Monday, April 22, 2013

Requestor loses in Reexamination 95/001,542


This proceeding arose from a request by Garry Ian Holloway for an
inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,571,060 B2, titled “System and
Method for Gemstone Cut Grading,” and issued to Troy Blodgett, Ronald
Geurts, Al Gilbertson, Barak Green, T. Scott Hemphill, and Tom Moses on
Aug. 4, 2009 (the ‘060 patent). [Patent Owner: GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC. ]

KSR appears:

“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

Appellant lost:

We agree that the specific ranges are
associated with boundaries or thresholds (e.g., table sizes between 54% and
65%). However, Appellant does not sufficiently demonstrate how Holloway
derives the boundaries or thresholds, much less that Holloway sets the
boundaries or thresholds by statistical analysis of observations of a particular
designated cut score, as recited in claim 1.
Appellant argues that Holloway discloses that “cross-correlation was
performed by comparing diamonds with the same score from different areas
on each grid . . .” and that results from this process are “confirmed by
showing actual diamonds . . . to . . . observers” (App. Br. 9). Appellant also
argues that Holloway discloses “an analysis of data obtained during the
collection stage” (id.). However, even assuming Appellant to be correct that
“cross-correlation” involves some form of statistical analysis and that
Holloway discloses analyzing data that were obtained during a collection
stage, Appellant does not demonstrate that Holloway also discloses that such
“cross-correlation” or analysis is utilized to set the boundaries or thresholds
(i.e., the ranges of table sizes, pavilion angles, and/or crown angles) as
required by claim 1.


Post a Comment

<< Home