The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
|
|
- Homer Stokes
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte FABIO GIANNETTI Appeal Technology Center 2100 Decided: May 22, 2007 Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. 134 from the Examiner s rejection of claims We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6(b).
2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant invented a method for generating data suitable for transmission to at least one data-receiving device. Specifically, the data are specified in first and second portions: the first portion substantially independent of any formatting, and the second portion containing formatting for the first portion specified in a platform-independent manner. The second portion is transformed to generate a platform-dependent portion containing formatting in a platform-dependent manner. Then, the first portion is combined with the platform-dependent portion to generate data suitable for transmission to at least one receiving device. Such a technique allows a variety of different formats to be applied to the data contained in the first portion for transmission to multiple diverse data-receiving devices. See generally Specification 2-3. Claims 1 and 18 are illustrative: 1. A method of generating data suitable for transmission to at least one data-receiving device, said method comprising the following steps: i. specifying said data in a first and a second portion, said first portion being substantially independent of any formatting, and said second portion containing formatting for said first portion specified in a platform independent manner; ii. transforming said second portion, using a first transform, to generate a platform dependent portion containing said formatting specified in a platform dependent manner; and iii. combining said first portion with said platform dependent portion using a second transform to generate said data suitable for transmission to said at least one data-receiving device. 18. A data structure accessible by a processing apparatus for processing and subsequent transmission to a data-receiving device, comprising in combination: 2
3 a first portion containing data that it [sic] is desired to send to said data-receiving devices, held in a platform independent form, and being substantially free of any formatting information; and a second portion specifying how the first portion should be displayed on said data-receiving device, said second portion containing formatting information for said first portion specified in a platform independent manner. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show unpatentability: Ritchie US 4,829,421 May 9, 1989 Hicks WO 00/23912 A1 Apr. 27, 2000 Marmor US 2002/ A1 Feb. 28, 2002 (filed Aug. 28, 2001) Hamalainen US 2003/ A1 Mar. 27, 2003 (filed Mar. 19, 2001) The Examiner s rejections are as follows: 1. Claims 1-6, 8, 12, 15-19, 21, 23, 26, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hicks. 2. Claims 7, 9-11, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Hicks in view of Hamalainen. 3. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Hicks in view of Ritchie. 4. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Hicks in view of Marmor. Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we refer to the Brief and the Answer for their respective details. In this decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by 3
4 Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R (c)(1)(vii). OPINION It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the disclosure of Hicks fully meets the invention set forth in claims 1-6, 8, 12, 15-19, 21, 23, 26, and We also conclude that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention set forth in claims 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 31, and 32. Accordingly, we affirm. In addition, we enter new grounds of rejection under 37 C.F.R (b) for claims 18-22, 24, and 25 as failing to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C The Anticipation Rejection We first consider the Examiner s rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 12, 15-19, 21, 23, 26, and under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hicks. Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to be fully met by the disclosure of Hicks (Answer 4-8). Appellant argues that 4
5 Hicks does not disclose the limitations of independent claim 1 which call for, in pertinent part, specifying data in (1) a first format-independent portion, and (2) a second platform-independent portion containing formatting information that is transformed to a platform-dependent portion. Appellant notes that Hicks teaches (1) creating and embedding formatting instructions in the document at the start of the process; (2) providing instructions in a printer-independent language; and (3) determining the appropriate printer to handle the document. Appellant, however, emphasizes that the printer-independent language file already contains the formatting information for the document (Br. 9). According to Appellant, the document in the printer-independent language and the appended job ticket comprise the entire file that is transmitted to the system server; therefore, formatting information must be in the document or else the information is non-existent (Br. 10). The Examiner argues that claim 1 is fully met by Hicks since, among other things, the claimed first portion corresponds to the electronic document in the printer-independent language file in Hicks, and the second portion as claimed corresponds to the job ticket that is appended to the printer-independent file. The Examiner emphasizes that the job ticket contains specific information concerning the desired output presentation including rendering characteristics. These rendering characteristics, according to the Examiner, constitute formatting for the first portion (i.e., the printer-independent language file). The Examiner notes that once the job ticket is appended to the electronic document, it is routed to a devicespecific assembler (i.e., a transform) that changes the data to a devicespecific form that is sent to the appropriate output device (Answer 13-15). 5
6 We will sustain the Examiner s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. We agree with the Examiner that the claimed first portion reasonably corresponds to the printer-independent printer language file in Hicks, and the claimed second portion reasonably corresponds to the job ticket whose rendering characteristics reasonably constitute formatting as claimed giving the term its broadest reasonable interpretation. 1 In affirming this factual finding, however, we note that Hicks suggests that the non-specific printer language file may have some formatting. Specifically, Hicks indicates that the job ticket is appended to the printer language file and contain[s] any other rendering characteristics which may not be supported by the printer independent language (Hicks 6:35-7:1; emphasis added). Since this passage states that the job ticket contains any other rendering characteristics, the passage suggests that the printerindependent language file could contain some rendering characteristics. Nevertheless, as the Examiner indicates on Page 14 of the Answer, claim 1 recites that the first portion is substantially independent of any formatting (emphasis added). Significantly, specifying that the first portion is substantially independent of any formatting hardly requires that the first portion be completely independent of any formatting. That is, the scope and breadth of the limitation simply does not preclude the printer-independent language file of Hicks, notwithstanding the presence of some rendering characteristics supported by the printer-independent language. 1 As the Examiner indicates, Hicks lists a number of exemplary rendering characteristics including color or monochrome output, duplex printing, number of copies, stapling, collating, binding, recipient and destination information, etc. (Hicks 2:10-12). 6
7 We also agree with the Examiner that the claimed second portion of the data is fully met by the job ticket in Hicks. The job ticket is appended to the printer-independent language file and specifies other rendering characteristics (i.e., formatting) as noted above. This second portion also specifies the formatting in a platform independent manner until it is converted into a specific form for the particular output device by the server, particularly the device specific assembler 22. That is, the server effectively transforms the second portion to generate a platform dependent portion containing formatting specified in a platform dependent manner as claimed. The server also effectively combines the first portion (printer-independent language file) with the platform-dependent portion (formatting) to generate output in a form tailored to the appropriate output device 16. Even if we assume that the printer-independent language file and the job ticket appended thereto in Hicks constitute a single file, the scope and breadth of claim 1 does not preclude such a file. Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, specifying data in two portions. Such a data specification is fully met by a single file with multiple portions (e.g., a printer-independent language portion and an appended portion containing formatting). Even if the first and second portions are in a single file, the respective first and second portions are not combined as claimed prior to further processing by the server since the data is not suitable for transmission to the particular output device. Upon further processing by the server, however, the claimed combination step is performed in generating output in a form tailored to the appropriate output device. 7
8 For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner s rejection of independent claim 1. 2 Since Appellant has not separately argued the patentability of claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12, and with particularity, these 2 Should additional prosecution follow this opinion, the Examiner should also consider the creation, display, and printing of standard HTML documents as fully meeting at least independent claims 1 and 18 given the broad scope of the claims. For example, suppose a user created the following simple HTML document in a text editor: <HTML> <B>THIS IS A DOCUMENT</B> </HTML> The first portion of the data corresponds to the text that is not part of an HTML tag (i.e., THIS IS A DOCUMENT ). This portion of the data is substantially independent of any formatting as claimed. The second portion of the data corresponds to the tags that inherently contain formatting for the first portion specified in a platform-independent manner (i.e., <B> and </B>). Specifically, the tags specify that the text within the tags will be bolded when rendered in a browser. Significantly, such formatting is platform-independent since the formatting will be rendered in many diverse browsers across multiple platforms. When the HTML document is rendered in a browser (e.g., a Windows-based browser such as MS Internet Explorer), the second portion (bold tags) are transformed to generate a platform-dependent formatting portion (bolded font) for display. If the user then prints this displayed bolded text from the browser, the browser would inherently combine the first portion (text) with the platformdependent portion (bold font) to generate data suitable for transmission to the printer (bolded text formatted for printing). 8
