Monthly Archives: January 2013

Allergan, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, et al.

Docket No. 2012-1040, -1054 RADER, BRYSON, WALLACH January 28, 2013 Non-precedential Brief summary: Affirmed DC determination that Allergan acted as its own lexicographer and the claimed compound was not obvious in view of prior art, based in large part on … Continue reading

Posted in Expert Testimony, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Rexnord Industries, LLC v. David J. Kappos and Habasit Belting, Inc.

Docket No. 2011-1434 NEWMAN, LOURIE, PROST January 23, 2013 Brief summary: BPAI decision of non-obviousness reversed due to “design choice” (e.g., size of space between belt modules) relating to known problem (e.g., fingers getting caught in space). Summary: Rexnord requested … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al.

Docket No. 2012-1227 PROST, BRYSON, WALLACH January 16, 2013 Subject matter: claim construction Summary: Parallel appealed DC claim construction and infringement decisions regarding its patent encompassing applets (e.g., a small program that typically performs one specific task such as Microsoft … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction | Leave a comment

The C.W. Zumbiel Company, Inc. v. David J. Kappos et al.

Docket No. 2011-1332, -1333 (Reexamination No. 95/000,077) PROST (d), MOORE, WALLACH December 27, 2012 Brief summary: Certain claims of patent directed to cartons and boxes for holding containers (e.g., beverage cans) found obvious as predictable variations of or disclosed by … Continue reading

Posted in Functional limitations, Obviousness, Preamble | Leave a comment