"Unsatisfactory for its intended purpose" argument fails in Ex parte Gopal
In Ex parte Gopal , Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, is cited as "unsatisfactory for its intended purpose."
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 10:19 AM
Friday, October 18, 2013
In Ex parte Gopal , Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, is cited as "unsatisfactory for its intended purpose."
About Me
- Name: Lawrence B. Ebert
I'm a patent lawyer located in central New Jersey. I have a J.D. from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. from Stanford University, where I studied graphite intercalation compounds at the Center for Materials Research. I worked at Exxon Corporate Research in areas ranging from engine deposits through coal and petroleum to fullerenes. An article that I wrote in The Trademark Reporter, 1994, 84, 379-407 on color trademarks was cited by Supreme Court in Qualitex v. Jacobson, 514 US 159 (1995) and the methodology was adopted in the Capri case in N.D. Ill. An article that I wrote on DNA profiling was cited by the Colorado Supreme Court (Shreck case) and a Florida appellate court (Brim case). I was interviewed by NHK-TV about the Jan-Hendrik Schon affair. I am developing ipABC, an entity that combines rigorous IP analytics with study of business models, to optimize utilization of intellectual property. I can be reached at C8AsF5 at yahoo.com.
Previous Posts
- Appellant BIEDERMANN prevails over PTAB at CAFC
- Dealing with plagiarism at Kenyon
- Keurig loses big time at the CAFC in coffee cartri...
- Appellant Spittle loses before PTAB; KSR cited
- Appellants lose on obviousness in Ex parte Ban
- AT&T wins on indefiniteness, obviousness rejections
- Appellant loses in Ex parte Nagy
- Attorney assertion of no predictability fails in M...
- In re Dillon cited against appellant in obviousnes...
- Another Rambus/Micron case; rehearing by PTAB lead...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home