9 claims fall with claim 1. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 37 C.F.R (c)(1)(vii). Regarding claim 5, we agree with the Examiner that Hick s teaching of appending the job ticket to the printer-independent printer language file reasonably teaches that the job ticket and language file are at least initially held in separate files. Even if the first and second portions are ultimately transmitted to the server as a single file as Appellant argues, the scope of the claim simply does not preclude the job ticket being separate from the printer language file prior to appending the job ticket to the printer language file. The rejection of claim 5 is therefore sustained. Regarding claim 18, Appellant argues that Hicks does not disclose the limitations of the claim for reasons described in the foregoing (Br. 11). For the reasons previously discussed in connection with claim 1, however, Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner s prima facie case of anticipation based on Hicks. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner s rejection of claim 18 as well as claims 19 and 21 dependent thereon. Moreover, since the limitations recited in claim 23 are commensurate with claim 5, we will likewise sustain the Examiner s rejection of claim 23 for the reasons previously discussed with respect to claim 5. Regarding claims 26 and 28-30, Appellant similarly argues that Hicks does not disclose the limitations of the claims for reasons described in the foregoing (claims 26, 29, and 30) (Br. 12, 14) or for reasons described above (claim 28) (Br. 13). For the reasons previously discussed in connection with claim 1, however, Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner s prima facie case of anticipation. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner s rejection of claims 26 and
10 The Obviousness Rejections We next consider the Examiner s rejection of claims 7, 9-11, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Hicks in view of Hamalainen. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). Furthermore, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.... [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. KSR Int l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). If the Examiner s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Regarding claims 7 and 9-11, the Examiner s rejection essentially finds that Hicks teaches every claimed feature except that the device independent language is XML (claims 7 and 9) or the transforms written in XSL (claims 10 and 11). The Examiner, however, cites Hamalainen as teaching these features and concludes that it would have been obvious to one 10
11 of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device independent language and transforms of Hicks to include XML and XSL respectively to allow the invention to be used on any available device and transform data to data with specific formatting (Answer 8-9). Regarding claims 7, 9-11, and 27, Appellant essentially reiterates the previous arguments made in connection with independent claim 1 and also argues that Hamalainen fails to cure the previously-noted deficiencies of Hicks (Br ). Appellant adds that Hamalainen does not teach or suggest transforming a second portion containing formatting in a platform independent manner to generate a platform dependent portion as claimed (Br. 15). We will sustain the Examiner s rejection of claims 7, 9-11, and 27. In short, Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner s prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically, the Examiner has (1) pointed out the teachings of Hicks, (2) noted the perceived differences between Hicks and the claimed invention, and (3) reasonably indicated how and why Hicks would have been modified by the teachings of Hamalainen to arrive at the claimed invention. Once the Examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden then shifts to Appellant to present evidence or arguments that persuasively rebut the Examiner s prima facie case. Appellant s argument regarding Hamalainen is simply not germane to the reason the Examiner cited the reference. Hicks reasonably teaches transforming a second portion containing formatting in a platform independent manner to generate a platform dependent portion as claimed for the reasons previously discussed. Significantly, Appellant did not dispute 11
12 the Examiner s findings regarding Hamalainen s teachings regarding XML and XSL or the rationale for combining the references a position that we find reasonable. Since Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner s prima facie case of obviousness for claims 7, 9-11, and 27, the Examiner s rejection of those claims is therefore sustained. Moreover, since Appellant has not separately argued the patentability of claims 20, 22, 24, 25, 31, and 32, the Examiner s rejection of these claims is likewise sustained. 3 See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572, 2 USPQ2d at 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 37 C.F.R (c)(1)(vii). Likewise, we will sustain (1) the Examiner s obviousness rejection of claim 13 over the teachings of Hicks in view of Ritchie, and (2) the Examiner s obviousness rejection of claim 14 over the teachings of Hicks in view of Marmor. We find that (1) the Examiner has established at least a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims (Answer 10-11), and (2) Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner s prima facie case. The Examiner s rejections of claims 13 and 14 are therefore sustained. 3 We note in passing that no antecedent basis exists for the first transform and the second transform in claims 24 and 25 respectively. Because the parties did not raise this issue on appeal, it is not before us. In an ex parte appeal, "the [B]oard... is basically a board of review - we review... rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (BPAI 2001). Accordingly, we leave resolution of this issue to the Examiner and the Appellant. 12
13 New Grounds of Rejection Under 37 C.F.R (b) Under 37 C.F.R (b), we enter new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims 18-22, 24, and U.S.C. 101 provides: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 18-22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Independent claim 18 merely recites a data structure with two portions: (1) a platform-independent portion, and (2) a portion with formatting information. The claimed data structure, however, merely constitutes descriptive material per se and is therefore not statutory. A data structure is defined as [a] physical or logical relationship among data elements, designed to support specific data manipulation functions. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1362, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Significantly, the claimed data structure does not define any structural and functional relationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention that permit the data structure s functionality to be realized. See Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 1300 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 142, 151 (Nov. 22, 2005) ( Interim Guidelines ). Although the data structure of claim 18 is accessible by a processing apparatus for processing and subsequent transmission to a data-receiving device, such a functional recitation hardly distinguishes the claimed data structure from mere descriptive material which would also be so accessible. 13
14 In short, the claim merely recites data per se nonstatutory descriptive material. See id. We reach this conclusion notwithstanding the data structure s containing a second portion that specifies how the first portion of the data should be displayed. Like the first portion of the data, the recited formatting information in the second portion is merely descriptive material that, without more, simply fails to define structural and functional relationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention to permit the data structure s functionality to be realized. Regarding claims 19-22, 24, and 25, the claims merely recite mark-up languages. But for the reasons discussed above, these claims fail to recite any structural and functional relationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention that permit the data structure s functionality to be realized. Accordingly, the claims merely recite non-statutory descriptive material. For at least these reasons, claims 18-22, 24, and 25 fail to recite statutory subject matter under DECISION We have sustained the Examiner s rejections with respect to all claims on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner s decision rejecting claims 1-32 is affirmed. Moreover, we have entered a new grounds of rejection under 4 Our conclusion does not apply, however, to claim 23 calling for arranging the first and second portions in separate files. Since claim 23 minimally recites a structural and functional relationship between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention, the claim meets the threshold for statutory subject matter under
15 37 C.F.R (b) for claims 18-22, 24, and 25 as failing to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R (b) (amended effective Sept. 13, 2004, by final rule notice 69 Fed. Reg (Aug. 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sept. 7, 2004)). 37 C.F.R (b) provides that [a] new ground of rejection... shall not be considered final for judicial review. 37 C.F.R (b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner.... (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under by the Board upon the same record
16 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R (a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED 37 C.F.R (b) rwk HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Intellectual Property Administration P.O. Box Fort Collins, CO
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationEx parte MICHAEL WAYNE SHORE
Case: 16-1461 Document: 1-4 Page: 7 Filed: 01/12/2016 (10 of 21) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL WAYNE SHORE Appeal 2012-008394 Technology
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte MITSUHIRO NADA
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte MITSUHIRO NADA Appeal 2010-011219 Technology Center 3600 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Vice Chief Administrative
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte GEORGE R. BORDEN IV
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte GEORGE R. BORDEN IV Technology Center 2100 Decided: January 7, 2010 Before JAMES T. MOORE and ALLEN
More informationAPPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/986,966 11/27/2007 Edward K.Y. Jung SE US 4625
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte ANDREA VENTURELLI Appeal 2010-007594 Technology Center 3700 Before ERIC GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Appeal Application 13/294,044 2 Technology Center 3600 DECISION ON APPEAL
Case: 17-2069 Document: 1-2 Page: 13 Filed: 05/23/2017 (14 of 24) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARIO VILLENA and JOSE VILLENA 1 2 Technology
More informationSubpart B Ex Parte Appeals. in both. Other parallel citations are discouraged.
PATENT RULES 41.30 41.10 Correspondence addresses. Except as the Board may otherwise direct, (a) Appeals. Correspondence in an application or a patent involved in an appeal (subparts B and C of this part)
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. REDFIN CORPORATION Petitioner
Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper No. 12 Date Entered: March 20, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD REDFIN CORPORATION Petitioner v. CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS,
More information[NOTE: The following annotated sections of the C.F.R. are from BNA s Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Regulations,
[NOTE: The following annotated sections of the C.F.R. are from BNA s Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Regulations, edited by James D. Crowne, and are current as of June 1, 2003.] APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Reexamination Nos. 90/003,346 and 90/003,873) IN RE BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 99-1463 (Reexamination Nos. 90/003,346 and 90/003,873) IN RE BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED Kenneth Solomon, Howell & Haferkamp, L.C., of St. Louis, Missouri,
More informationPaper 11 Tel: Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: August 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
More informationPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit DYNAMIC DRINKWARE, LLC, Appellant v. NATIONAL GRAPHICS, INC., Appellee 2015-1214 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Ex parte VIRUN, INC. Appellant
Case: 16-1280 Document: 1-2 Page: 5 Filed: 12/03/2015 (6 of 57) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VIRUN, INC. Appellant Patent 8,282,977 Technology
More informationPaper Entered: 15 August 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: 15 August 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DOMINION DEALER SOLUTIONS, LLC. Petitioner v. AUTOALERT,
More informationAPPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/045,902 01/16/2002 Shunpei Yamazaki
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Application of: Response to Office Action Nat G. Adkins JR. Group Art Unit: 3623 Serial No.: 12/648,897 Examiner: Gills, Kurtis Filed: December 29,
More informationOverview of the USPTO Appeal Process and Practice Tips
Overview of the USPTO Appeal Process and Practice Tips Scott Wolinsky April 12, 2017 2017 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP Decision Factors for Filing Appeal at USPTO - Advancement of Prosecution has
More informationEx p arte APPLE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant
Case: 16-1402 Document: 1-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/04/2016 (7 of 55) UNITED ST A TES PA TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex p arte APPLE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Appea12014-007899
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SPHERIX INCORPORATED, Appellant v. JOSEPH MATAL, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS & DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE: AT&T INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY II, L.P., Appellant 2016-1830 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal
More informationEffective Appellate Advocacy in Ex Parte Appeals Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 1
Effective Appellate Advocacy in Ex Parte Appeals Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 1 Chief Administrative Patent Judge Michael Fleming and Administrative Patent Judges Sally Lane, Linda
More informationInformation Disclosure to the USPTO: How Much Information is Required and What Constitutes a Reasonable Inquiry
Information Disclosure to the USPTO: How Much Information is Required and What Constitutes a Reasonable Inquiry W. Todd Baker Attorney at Law 703-412-6383 TBAKER@oblon.com 2 Topics of Discussion 2006 Proposed
More informationFiled on behalf of Petitioner Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC
Filed on behalf of Petitioner Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC By: Todd R. Walters, Esq. Roger H. Lee, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC 1737 King Street, Suite 500 Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2727
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 16-2287 Document: 46-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/08/2017 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SOUTHWIRE COMPANY, Appellant v. CERRO WIRE LLC, FKA CERRO WIRE, INC., Appellee 2016-2287 Appeal
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper 51 Date Entered: December 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Petitioner,
More informationPaper 25 Tel: Entered: June 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 25 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: June 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SURE-FIRE ELECTRICAL CORPORATION, 1 Petitioner, v. YONGJIANG
More informationRevision of Patent Term Adjustment Provisions Relating to Information. AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 12/01/2011 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2011-30933, and on FDsys.gov [3510-16-P] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE JOHN NICHOLAS GROSS Serial No. 10/770,767
Case: 14-1474 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 10/17/2014 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE JOHN NICHOLAS GROSS 2014-1474 Serial No. 10/770,767 Appeal from the United States Patent
More information72270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
72270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Parts 1 and 41 [No. PTO P 2009 0021]
More informationPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationCase: Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/
Case: 18-1586 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/2018 2018-1586 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE INTELLIGENT MEDICAL OBJECTS, INC., Appellant. Appeal from the United States Patent
More informationPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationPaper No Entered: May 3, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 16 571-272-7822 Entered: May 3, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SANDOZ INC., Petitioner, v. ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY LTD.,
More informationRK Mailed: May 24, 2013
This Decision is a Precedent of the TTAB UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 RK Mailed: May 24, 2013 Cancellation No. 92055645
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit REALTIME DATA, LLC, DBA IXO, Appellant v. ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT
More informationPaper Entered: July 31, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 18 571-272-7822 Entered: July 31, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC, Petitioner, v. MAGNA ELECTRONICS,
More informationPaper 16 Tel: Entered: April 23, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 16 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 23, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Petitioner v. PHISON ELECTRONICS
More informationPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 12 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1283 (Serial No. 29/058,031) IN RE TSUTOMU HARUNA and SADAO KITA Andrew J. Patch, Young & Thompson, of Arlington, Virginia, argued
More informationPaper Entered: April 21, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: April 21, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APOTEX INC. Petitioner v. WYETH LLC Patent Owner Case IPR2014-00115
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) The Swanson Group, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. N C-9509 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) The Swanson Group, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 54863 ) Under Contract No. N68711-91-C-9509 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
2:15-cv-11394-MFL-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/16 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 191 TIFFANY ALLEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11394 Hon. Matthew
More informationCase: Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 09/28/ (Application No. 13/294,044) IN RE: MARIO VILLENA, JOSE VILLENA,
Case: 17-2069 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 09/28/2018 2017-2069 (Application No. 13/294,044) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE: MARIO VILLENA, JOSE VILLENA, Appellants. Appeal
More informationPaper Entered: May 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 28 571-272-7822 Entered: May 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION Petitioner, v. PERSONAL AUDIO,
More informationDesignated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO Before SCHOELEN, Judge. MEMORANDUM DECISION
Designated for electronic publication only UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS NO. 13-328 RONALD FRADKIN, APPELLANT, V. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. Before
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1220 NUFARM AMERICA S, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. Joel R. Junker, Joel R. Junker & Associates, of Seattle,
More informationShould Entrepreneurs Care About Patent Reform Concerning SM Eligibility?
