Source: https://www.ptab.us/2010/10/
Timestamp: 2020-01-28 11:33:15
Document Index: 630714732

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1003', '§ 1002', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41']

Posted by James Long at 9:16 AM No comments :
Ex Parte Malaviya et al 10/195,341 GRIMES 112(1)/112(2) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER BARNHART, LORA ELIZABETH
Ex Parte Boisselle et al 10/669,745 NAGUMO 103(a) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER LAZORCIK, JASON L
Ex Parte Sosalla et al 10/738,269 GARRIS 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
TARA POHLKOTTE EXAMINER FRITCHMAN, REBECCA M
Ex Parte Srinivasan et al 10/314,680 HAIRSTON 103(a) Wilson Ham & Holman EXAMINER CHOU, ALAN S
Ex Parte Ueki 10/714,864 HAHN 103(a) LOUIS WOO EXAMINER HALEY, JOSEPH R
The scope of claimed limitations is determined by giving the terms in claims their ordinary and accustomed meaning while interpreting the claims as broadly as is reasonable and consistent with the specification. See In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Wachtmann 10/670,673 KRIVAK 103(a) Sunnstein Kahn Murphy & Timbers, L.L.P. EXAMINER PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D
Ex Parte Coleman 10/969,414 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) David V. Radack Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC EXAMINER HOOK, JAMES F
Ex Parte Molaire 10/888,484 SMITH 103(a) MARK G. BOCCHETTI EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER GILLESPIE, BENJAMIN
Ex Parte Keller et al 10/469,711 LEE 102(b)/103(a) PRICE HENEVELD COOPER DEWITT & LITTON, LLP EXAMINER LE, MARK T
FARMABIOS, S.P.A. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of HOVIONE LIMITED Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,087 6,528,666 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR APPELLANT: EDWARD A. MEILMAN DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO, LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JAMES V. COSTIGAN HEDMAN & COSTIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER DAVIS, BRIAN J
Ex Parte Brown 10/286,233 EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B
Ex Parte Hamper et al 11/411,706 EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C
Ex Parte Langer et al 10/974,501 EXAMINER LEWIS, TISHA D
Ex Parte Malessa 10/557,562 EXAMINER SAMALA, JAGADISHWAR RAO
Ex Parte Prasad et al 10/707,671 EXAMINER MONIKANG, GEORGE C
Ex Parte TRAUSCH 11/277,411 EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V
Ex Parte Wheeler et al 11/216,397 EXAMINER GEHMAN, BRYON P
Ex Parte Whitson et al 11/228,129 EXAMINER MEYERS, MATTHEW S
Ex Parte Kim 11/033,707 GARRIS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER RIGGLEMAN, JASON PAUL
Ex Parte Konishi et al 10/854,238 GARRIS 103(a) HAUPTMAN KANESAKA & BERNER EXAMINER BAND, MICHAEL A
Ex Parte Irby et al 10/404,468 HAIRSTON 103(a) MARY M. LEE, P.C. EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D
Ex Parte Apps et al 11/475,315 BAHR 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V
Ex Parte Gunder 11/648,463 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER ROSE, ROBERT A
Ex Parte Fowler et al 09/935,884 FISCHETTI 103(a) OGILVY RENAULT LLP EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D
Appellants argue that “the Examiner has been engaged in piecemeal examination of the Application” (Appeal Br. 27). This argument relates to a petitionable matter and not to an appealable matter, because it relates to the manner in which examination has been conducted. See In re Schneider, 481 F.2d 1350, 1356-57 (CCPA 1973) and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967). See also the MPEP § 1003 (“All unusual questions of practice may be referred to the Technology Center Directors”) and MPEP §§ 1002.02(c)(3) and 1201.
Ex Parte Hasse et al 10/653,836 SONG 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3736
Ex parte ARTEMIS MEDICAL, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,995 6,699,205 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: THOMPSON HINE, L.L.P. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOUGLAS R. HANSCOM JONES, TULLAR & COOPER, P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER SZMAL, BRIAN SCOTT
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2811
Ex parte SEMICONDCUTOR ENERGY LABORATORY CO., LTD., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/007,872 6,424,008 TURNER 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C. EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER MUNSON, GENE M
Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly crossed through citations of a properly submitted Information Disclosure Statement (Br. 28-29). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s decision to cross out specific citations was not related to the Rules, but instead is concerned with the subsequent publication (id.).
We do not find this line of argument, however, to raise any issue that can be decided on appeal. The actions of the Examiner in such a matter are not within our purview. In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 232-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The Board has no jurisdiction for matters within the discretion of the examiner and not tantamount to a rejection of claims).
Watkinson, In re, 900 F.2d 230, 14 USPQ2d 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . .1201, 1412.01, 1457
Ex Parte Black 10/761,088 EXAMINER GILLIS, BRIAN J
Ex Parte Cherkas et al 09/900,485 EXAMINER CHENCINSKI, SIEGFRIED E
Ex Parte Cooper 11/901,091 EXAMINER LAIOS, MARIA J
Ex Parte Gabriel et al 10/627,002 EXAMINER NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A
Ex Parte Kim et al 10/727,714 EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D
Ex Parte Ling et al 10/802,199 EXAMINER HASSAN, AURANGZEB
Ex Parte Needham et al 09/878,023 EXAMINER COULTER, KENNETH R
Ex Parte Silverstein 10/698,926 EXAMINER VIEAUX, GARY C
Ex Parte Travelute et al 10/813,893 EXAMINER VO, HAI
Ex Parte Weigert et al 11/012,982 EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
Ex Parte Doran et al 10/746,754 HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) R. Alan Burnett Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman LLP EXAMINER YU, JAE UN
Ex Parte Baig et al 11/094,006BAHR 102(e) BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A. EXAMINER MANCHO, RONNIE M
Ex Parte Dupree 11/105,106 FETTING 103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP / ARBITRON INC. EXAMINER BOYCE, ANDRE D
Ex Parte Wei 10/928,474 GRIMES 112(1)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT WAI-KIT CHAN LLC EXAMINER SNYDER, STUART
Ex Parte Grissom et al 11/293,002 EXAMINER TRIEU, THAI BA
Ex Parte Siewert et al 11/753,817 BAHR 103(a) CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN
Ex Parte Tran 11/064,262 OWENS 112(1)/103(a) TRAN & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER KHAN, AMINA S
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REMANDED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3731
NUVASIVE, INC. Requester, Appellant v. Patent of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,448 6,969,390 SONG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) Patent Owner: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP Third Party Requester: FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN
Ex Parte Back et al 10/485,158 EXAMINER UNDERWOOD, DONALD W
Ex Parte Bayley et al 11/175,731 EXAMINER ILAN, RUTH
Ex Parte Casati et al 10/406,770 EXAMINER AHN, SANGWOO
Ex Parte Chevallier et al 11/784,421 EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M
Ex Parte Huang et al 10/836,911 EXAMINER PURDY, KYLE A
Ex Parte Korovin et al 10/605,447 EXAMINER ELEY, TIMOTHY V
Posted by James Long at 9:11 AM No comments :
Ex Parte Cao 10/420,643 PRATS 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS
As our reviewing court recently stated, “it is not enough to simply show that the references disclose the claim limitations; in addition, ‘it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements as the new invention does.’” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 3257312 at *4 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007)).
Ex Parte Ilda et al 11/210,862 RUGGIERO 102(e)/103(a) OBLON SPIVAK MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT LLP EXAMINER SPINKS, ANTOINETTE T
Ex Parte Bergman et al 10/978,792 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2651
Ex parte MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. 90/008,302 6,995,940 LEE 102(e) FLIESLER MEYER LLP EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER SNIEZEK, ANDREW L
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2733
Ex parte QPSX DEVELOPMENTS 5 PTY. LTD. 90/008,233 5,689,499 LEE 102(b) Scott A. McKeown OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C. Third Party Requester: Christopher L. McKee, Esq. BANNER & WITCOFF LTD. EXAMINER DEB, ANJAN K original EXAMINER MARCELO, MELVIN C
Ex Parte Gilbert 11/208,904 EXAMINER MESFIN, YEMANE
Ex Parte Habermas 10/740,871 EXAMINER LEWIS, ALICIA M
Ex Parte Nguyen et al 11/199,523 EXAMINER KNOLL, CLIFFORD H
Ex Parte Choo et al 11/514,850 EXAMINER WESSENDORF, TERESA D
Ex Parte Gore 11/254,273 GARRIS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WALKE, AMANDA C
Ex Parte Groh et al 11/130,764 TIMM 103(a) MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC EXAMINER YANG, JIE
Ex Parte Beesley et al 10/767,454 HOMERE 102(b) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q
Ex Parte Odorzynski 10/334,931 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TARA POHLKOTTE EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M
Ex Parte Greif et al 10/362,038 ADAMS 103(a) BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO
Ex Parte Bourilkov et al 10/382,106 RIGGIERO 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON (BO) EXAMINER KAPLAN, HAL IRA
Ex Parte Mannella 10/797,884 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER BARRETT, SUZANNE LALE DINO
Ex Parte Vogan 11/238,870 O’NEILL 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER BOSWELL, CHRISTOPHER J
Ex parte ARTEMIS MEDICAL, INC., Appellant 90/009,167 6,730,042 DELMENDO 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: THOMPSON HINE, L.L.P. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOUGLAS R. HANSCOM JONES, TULLAR & COOPER, P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER SZMAL, BRIAN SCOTT
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2182
Ex parte FLEETWOOD GROUP, INC. 90/008,539 Re. 35,449 EASTHOM 103(a) Frederick S. Burkhart Van Dyke Gardner Linn & Burkhart Third-Party Requester Wesley W. Whitmeyer, Jr. St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens, LLC EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER ELAMIN, ABDELMONIEM I
Ex Parte Dufresne et al 10/993,149 EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A
Ex Parte Ebel 10/461,701 EXAMINER KWON, BRIAN YONG S
Ex Parte GOELET et al 09/258,132 EXAMINER MYERS, CARLA J
Ex Parte Jahn et al 10/209,351 EXAMINER HANDAL, KAITY V
Ex Parte Jud et al 10/250,963 EXAMINER SALVATORE, LYNDA
Ex Parte Matus 11/164,050 EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H
Ex Parte Tseng et al 10/868,947 EXAMINER JUEDES, AMY E
Ex Parte Landingham 10/260,121 KIMLIN 103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NAT'L SECURITY, LLC EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL
Ex Parte Takeuchi 10/559,870 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER BENSON, WALTER
Ex Parte LeDoux et al 10/908,488 MacDONALD 103(a) SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS EXAMINER GLASS, ERICK DAVID
Ex Parte Nada 10/977,627 HORNER 251 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE, GERTRUDE
The Federal Circuit has described application of the recapture rule as “a three-step process”:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; (2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and (3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
No. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Pannu v. Storz Instruments, Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . 1412.02
It is clear that in determining whether “surrender” of subject matter has occurred, the proper inquiry is whether an objective observer viewing the prosecution history would conclude that the purpose of the patentee’s amendment or argument was to overcome prior art and secure the patent. This is because the recapture rule is aimed at ensuring that the public can rely on a patentee’s admission during prosecution of an original patent. … Thus, if the objective public observer can discern a surrender of subject matter during the prosecution of an original patent in order to overcome prior art and obtain the patent, then the recapture rule should prevent the reissuing of that patent to claim the surrendered subject matter.
Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 465 F.3d 1312, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
A surrender can occur by argument as well as by amendment. Hester [Indus., Inc. v. Stein, Inc.], 142 F.3d [1472,] 1480-84 [(Fed. Cir. 1998)] (noting the statement in Clement that “‘[t]o determine whether an applicant surrendered particular subject matter, we look to the prosecution history for arguments and changes to the claims made in an effort to overcome a prior art rejection’ ” (quoting [In re] Clement, 131 F.3d [1464,] 1469 [(Fed. Cir. 1997)]) (emphasis added in Hester, 142 F.3d at 1480)). We stated in Hester that, like prosecution history estoppel, “unmistakable assertions made to the Patent Office in support of patentability” “can give rise to a surrender for purposes of the recapture rule.” Id. at 1482.
Medtronic, Inc. v. Guidant Corp., 465 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641(Fed. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . .1412.02
Clement, In re, 131 F.3d 1464,45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . 1412.02
Ex Parte Pagliari et al 10/215,877 FETTING 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER LONG, FONYA M
Ex Parte Lengeling 10/334,252 LUCAS 103(a) APPLE INC./BSTZBLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F
Ex Parte Stolowitz et al 10/885,960 FETTING 103(a) ZILKA-KOTAB, PC EXAMINER CRAIG, DWIN M
Ex Parte Khayrallah et al 10/427,872 KRIVAK 103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER
Ex Parte Laskin et al 101709,360 FETTING 103(a) PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP EXAMINER KANG, IRENE S
Ex Parte Brandt et al EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L
Ex Parte Gray et al EXAMINER MICHALSKI, SEAN M
Ex Parte Kropaczek et al EXAMINER SAXENA, AKASH
Ex Parte Letant et al EXAMINER KIM, KIHO
Ex Parte Raivisto et al EXAMINER HUYNH, BA
Ex Parte Sugahara EXAMINER LEE, Y YOUNG
Ex Parte Hardwick et al EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H
Ex Parte Richert et al EXAMINER CHEN, KEATH T
Ex Parte Davis et al EXAMINER DARNO, PATRICK A
Posted by James Long at 9:42 AM No comments :
Ex Parte Li et al 10/930,393 BAUMEISTER 103(a) LEFFERT JAY & POLGLAZE , P.A. EXAMINER WRIGHT, ANDREW D
Ex Parte Onoda et al 10/936,592 O’NEILL 102(e) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER WONG, JEFFREY KEITH
Ex Parte Emami et al 10/331,696 HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) MOTOROLA, INC. EXAMINER PUENTE, EVA YI ZHENG
Ex Parte Ashley EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T
Ex Parte Bahnsen et al EXAMINER O HERN, BRENT T
Ex Parte Cheng EXAMINER STERRETT, JEFFREY L
Ex Parte Constantz et al EXAMINER KOSLOW, CAROL M
Ex Parte Hayes et al EXAMINER LY, NGHI H
Ex Parte Pirro et al EXAMINER MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE