Ex Parte 7272021 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 2, 2016

95001637 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2016)

MOD PTOL-90A (Rev.06/08)

APPLICATION NO./
CONTROL NO.
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR /
PATENT IN REEXAMINATION
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
95/001,637 05/31/2011 7,272,021

EXAMINER
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
Nguyen, Linh
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE

05/02/2016 PAPER

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Address : COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

VICOR CORPORATION
Requester

v.

SYNQOR, Inc.
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________________

Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,6371
Patent No. US 7,272,021 B22
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before JAMES T. MOORE, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REHEARING

I. INTRODUCTION
On May 5, 2015 this Board issued a Decision (“Dec.”) which stated
that it affirmed the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 9, 15, 16,
21–27, 29–31, 39, 45–47, 49, and 50. Dec. 1–2. Patent Owner SynQor, Inc.

1 Filed by Vicor Corporation on May 31, 2011.
2 Issued September 18, 2007 to Martin Schlecht and Richard Farrington, and
assigned to SynQor, Inc. (the “’021 patent”). The ’021 patent issued from
Application 11/407,699, filed November 23, 2006.
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

2
(“Patent Owner”) filed a timely request for rehearing (“Reh’g Req.”). On
July 6, 2015 Requester Vicor Corporation (“Requester”) filed comments on
the request for rehearing (“Comments”).
The Request for Rehearing is granted-in-part.
We grant the Request to the extent that it seeks correction of the status
of the claims. Reh’g Req. n.1, p. ii. It appears that claims 16 and 46 were
erroneously listed in both the Right of Appeal Notice3 and Patent Owner’s
Appeal Brief4 as rejected. While this error is not something the Board
overlooked, it is an apparent error resulting from the Action Closing
Prosecution. The claims which were rejected, and which rejections were
affirmed, should read “1, 9, 15, 21–27, 29–31, 39, 45, 47, 49, and 50.” The
Decision is so amended.
We further grant the Request insofar as we have reconsidered the
decision, and specifically further reconsidered the evidence of secondary
considerations as discussed below. However, we decline to change our
ultimate determination that the Examiner did not err in rejecting the claims.
II. ISSUES ON REHEARING
A. The rejection of Claims 1, 9, 15, 21, 24, 26, 31, 39, 45, and 47
under 35 US.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Steigerwald '090.

1. Current and Power Flow
Independent claims 1, 31, and 47 of the ‘021 patent respectively recite
the following element:
a control circuit which controls duty cycle of the primary
winding circuit, the duty cycle causing substantially

3 “RAN” at coversheet.
4 “PO App. Br.” at 2.
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

3
uninterrupted flow of power through the primary and
secondary winding circuits during normal operation
‘021 Patent, 6:32–37 (emphasis added).
controlling duty cycle of the power to the primary winding, the
duty cycle causing substantially uninterrupted flow of power
through the primary and secondary windings during normal
operation
Id. at 8:1–4 (emphasis added).
means for controlling duty cycle of the power to the primary
winding, the duty cycle causing substantially uninterrupted
flow of power through the primary and secondary windings
during normal operation to provide an isolated output without
regulation
Id. 8:50–54 (emphasis added).
The Examiner found that Steigerwald ’5395 described a two-stage
power converter, having a regulation stage followed by an isolation stage.
The isolation stage includes two transformers that operate in opposite phase,
each at a complementary 50% duty cycle. As a consequence, “the energy-
storage capacitor Ce is always transformer-coupled to the dc output.” Req. 2
(quoting Steigerwald ’539, 3:33–39); see also Req. 6–7. Thus, the Examiner
concluded there was substantially uninterrupted power flow. Id.
In the Brief on Appeal, Patent Owner argued that the Steigerwald
patents are specifically directed to radar applications, which are
characterized by the typical pulsed load as illustrated in Steigerwald ’539
Figure 2. PO App. Br. 23.

5 The anticipation rejection incorporates the teachings of Steigerwald ’539.
We refer to the incorporated disclosure as “Steigerwald ’090/’539.”
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

4
We were not persuaded by this argument and affirmed the rejection.
Decision 9–10.
The Patent Owner, in the Request for Rehearing, urges that “the
PTAB’s conclusion [regarding substantially uninterrupted] is erroneous.”
Reh’g Req. 2. As we understand the argument, Patent Owner asserts that (1)
there is no description of current flow, and therefore of power; (2) the power
flow in the Steigerwald ’090/’539 system is repeatedly interrupted; and (3)
the degree of interruption of power flow in Steigerwald ’090/’539 system is
indeterminable. Reh’g Req. 1, 3, 5, and 7. Consequently, it is urged, we
erred in affirming the finding that Steigerwald ’090/’539 system anticipated
claims 1, 9, 15, 21, 24, 26, 31, 39, 45, and 47.
“Substantially Continuous Power Flow”
The finding that there was substantially continuous power flow was
adopted by the Examiner from the Reexamination Request filed May 31,
2011, page 13. RAN 4–5. Patent Owner then urged on appeal that the
Steigerwald patents were silent on current flow, and that they did not teach
that power flow is substantially uninterrupted. PO App. Br. 22–23. We
were directed to A214, 13–16 and A215, 10–11 in support thereof. A214
(i.e., Appendix numbers 214 and 215 to the Appeal Brief) is a Response
filed by the Patent Owner October 31, 2011, during prosecution, which
Response contains three additional pages of argument concerning the flow
of power in the Steigerwald ’090 patent.
Patent Owner urged in the October 31, 2011 response that Steigerwald
’090 does not describe uninterrupted power flow because “being coupled”
does not inherently require that any power flows through the isolation stage.
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

5
In other words, even when the capacitor Ce is connected, or coupled, to the
load, this does not mean that power is flowing from Ce through the primary
and secondary transformer windings and circuits of the capacitor-
multiplying converter to the load. Ex. A 214, October 31, 2011 Response,
page 13.
Patent Owner urged, by reference to Figure 2a of the Steigerwald ‘539
patent, that the power flowing through the capacitance-multiplying converter
and to the radar application load is zero for a “great deal of the time.” Id.
Patent Owner then concluded that the Steigerwald patents do not show an
isolation stage through which there is a “substantially uninterrupted flow of
power” during normal operation, required in all of the ’021 claims. Id. at 14.
This argument relies principally on the pulsed nature of the primary load for
which Steigerwald uses the circuitry.
Patent Owner further discounted the explicit description of “bias
voltages” because “nothing expressly or inherently requires these voltages to
have loads that draw a substantially uninterrupted power flow.” Id. at 15.
That argument relies upon the Schlecht Declaration at paragraph 26, which
alleges that Streigerwald ’090 suggests that, for the multiple output voltages,
“all of them could be pulsed loads.” Dr. Schlecht relies upon Steigerwald
’090, column 3, lines 19–23.
We reproduce the cited portion of Steigerwald below:
As yet another advantage, pulse energy is stored in a high-
voltage capacitor rather than at the substantially lower utilization
voltages, thereby minimizing capacitor volume, allowing substantial
energy storage to be in the module itself.
Steigerwald ’090 3:19–23.
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

6
To begin, we observe that the evidence of record reveals that Dr.
Schlecht has misinterpreted the Steigerwald ’090 description. The cited
section applies to miniaturization — i.e. minimizing capacitor volume
because a high voltage capacitor can store more energy in a smaller space
than on the lower voltage utilization side. This descriptive section applies to
the pulsed loads; we find that it does not suggest that the bias or control
loads are also pulsed.
Also, we turn to Figure 2a of Steigerwald ’539, brought more fully to
our attention by Patent Owner (PO App. Br. 22 (citing PO App. Br., Evid.
App’x, Ex. A214)) and reproduced below.

Figure 2a describing average and conventional power systems.
It is true that there is an intermittent full load for a time period “t”
while the radar transmission occurs, as argued by the Patent Owner.
However, in raising this issue, we observe that Patent Owner does not
discuss the import of the line marked io in Figure 2a. Steigerwald describes
Figure 2a thusly:
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

7
FIG. 2a graphically illustrates the average and load currents for
the conventional power system of FIG. 1;
Steigerwald ’539 2:17–18 (emphasis added).
The power converter receives an input current in and supplies
average current io to energy-storage capacitor Cout and the load.
Steigerwald ’539 2:55–57 (emphasis added).
In other words, it appears on this record that Steigerwald describes its
embodiments include a continual average current without substantial
interruption to run control circuitry.
Appendix Number A215 is a paper containing SynQor’s Comments
filed March 12, 2012. Pages 10 and 11 contain an argument that the
capacitor charges from Vin but discharges in a short pulse. SynQor
Comments March 12, 2012, 10. Patent Owner also urged that the duty cycle
of the primary winding need not be the sole cause of the power flow, just a
cause. Id. at 11.
We are unpersuaded by these positions for the reasons noted above
concerning Figure 2a and the average power described therein.
On rehearing, Patent Owner also urges that the 50% duty cycle applies
“only to the diode embodiment of Fig. 1 of Steigerwald ‘090 and the
operation of the primary side transistors, Qa and Qb in that embodiment.
The cited statements in both the Steigerwald ‘090 and the ‘539 say nothing
about the duty cycle of the synchronous rectifiers.” Reh’g Req. 2.
We observe that the claim language requires the duty cycle of the
primary winding to cause the uninterrupted power. This limitation appears
to be what Steigerwald actually describes. Patent Owner’s argument does
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

8
not address this limitation adequately or persuasively and appears to be
counter to the evidence of record in this proceeding.
Moreover, as noted above, “normal operation” of Steigerwald ’090
also appears always to have at least some power load, while charging the
capacitor Ce, which is always connected to the output of the secondary
winding circuit. Steigerwald ’090 2:53–56. Steigerwald ’539 observes that
“[t]he power converter receives an input current in and supplies average
current io to energy-storage capacitor Cout and the load.” Steigerwald ’539
2:55–57 (italics in original). Note line io in Figure 2a. As a consequence,
we are not persuaded that Steigerwald ’539 does not describe a continuous
power flow.
We have considered the attorney argument concerning interruption in
the boundary between each half cycle (Req. Reh’g. 5–7) and the degree of
interruption of power flow (Req. Reh’g 7–9). However, in view of the
description of Steigerwald ‘090 as noted above, including that describing
average current, we are unpersuaded that we have overlooked or
misapprehended any facts or arguments.
We remain unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.
B. The rejection of Claims 22, 23, 25, and 27–30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Steigerwald ’090
Uninterrupted Power Flow
Patent Owner urges that the obviousness rejections should be reversed
because the anticipation rejection should be reversed, and that “[n]either the
PTAB nor Vicor have made any obviousness arguments based upon the
‘substantially uninterrupted power flow’ limitation.” Reh’g. Req. 9.
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

9
As Patent Owner has not pointed to any further particular allegation of
error, or fact or law we misapprehended or overlooked, we find this
contention also to be unpersuasive.
Teaching Away and PTAB Prior Decisions
Patent Owner, relying on multiple decisions of this Board, states that
“[t]he PTAB has consistently concluded that the use of synchronous
rectifiers is contrary to the purpose of Fig. 1 of the Steigerwald ‘'090
patent.” Reh’g Req. 10. Patent Owner lists several decisions indicating that
there were technical difficulties, and urges that the alternative embodment
was not desirable. As a consequence, it is urged, we “failed to show that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to modify this [Figure
1] embodiment to arrive at the invention recited in the dependent claims at
issue.” Id. at 12.
The panel did not overlook those decisions; those prior decisions were
made prior to a March 13, 2015 Federal Circuit decision determining there
was an embodiment in Steigerwald ’090 incorporating synchronous
rectifiers in the conduction path. With the determination that Steigerwald
’090 described an alternative embodiment incorporating the description in
Steigerwald ’539, the facts underpinning the understanding of the prior art
have necessarily shifted.
We, therefore, are unpersuaded that the panel overlooked or
misapprehended its other, prior decisions.
Claim 49
Claim 49 recites:
49. A power converter system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the regulation stages are switching regulators.
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

10
Patent Owner urges that the Board overlooked that Steigerwald’s
statements, made during the prosecution of the Steigerwald ’090 patent, are
“legally binding clarifications of the embodiments disclosed in Steigerwald
‘090, including the Steigerwald ‘090/’539 alternative embodiment.” Reh’g
Req. 13. According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art
reading the Steigerwald ’090 patent and prosecution history would
understand that none of the embodiments disclosed in Steigerwald ’090 is
permitted to have an inductor in the non-isolating regulation stages,
including the use of switching regulators. Id.
We previously considered this argument in our Decision. The
Examiner found that Pressman describes the use of switching regulators at
the output stage. RAN 18. Motivation is said to be found in Pressman on
page 81, where it is stated that “[i]f the larger component count of a
switching postregulator (Sect.1.2) is acceptable, even higher efficiencies can
be achieved.” Id. at 20. See also Requester Comments November 20, 2011,
pages 18–20, which were adopted.
Patent Owner states that we misapprehended the impact of the Federal
Circuit’s decision on this claim. Reh’g Req. 12. Specifically, it is urged that
the Federal Circuit’s decision only determined there was an embodiment
which included a controlled rectifier. Id. One of ordinary skill in the art,
therefore, would have been aware that regulation stages used linear
regulators, instead of switching regulators, to minimize inductance. Id. at
13.
We have considered this argument in view of the evidence of record
and the arguments now raised in the rehearing request. We have
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

