Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
NAREN
CHAGANT1
Plaintiffs,
UNITED
STATESDISTRICTCOURT
EASTERNDISTRICT
OF
VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA
DIVISION
FILED
MAR
12
2013
CLf:HK,
U.S.
DISTRICT
COURT
NO'•-,!"
OLK,VA
v.
CivilAction
No.
J'.
\%^
^70-
1
Ion.
TERESASTANEKREA,
UnderSecretary
of
Commerce
for
IntellectualPropertyandActing
Director
of
the
UnitedStatesPatentand
Trademark
Office,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
TOAUTHORIZE
DIRECTOR
OF
THE
UNITED
STATES
PATENT
AND
TRADEMARK
OFFICE
TO
ISSUE
LETTERSPATENT
PlaintiffsNarenChaganti,etal.,allegeasfollows:
THEPARTIES
1.
Theplaintiffsarenamedinventorsinapatentapplicationthatisrejectedbythe
United
StatesPatentandTrademarkOfficeasbeingunpatentable.2.
The
defendantistheHonorableTeresaStanekRea,inherofficialcapacityas
Under
SecretaryofCommerceforIntellectualPropertyandActingDirectoroftheUnitedStatesand
Patentand
Trademark
Office.
 
JURISDICTIONAND
VENUE
3.Thisactionisbroughtunderthepatentlaws
of
theUnitedStatesandthereforethisCourthasjurisdictionoverthisactionpursuantto28U.S.C.§
1331
and35U.S.C.§
145.
4.Pursuantto28U.S.C.§1391(e)and35U.S.C.§145,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourt
fortheEasternDistrict
of
Virginiaisthepropervenueforthisaction.
5.Plaintiffsarethe
named
inventors
of
twoissuedpatents.
6.PlaintiffsarenamedinventorsincertainotherpatentapplicationsfiledwiththeUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice("PTO"or"agency"),includingthepatentapplicationthatis
thesubject
of
thisComplaint,U.S.PatentApplicationSerialNo.09/634,725("the725
application"),whichwasfiledonAugust
5,2000.
7.InoraboutJune2010,thePTOallowedcertainclaims
of
the
725
applicationdeeming
thempatentable.AfterPlaintiffsremovedcertainoptionallanguagefromtheclaims,thePTO
rejectedtheclaimsonthegroundsthatitfoundadditionalrelevantartthatwouldrenderthe
claimsunpatentable.
8.Inrefusingtoissueapatentfortheclaimsatissue,thePTOdidnot
follow
orapplytherelevantregulatoryandstatutoryprovisionsaselaboratedbythecaselaw.ThePTOisinerrorin
notcomplyingwiththelawsandguidelinesduringexamination,review
of
theexaminer's
actions,reconsideringthePTO'sactionsandinnotfollowingtheprecedent.
9.Uponreceivingafinalrejection,ApplicantstimelypetitionedtothePatentTrialand
AppealsBoard(PTAB),whichaffirmedtheExaminer.
10.ApplicantsfiledaMotionforRehearing,whichwasdeniedonNovember13,2012.
11.ApplicantsthenfiledaNotice
of
AppealtotheFederalCircuitwiththePTOon
November17,2012,butonFebruary4,2013theSolicitornotifiedtheApplicants
of
the
 
determinationthattheNoticedidnotcomplywiththeregulations
of
thePTO,specifically,37
C.F.R.§§90.1-90.3.
12.OnFebruary4,2013,ApplicantsrequestedtheDirectortograntanextension
of
time
tofileapetitionforreviewunder37C.F.R.§90.3(c)(l)(ii).
13.
On
March
4,2013,pursuanttotheauthoritygrantedunder37
C.F.R.
§90.2(a)(1),the
DirectornotifiedApplicants
of
theDecisionandOrderextendingthetimetofileapetitionfor
review
until
March
25,2013.
14.AsthisComplaintisfiledwithintheperiodextendedbytheDirector,thisCourthas
jurisdictionoverthecontroversy.
CAUSE
OF
ACTION
(ForIssuance
of
the
725
applicationasaPatent)
15.
PlaintiffsincorporatetheallegationsfromParagraphnos.1-14hereinbyreference.
16.
As
amended,
the
725
applicationhasClaims
45-61
("pendingclaims")directedto
thesubjectmatter"OnlinePersonalLibrary".17.ThePTOrejectedeach
of
thependingclaimsunder35U.S.C.§103(a)asunpatentableoveracombination
of
references.
18.Duringprosecution,theExaminerdidnotapplythelawcorrectly,inthat:
a)theselectedreferenceswerefromareas
of
technicalendeavornotanalogoustothe
instantclaims;
b)akeyreferencerelieduponexpresslyteachesawayfromthesuggested
combination;
c)thesuggestedcombination
of
referencesdoesnotdisclosealltheelementsor
features
of
theclaimedsubjectmatter;and
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more