We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Derek P. Benke Oblon Spivak LLP

Results 1 to 4 of 4



Board affirms examiner’s obviousness rejection because the combination of interfaces from the references is merely a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that yield a predictable result *

USA - April 26 2012
In Ex parte Allen et al. (Appeal 2009-014902, in Application Serial No. 10/726,457, decision issued April 25, 2012) the issue on appeal was whether the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of references teach “enlarging the chat interface and displaying the free time summary calendar adjacent to the chat area of the chat interface,” as recited in Claim 1.


Board rejects appellants’ assertion that the examiner’s proposed combination renders the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose *

USA - February 15 2012
In Ex parte Schmitt, (Case No. 2010-011741, in Application Serial No. 11/387,678, decision issued February 14, 2012), the issue on appeal was whether the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination of Babula, Redgate, and Lavery renders obvious independent claim 20.


Ex parte Nahas *

USA - August 26 2011
In Ex parte Nahas (Appeal 2010-005054, in Application Serial No. 11/249,814, decision issued August 24, 2011) the issue on appeal was whether the Examiner erred in determining that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the petroleum coke of Schlinger to be a suitable carbonaceous material for use in the process of Aquino.


In re Lovin *

USA - July 27 2011
In In re Lovin, (Case No. 2010-1499, in Application Serial No. 10/924,633, decision issued July 22, 2011), the issue before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was whether the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the “Board”) correctly interpreted Rule 41.37 in refusing to separately address the obviousness of dependent claims.