Search for: "Ex Parte Prior"
Results 21 - 40
of 4,822
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2013, 8:17 am
from Ex parte Ex parte MARCUS VAYHINGERThe examiner did not respond to arguments made about claim 9, and the rejection was reversed as to claim 9:Representative claim 9 recites a limitation directed to the calibratingstep being a two-point interpolation. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 7:23 am
Shared Marketing and Ace filed a request for ex parte reexamination with the Patent Office arguing that certain prior art rendered each of the patents invalid. 92% of ex parte reexamination requests are granted, and this case was no exception. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 7:54 am
The appellant prevailed in Ex parte Karau with PTAB noting:See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (the examiner hasthe initial duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and may not, becauseof doubts that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfoundedassumptions, or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factualbasis) As to 112 P 6:In otherwords, in order to meet a “means plus function” limitation, the prior art… [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 7:50 am
” Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative). [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 11:14 am
I have to admit some prior confusion as to the rules governing appeals from adverse BPAI decisions during an ex parte reexamination. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 1:10 am
” By definition a Post Grant Review (PGR) can only be conducted prior to an IPR. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 1:51 pm
The PTAB basically adopted the arguments of the Appellant in the case Ex parte Florian : We reverse the above § 103 rejection,for substantially the reasons provided by Appellants in their Brief and Reply Brief.We add the following.It is the Examiner’s position that the primary reference of Hayanodiscloses the claimed subject matter, except for the recitation of“wherein the piezoelectric layers, the electrode layers, and the absorption layertogether form a sintered… [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 6:11 am
from Ex parte NOGUCHIA number of elements and steps are discussed in the twenty three paragraphs cited by the Examiner. [read post]
18 Dec 2012, 8:03 am
Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010). [read post]
5 Jun 2008, 3:00 pm
Prior public use or sale are not admissible as evidence in an ex parte reexamination proceeding (although affidavits explaining the prior art publications is admissible). [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 8:02 am
From Ex parte Lee Thus, the proposedmodification constitutes a “mere application of a known technique” (i.e. [read post]
10 Jan 2014, 8:10 am
From with Ex parte PantaloneAppellants contend “that instead of considering the claim as a whole,the Examiner has dissected the [disputed] feature of claim 1 into discrete elements and evaluated the elements in isolation, which is expressly forbidden by the above-cited section of the M.P.E.P. [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 6:18 am
Ex parte Linder, No. 2008-003899 (BPAI June 25, 2009). [read post]
25 Apr 2023, 4:15 am
Because a later filed ex parte reexamination is often viewed as a “second bite at the apple,” there were questions as to how the U.S. [read post]
25 Apr 2023, 4:15 am
Because a later filed ex parte reexamination is often viewed as a “second bite at the apple,” there were questions as to how the U.S. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 8:03 am
The Board decision in Ex parte TAMMAJI was written by FRED E. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 6:53 am
From Ex parte STOSCHEKOf apparatus claimsWhile featuresof an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claimsdirected to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms ofstructure rather than function. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 7:17 am
From within Ex parte Tarde concerning app. 10/294,474:PPG Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 1254 (CAFC 1998) is cited as to "consisting essentially of." [read post]
20 Jun 2007, 3:04 am
Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 10:55 am
from Ex parte YAMAZAKIOf a rejection for lack of utility:While the Examiner emphasizes that the Specification provides noevidence of an operative embodiment therein “which can operate in theentire claimed range of ‘0.3 microns or less’” (Ans. 16-17), that is not arequirement for utility. [read post]