Should Entrepreneurs Care About Patent Reform Concerning SM Eligibility? Miriam Bitton IP & Entrepreneurship Symposium, UC Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Mar. 7-8, 2008 OUTLINE Subject Matter Eligibility
More informationPatent Prosecution Update
Patent Prosecution Update August 2011 Business Methods in 2011: Business as Usual? by Erika Harmon Arner One year ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that business methods cannot be categorically
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Carl J. Greco, P.C. : a/k/a Greco Law Associates, P.C., : Petitioner : : v. : No. 304 C.D. 2017 : Argued: December 7, 2017 Department of Labor and Industry, :
More informationPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) Giuliani Associates, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Giuliani Associates, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 51672 ) Under Contract No. NAS5-96139 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Herman
More informationU.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. No PLASMART, INC., Appellant
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 2011-1570 PLASMART, INC., Appellant v. DAVID J. KAPPOS, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Appellee and JAR CHEN WANG, Appellee and HONG
More information-KSR- REVISITING THE OBVIOUSNESS PUZZLE
-KSR- REVISITING THE OBVIOUSNESS PUZZLE TSM Obvious Synergy Common Sense PHILIPPE SIGNORE Obviousness is an old puzzle 1791 unimportant and obvious inventions should not be patentable Thomas Jefferson
More informationPaper Entered: February 27, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13 571-272-7822 Entered: February 27, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. Petitioner v. PROGRESSIVE
More informationPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov
More informationPaper Entered: September 13, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 81 571-272-7822 Entered: September 13, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAP AMERICA, INC. Petitioner, v. VERSATA DEVELOPMENT
More informationDavid Hatchigian v. International Brotherhood of E
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-24-2013 David Hatchigian v. International Brotherhood of E Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit KELLY L. STEPHENSON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. 2012-3074 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 59 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:392
Case: 1:13-cv-03094 Document #: 59 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:392 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ELENA FRIDMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 13 C 03094
More information119 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JOSEPH M. GREY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
119 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOSEPH M. GREY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4789-00. Filed September 16, 2002. This is an action
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE: DDMB, INC., Appellant 2016-2037 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In re 3P Learning Pty Ltd. Serial No
THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Mailed: September 16, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re 3P Learning Pty Ltd. Serial No. 85641327 Mark Andrew
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Serial No. 10/798,505) IN RE KEISUKE AOYAMA, KOJIRO TOYOSHIMA, AND YOSHITAKA EZAKI 2010-1552 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
More informationCase 1:15-cv RMB-AMD Document 31 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 164
Case 1:15-cv-00753-RMB-AMD Document 31 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 164 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE [Dkt. No. 26] NORMARILY CRUZ, on behalf
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 13-2084, 13-2164, 13-2297 & 13-2351 JOHN GRUBER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CREDITORS PROTECTION SERVICE, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv JDW-TGW
[PUBLISH] BARRY OPPENHEIM, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS lllllllllllllllllllllplaintiff - Appellee, versus I.C. SYSTEM, INC., llllllllllllllllllllldefendant - Appellant. FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 15-1908 MASSACHUSETTS DELIVERY ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. MAURA T. HEALEY, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth
More informationStarting An AIA Post-Grant Proceeding
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Starting An AIA Post-Grant Proceeding Law360, New
More informationPhilip Dix v. Total Petrochemicals USA Inc Pension Plan
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-30-2013 Philip Dix v. Total Petrochemicals USA Inc Pension Plan Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
More information, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellant, APPLE INC., Appellee.
Case: 15-1159 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 04/13/2015 2015-1159, 2015-1160 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, v. Appellant, APPLE INC., Appellee.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No
Case: 14-1628 Document: 003112320132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-1628 FREEDOM MEDICAL SUPPLY INC, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ICON HEALTH AND FITNESS, INC., Appellant v. STRAVA, INC., UA CONNECTED FITNESS, INC., Appellees 2016-1475 Appeal from the United States Patent and
More informationTHIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
THIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Mailed: 22 February 2007 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Royal BodyCare, Inc. Serial No. 78976265 Mark D. Perdue
More informationCase No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SECURE AXCESS, LLC,
Case: 16-1353 Document: 146 Page: 1 Filed: 04/20/2017 Case No. 16-1353 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SECURE AXCESS, LLC, v. Appellant, PNC BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, U.S. BANK
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Peter McLauchlan v. Case: CIR 12-60657 Document: 00512551524 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2014Doc. 502551524 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT PETER A. MCLAUCHLAN, United States
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Visa Inc. Petitioner. Leon Stambler Patent Owner
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Visa Inc. Petitioner v. Leon Stambler Patent Owner Patent No. 5,793,302 Filing Date: November 12, 1996 Issue Date: August
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 8:03-cv-01031-JVS-SGL Document 250 Filed 03/17/2009 Page 1 of 7 Present: The James V. Selna Honorable Karla J. Tunis Deputy Clerk Not Present Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys
More information153 FERC 61,248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
153 FERC 61,248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman; Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony Clark, Tilden Mining Company L.C. and Empire Iron
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 18, 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Cross-
More informationWTO ANALYTICAL INDEX SCM Agreement Article 3 (Jurisprudence)
1 ARTICLE 3... 2 1.1 Text of Article 3... 2 1.2 General... 2 1.3 "Except as provided in the Agreement on Agriculture"... 3 1.4 Article 3.1(a)... 3 1.4.1 General... 3 1.4.2 "contingent in law upon export
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 11, 2017 Decided July 25, 2017 No. 16-5255 ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES, DOING BUSINESS AS UNITED HOSPITAL, DOING BUSINESS AS UNITY
More informationARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 691 FINAL EXAMINATION. 24-Hour Take Home. Fall 2004 Model Answer
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 691 FINAL EXAMINATION 24-Hour Take Home Fall 2004 Model Answer Instructions RELEASABLE X EXAM NO. This examination consists
More informationA (800) (800)
No. 17-1229 In the Supreme Court of the United States Helsinn Healthcare S.A., Petitioner, v. Teva Pharmaceuticals usa, inc., et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit UNWIRED PLANET, LLC, Appellant v. GOOGLE INC., Appellee 2015-1812 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal
More informationARBITRATION RULES OF THE PDRCI (Effective as of 1 January 2015)
ARBITRATION RULES OF THE PDRCI TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I: Introductory Provisions Model Arbitration Clause: Article 1 - Scope of Application Article 2 - Notice and Calculation of Period of Time Article
More informationPaper 9 Tel: Entered: April 15, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 15, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ASKELADDEN LLC, Petitioner, v. isourceloans LLC, Patent
More informationF I L E D September 1, 2011
Case: 10-30837 Document: 00511590776 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D September 1, 2011
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 16-CV-1382 DECISION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN CHRISTINE MIKOLAJCZYK, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-CV-1382 UNIVERSAL FIDELITY, LP, Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER I. Facts and Procedural History
More informationFiled 9/19/17 Borrego Community Health Found. v. State Dept. of Health Care Services CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Filed 9/19/17 Borrego Community Health Found. v. State Dept. of Health Care Services CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationReich v. Chez Robert, Inc. et al.
1994 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-7-1994 Reich v. Chez Robert, Inc. et al. Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 93-5619 Follow this and additional
More informationSecond Circuit to Lenders: Get Your UCC Filings Right
February 5, 2015 Second Circuit to Lenders: Get Your UCC Filings Right By Geoffrey R. Peck and Jordan A. Wishnew 1 INTRODUCTION On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued
More informationBEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DECISION
BEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS In the Matter of ) ) HALLIBURTON ENERGY ) SERVICES, INC ) ) OAH No. 15-0652-TAX Oil and Gas Production Tax ) I. Introduction DECISION The Department
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-13-2008 Ward v. Avaya Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3246 Follow this and additional
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0138n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0138n.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT NETJETS INC.; COLUMBIA INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, INTELLIJET GROUP, LLC, dba
More informationIN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT Case No.: SC Petitioner, BRENDA W. NIX,
----------------------------------------------- -------- IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT Case No.: SC06-1326 ----------------------------------------------- -------- RICHARD A. NIX, Petitioner, v. BRENDA
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Allison Transmission, Inc. ) ) Under Contract No. DAAE07-99-C-N031 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59204
More informationTHIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed: January 28, 2010 THIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Nielsen Business Media, Inc. Serial No. 77223725 Gene S.
More information