11
reconsidered our decision, but decline to change it based upon this argument.
The express teaching in Pressman of enhanced efficiency, in our view,
outweighs the undesirability of additional inductance, when considered in
view of the Steigerwald alternative embodiment, as noted in our previous
decision.
Claim 50
Claim 50 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Steigerwald
’090 (incorporating Steigerwald ’539) in view of Pressman and Admitted
Prior Art in U.S. Pat. No. 5,999,417. Requester November 30, 2011
Response, pp. 21–22.
Claim 50 reads as follows:
50. A power converter system as claimed in claim 1
wherein the regulation stages are switching regulators, wherein
the DC power source provides a voltage within the range of 36
to 75 volts, and wherein the regulation stage output is of a
voltage level to drive logic circuitry.

The Examiner found that these recited voltage levels were admitted
prior art. Requester November 30, 2011 Response, pp. 21–22. In addition,
the Examiner found that a person of ordinary skill could have combined the
known elements and achieved the predictable results of input and output
voltages. Id.
Patent Owner urges that the panel misapprehended the cited portion of
SynQor’s ’417 patent. Specifically, Patent Owner urges that because the
discussion of voltages is not in the Background section, it does not state such
voltages were known in a two-stage power converter system having the
characteristics of claim 50. Reh’g Req. 15–16.
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

12
We are not persuaded by this argument. We observe that Patent
Owner does not take the position that these voltage levels were not known in
the prior art. Indeed, it would appear that they were well known, as the
Specification observes that “[t]he nominal values and ranges of the input and
output voltages, as well as the maximum power handling capability of the
converter, depend on the application.” ’021 Patent 1:29–31. As the
Requester notes, “[w]here a claim element is known in the art, and can be
implemented as a matter of ordinary skill with predictable results, the claim
is obvious.” Comments 23; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 416 (2007).
Accordingly, we have not misapprehended or overlooked these
arguments, and find no error in the Examiner’s determination that the
voltage levels are a predictable result of a selection of known elements and
values.
Claims 29 and 30; Claims 22, 23, 25, 27 and 28
Patent Owner makes similar arguments for these claims as above for
claim 50. We are unpersuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any
fact or conclusion as discussed previously. Patent Owner also urges that the
Examiner erred in failing to consider voltage levels for radar applications, as
opposed to those used to drive logic circuitry. Reh’g Req. 18, 19. This
argument also fails to address the use of voltages in Steigerwald ‘090 to
drive control circuitry. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error.
C. Secondary Considerations
In 1966, the Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
(1966) interpreted and applied section 103, stating:
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

13
Under 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the
obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is
determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial
success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.,
might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding
the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.
383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)
The Federal Circuit has determined that only after considering the
four Graham criteria together can the decision maker make the legal
determination of whether the invention is nonobvious. Panduit v. Dennison
Manufacturing Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert denied, 481
U.S. 1052 (1987). A long-felt need and post-invention commercial success
can tip the balance in favor of non-obviousness, both in the courts and at the
PTO. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45
(1923); Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403 (1902); The
Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U.S. 275 (1892); Webster Loom v. Higgins, 105
U.S. 580 (1881).
Patent Owner urges that the Board “wrongly concludes that the
secondary considerations evidence of record relates principally to features of
the independent claims rejected under anticipation, as opposed to the
dependent claims rejected under obviousness. The PTAB erroneously
concludes, according to the Patent Owner, that SynQor has not shown a
‘nexus’ to the ‘dependent claim features.’” Reh’g Req. 20.
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

14
More specifically, Patent Owner urges that secondary considerations
apply to claims 49, 50, 25, 29, and 30, as certain systems were found to
infringe those claims specifically. Reh’g Req. 21.
We agree with Patent Owner that secondary considerations can apply
with equal force to dependent claims. Reh’g Req. 19. Our prior decision is
amended by deleting the earlier discussion concerning secondary
considerations and replacing it with the following discussion, upon our
renewed consideration of the evidence.
Patent Owner urges that the evidence of secondary considerations is
commensurate in scope with the dependent claims at issue and it is legal
error not to consider such evidence. Patent Owner further urges that the
record establishes a nexus between the evidence of secondary considerations
and the merits of the claimed invention; to wit, Patent Owner asserts (1)
multiple infringing unregulated intermediate bus architecture (“UIBA”)
systems fall within the scope of the dependent claims at issue; (2) the
infringing UIBA systems enjoyed significant commercial success, fulfilled a
long felt need and were praised by the industry; (3) there is a nexus between
the secondary consideration evidence and the dependent claims; and (4)
Vicor has not submitted any persuasive evidence rebutting SynQor’s
evidence that the secondary consideration evidence is attributed to anything
other than the merits of the claimed invention. Reh’g Req. 21.
Patent Owner asserts that the Jury Verdict Form from the related
litigation, the product datasheets as well as expert testimony, establish that
the unregulated intermediate bus architecture systems found to infringe
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

