Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
ca3

ca3

Ratings: (0)|Views: 83|Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Mar 29, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

03/29/2014

pdf

text

original

 
2013-1426 (Reexamination Nos. 95/000,250 and 95/001,124) UNITED STATES COURT
OF
APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
IN RE RAMBUS INC.
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
JOINT MOTION
OR
REMAND
Appellant Rambus Inc. ( Rambus ) and Appellee, the Director
of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office ( PTO ), respectfully move to remand this case to the PTO to permit further proceedings before the agency. This is an appeal from an October
23 2012
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ( Board ) decision and a February 11,2013 Board rehearing decision rejecting reexamined claims 21, 22 and
23
of
U.S. Patent No. 6,425,863 as obvious over the combination
oftwo
prior art references -iAPX and Inagaki. Subsequent to the Board's decision in this case, this Court vacated the Board's obviousness rejection
of
claims
of
a related Rambus patent based on a similar combination
of
the iAPX and Inagaki references, and remanded to the PTO for further proceedings.
Rambus Inc.
v
Rea,
731 F.3d 1248, 1255-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
( Rambus 2013
decision ). Accordingly, the Director believes it is in the best interest
of
the parties and
Case: 13-1426 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 03/28/2014
 
this Court to remand the case back to the Board to reconsider the opinion currently on appeal and the pending claims in light
of
the
Rambus 2013
decision. Rambus agrees that a remand is
in
the best interest
of
the parties. A remand to permit further proceedings at the PTO at this juncture would prevent the Court, Rambus, and the PTO from needlessly expending additional resources.
See e.g. In re Gould
673
F.2d 1385,1387 CCPA 1982) after the Commissioner informed the Court that the PTO would enter a new rejection
of
the sole claim on appeal, the Court remanded the case for judicial economy reasons and in order to not delay the ultimate disposition
of
the case). A proposed Order accompanies this motion. March
28 2014
/s/ JasonE. Stach
J
Michael Jakes Jason
E
Stach Aidan
C
Skoyles Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garret Dunner,
P
901
New York Avenue, NW Washington,DC 20001 202) 408-4000
Attorneys
or
Rambus Inc.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ William
La
Marca Nathan
K
Kelley Solicitor William La Marca Coke
M
Stewart Associate Solicitors Office
of
the Solicitor -Mail Stop 8 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Attorneys
or
the Director
o
he United States Patent and Trademark Office
Case: 13-1426 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 03/28/2014
 
2013-1426 (Reexamination Nos. 95/000,250 and 95/001,124) UNITED STATES COURT
OF
APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
N
RE RAMBUS INC.
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
OR ER
Upon consideration
ofthe
JOINT MOTION FOR REMAND, it is ORDERED that the motion is granted, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that this appeal
is
REMANDED. Date: FOR THE COURT Daniel O Toole, Clerk United States Court
of
Appeals F or the Federal Circuit cc: Office
ofthe
Solicitor, USPTO, Mail Stop 8 P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 (571) 272-9035 Jason E. Stach Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett Dunner, LLP
9 1
New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 408-4000
Case: 13-1426 Document: 40 Page: 3 Filed: 03/28/2014

You're Reading a Free Preview

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