia et al 12371189 - (D) HOFF 103 103 Winstead PC (IF) NANO, SARGON N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Etram et al 12802868 - (D) KOHUT 103 103 41.50 103 DOCKET CLERK SIDDIQUI, KASHIF

2682 Ex Parte Fitzgerald et al 12546660 - (D) BENNETT 103 103 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP NGUYEN, NAM V

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lander 12882192 - (D) GUIJT 102 102 VENJURIS, P.C. NGUYEN, SON T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Cucchiara et al 12337268 - (D) REIMERS 102/103 103 MOORE & VAN AT .TEN PLLC CHAMBERS, MICHAEL S

3731 Ex Parte Gregorich et al 13243379 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 112(2)/102/103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC BUI, VY Q

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1625 Ex Parte Park et al 13349141 - (D) NEW 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. SOLOLA, TAOFIQ A

1645 Ex Parte Shimada et al 12516790 - (D) NEW 103 Cheng Law Group, PLLC LYONS, MARY M
AFFIRMED 2128 Ex Parte Hoeh et al 13505588 - (D) KRIVAK 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES P.C. MAPAR, BIJAN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte MATHUR et al 12950176 - (D) HAMANN 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. LOUIE, JUE WANG

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Sie et al 13087225 - (D) KENNY 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP TELAN, MICHAEL R

2437 Ex Parte Chen et al 13222033 - (D) STEPHENS 103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC DOAN, HUAN V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte Dror et al 12631662 - (D) McMILLIN 101/102/103 Baker & Hostetler LLP (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) THOMPSON, JAMES A

2627 Ex Parte Shepelev et al 13722225 - (D) DEJMEK 103 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - Synaptics AZONGHA, SARDIS F

2643 Ex Parte Levien et al 13317987 - (D) POTHIER 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

2648 Ex Parte Jaskolski et al 11857792 - (D) KENNY 103 COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC HUANG, WEN WU

2651 Ex Parte Pawlewski 13877261 - (D) BEAMER 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC MOHAMMED, ASSAD

2677 Ex Parte Kallio et al 11647425 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation BATAILLE, FRANTZ

2696 Ex Parte Miyazaki et al 13088544 - (D) KENNY 103 ALG INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC LANDIS, LISAS

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Beaver et al 13110717 - (D) McSHANE 102 SAP SE EVANS, KIMBERLY L

3629 Ex Parte VOGEL et al 13108255 - (D) McSHANE 102 SAP SE EVANS, KIMBERLY L

3654 Ex Parte BLANCHARD 13274882 - (D) KINDER 112(2) 103 IPSILON USA TRUONG, MINH D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Thatcher et al 11548287 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Schramm-Personal-ACT HAIL, JOSEPH J

3744 Ex Parte Obert et al 13613499 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 The Linde Group COX, ALEXIS K

3753 Ex Parte Trentadue 12985668 - (D) SONG 103 WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER JELLETT, MATTHEW WILLIAM

REHEARING

DENIED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Rajamani et al 12576140 - (R) HOFF 103 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE PARK, GRACE A