15
claim 1 of the ’021 patent also include switching regulators as the regulation
stages and thereby also infringe claim 49 of the ’021 patent. Reh’g Req. 22.
We accept the evidence that the twelve products listed in the
Appendix of the Jury Verdict Form infringe claim 49 of the ’021 patent as
outlined in the Request for Rehearing pages 22–24. We accept the same for
claim 50 (Reh’g Req. 24–25) and as stated for claims 25, 29, and 30 (Id. at
25).
We additionally accept that the evidence establishes that the
infringing products were commercially successful, for the reasons set forth
in pages 25 and 26 of the rehearing request.
We also accept that there was some evidence of industry praise and a
need for the power converters, although this evidence is somewhat less
persuasive than the commercial success evidence due to its lack of precision
as to what constitutes unregulated intermediate bus architecture and the
praise, versus the scope of the claims. Reh’g Req. 26–27.
We further accept the position that there is a nexus between the
evidence of secondary considerations for these dependent claims where the
claim limitations were infringed, and that the evidence is entitled to weight.
Reh’g Req. 28–30.
We look to the differences between the claimed subject matter and the
prior art.
Claims 1, 9, 15, 21, 24, 26, 31, 39, 45, and 47 are anticipated, and as a
consequence this evidence is inapplicable to those claims.
The principal difference between claim 1 and claim 49 is the inclusion
of a switching regulator for the regulation stage. However, as noted above,
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

16
Pressman creates a strong incentive for improving efficiency by replacing
the linear regulators with switching regulators. Pressman, 81.
The principal differences between claim 1 and claim 50 are (i)
wherein the regulation stages are switching regulators; (ii) wherein the DC
power source provides a voltage within the range of 36 to 75 volts; and (iii)
wherein the regulation stage output is of a voltage level to drive logic
circuitry. Again, as noted above, Pressman creates a strong incentive for
improving efficiency by replacing the linear regulators with switching
regulators. The voltage values are firstly known, and secondly, easily
achievable with known components resulting in predictable results, as
discussed above.
The principal difference between claim 1 and claim 25 is the
regulation stage output is of a voltage level to drive logic circuitry. The
voltage value is firstly known, and secondly, easily achievable with known
components resulting in predictable results, as discussed above.
The principal difference between claim 1 and claim 29 is wherein the
DC power source provides a voltage within the range of 36 to 75 volts. As
discussed above, the voltage value is firstly known, and secondly, easily
achievable with known components resulting in predictable results,.
The principal differences between claim 1 and claim 30 are (i) the DC
power source provides a voltage within the range of 36 to 75 volts, and (ii)
the regulation stage output is of a voltage level to drive logic circuitry.
Again, the voltage values are firstly known, and secondly, easily achievable
with known components resulting in predictable results.
Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

17
We balance the secondary considerations, which do tend to somewhat
support a case of nonobviousness against this strong evidence of
obviousness. We are aware of our previous decisions which found this
evidence to be more persuasive, albeit against a different background. We
are also aware that the evidence now asserted as secondary considerations
does not utilize a linear regulator. Reh’g Req. 22. On balance, although the
evidence has significant weight, we conclude it is insufficient to overcome
the strong case of obviousness put forth by the Requester and adopted by the
Examiner.
CONCLUSIONS
We have carefully reconsidered the evidence of record, including that
of secondary considerations submitted by the Patent Owner. We also have
reconsidered the evidence submitted by the Requester and the findings and
conclusions of the Examiner. Finally, the most recent guidance from the
Federal Circuit on the issue of the Steigerwald embodiments has been given
substantial weight in our decision.
We GRANT the request and amend the decision as noted above
related to correcting the claim status. We GRANT the request in that we
have reconsidered the evidence of secondary considerations and modify our
previous decision as noted above. However, we DENY the request in that
we decline to alter our judgment.

GRANTED-IN-PART

Appeal 2014-007587
Reexamination Control 95/001,637
Patent No. 7,272,021 B2

18
Patent Owner:

Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
1950 Roland Clarke Place
Reston, VA 20191

Third Party Requester:

Turner Boyd LLP
2570 West El Camino Real
Suite 380
Mountain View, CA 94040