Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 147|Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Dec 23, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





2013-1623(Reexamination No. 95/001,169) __________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT __________________________________ 
 _____________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,Patent Trial and Appeal Board. _____________________________________________________________ 
Appellee, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office(“PTO”) respectfully moves to remand this case to the PTO to permit further  proceedings before the agency.This is an appeal of a February 13, 2013 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision which affirmed various rejections of Rambus’s claims. In particular, the Board’s decision maintained the rejection of certain reexamined claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,591,353 as anticipated by Hayes and also rejected various sets of claims of the ’353 patent as obvious based on various combinationsof references including the Farmwald ’755 prior art reference. Subsequent to the Board’s decision in this case, this Court reversed theBoard’s anticipation rejection of reexamined claims in the related Rambus ’109
Case: 13-1623 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 12/20/2013
 patent based on the Farmwald ’037 prior art reference. See Rambus Inc. v. Rea,2013 WL 3242241 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“2012-1480 Rambus”). In the 2012-1480Rambus decision, this Court analyzed various aspects of Farmwald ’037’sdisclosure as well as the specification of Rambus’s ’109 patent. Notably,Farmwald ’755 (at issue in this case) and Farmwald ’037 (discussed in the 2012-1480 Rambus decision) share the same specification. Id. at *3. Further, the ’353 patent (at issue in this case) and the ’109 patent (at issue in the 2012-1480 Rambusdecision) share a similar specification. While the rejections in the two cases are not the same (e.g., the 2012-1480Rambus decision involved an anticipation rejection based on Farmwald ’037 aloneand – in this case – the rejections are based on obviousness with various differentreferences combined with Farmwald ’755), there are similarities in the two casesindicating that review of this Court’s 2012-1480 Rambus decision would behelpful and important to the Board’s thorough analysis in this case. Accordingly,the Director believes it is in the best interest of the parties and this Court to remand the case back to the Board to reconsider its opinion currently on appeal and the pending claims in light of the Rambus 2012-1480 decision. A remand to permitfurther proceedings at the PTO at this juncture would prevent the Court, Rambus,and the PTO from needlessly expending additional resources. See, e.g., In reGould, 673 F.2d 1385, 1387 (CCPA 1982). Undersigned counsel for the PTO
Case: 13-1623 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 12/20/2013
contacted counsel for Rambus and Rambus indicated that it intends to oppose thismotionA proposed Order accompanies this motion.December 20, 2013Respectfully submitted,/s/ WILLIAM La MARCA Nathan K. KelleySolicitor  William LaMarcaStacy B. MargoliesAssociate SolicitorsOffice of the Solicitor U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeMail Stop 8P.O. Box 1450Alexandria, Virginia 22313(571) 272-9035
 Attorneys for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Case: 13-1623 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 12/20/2013

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->