REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Tomoike HAIRSTON 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Frigg TIERNEY 102(b) Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Crew WALSH 112(1)/103(a) MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Guo DELMENDO 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting LINDA K. RUSSELL AIR LIQUIDE

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Meyer COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) STRIKER STRIKER & STENBY

Claims directed to an apparatus or device must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959) (“Claims drawn to an apparatus must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function”); In re Gardiner, 171 F.2d 313, 315-16 (CCPA 1948) (“It is trite to state that the patentability of apparatus claims must be shown in the structure claimed and not merely upon a use, function, or result thereof.”).

Danly, In re, 263 F.2d 844, 120 USPQ 528 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2114

Ex Parte Rombach et al ROBERTSON 101/112(1)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b) MUIRHEAD AND SATUNELLI, LLC

In order to satisfy the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101, the disclosed utility must be both substantial and specific. In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A substantial utility requires showing that the claimed invention “has a significant and presently available benefit to the public.” Id. A specific utility requires showing that “the claimed invention can be used to provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public.” Id.

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01

Ex Parte Vyvoda et al BOALICK 102(e)/103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE