REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Nyce LANE 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(D) WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Dontula et al TIMM 103(a) PAUL A. LEIPOLD EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY

Ex Parte Hong et al KRATZ 103(a) PAUL AND PAUL

Ex Parte Haraguchi et al COLAIANNI 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Simpson et al TURNER 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

When the specification states the meaning that a term in the claim is intended to have, the claim is examined using that meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration of the applicant's invention and its relation to the prior art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . .715, 2106, 2111.01, 2111.03, 2138, 2171, 2173.05(a), 2181, 2286, 2686.04

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Chuah HAIRSTON 103(a) WALL & TONG, L.L.P./ ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Kim et al NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) GE TRADING & LICENSING

As the Appellant, Kim bears the procedural burden of showing harmful error in the Examiner’s rejections. See, e.g., Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[W]e expect that the Board's anticipation analysis be conducted on a limitation by limitation basis, with specific fact findings for each contested limitation and satisfactory explanations for such findings.") (emphasis added).

Ex Parte Nishiyama et al NAGUMO 103(a) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Kinalski et al PATE III 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Green SCHEINER 103(a) KAPLAN WARD & PATEL LLC

Ex Parte Sugimoto SCHEINER 103(a) CERMAK KENEALY VAIDYA & NAKAJIMA LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Billings et al HOMERE 103(a) DARBY & DARBY P.C.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Gibson PATE III 103(a) PATTERSON, THUENTE, SKAAR & CHRISTENSEN, P.A.

“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973).

Sneed, In re, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1445, 2145

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145

Nievelt, In re, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

Ex Parte Elmer PATE III 112(2)/103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Jenkins LANE 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) John Wiley Horton Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Rader KRATZ 102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC