keller, datamize, musgrave, Nystrom, Phillips, sunrace

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Baluja et al 11173702 - (D) FRAHM 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. HOFFLER, RAHEEM

2182 Ex Parte Brenner et al 11751277 - (D) CHEN 103 IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C. TALUKDAR, ARVIND

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Hamalainen 10546641 - (D) MORGAN 103 FASTH LAW OFFICES (ROLF FASTH) SU, SARAH

2443 Ex Parte Arimilli et al 12342691 - (D) SHIANG 102 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. BELANI, KISHIN G

2492 Ex Parte Rasanen 11156479 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 Mintz Levin/San Diego Office MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Gunderson et al 11096851 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) STOKLOSA, JOSEPH A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Mohrmann, III 11465637 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP CHOUDHURY, ZAHID

See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference[.]”).

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

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Reignoux et al 11629893 - (D) OWENS 103 103 OSHA LIANG L.L.P. STANFORD, CHRISTOPHER J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte PELTON 11860115 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Cisco c/o Leon R Turkevich Manelli Selter PLLC KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

Specifically, the scope of the claimed “prescribed presentation preference” is not defined and thus, appears to depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention. See Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention. See Application of Musgrave, 57 C.C.P.A. 1352, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (1970) (noting ‘[a] step requiring the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction might be objectionable as rendering a claim indefinite’). Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.” (emphasis added)).

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)
...

“When different words or phrases are used in separate claims, a difference in meaning is presumed.” Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.” Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This presumption is “especially strong when the limitation in dispute is the only meaningful difference between an independent and dependent claim, and one party is urging that the limitation in the dependent claim should be read into the independent claim.” SunRace Roots Enterprise Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2111.01

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Pauly et al 11317464 - (D) FINK 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. SANDERS, STEPHEN

2457 Ex Parte Leermakers 10993391 - (D) SHAW 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SALL, EL HADJI MALICK

2463 Ex Parte St. Laurent et al 11854417 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. KHIRODHAR, MAHARISHI V

2491 Ex Parte SAWICKI et al 12143134 - (D) WORMMEESTER 103 Stevens Law Group BECHTEL, KEVIN M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte Baardse et al 12052610 - (D) BOUDREAU 102 Siemens Corporation GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA

2644 Ex Parte Naim et al 11274015 - (D) COURTENAY 103 SPRINT HEIBER, SHANTELL LAKETA

keller

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Doucet et al 12084159 - (D) POWELL 103 103 FAY SHARPE LLP GRANO, ERNESTO ARTURIO

As the Examiner correctly notes,

[T]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.

Ans. 15-16 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).

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

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte Leidholm et al 12060193 - (D) HASTINGS 102(b)/103 Nanosolar, Inc. AYAD, TAMIR

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Benton et al 11096844 - (D) SHIANG 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP KUDDUS, DANIEL A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Ouyang 11719490 - (D) SHIANG 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS TIMORY, KABIR A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Yau et al 11877488 - (D) TORCZON 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D

2824 Ex Parte Kanamura et al 11186926 - (D) HANLON 103 KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP KING, DOUGLAS

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Kiforiuk et al 11910386 - (D) PLENZLER 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP BOEHLER, ANNE MARIE M

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte Kornegay et al 11425011 - (D) RUGGIERO 101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP RUTZ, JARED IAN

aslanian, merck, keller, klosak, mcclain, fout, siebentritt

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Young et al 11853855 - (D) HASTINGS 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 102 FRASER CLEMENS MARTIN & MILLER LLC DUDLEY, ARCHER DAVIS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte Weiss et al 12288560 - (D) HANLON 103 103 M.P. Williams PILLAY, DEVINA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Muthiah et al 10873501 - (D) HORNER 103 103 GERALD K. WHITE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. NGUYEN, SON T

See also In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979) (“a drawing in a utility patent can be cited against the claims of a utility patent application even though the feature shown in the drawing was unintended or unexplained in the specification of the reference patent.”) (citations omitted).

Aslanian, In re, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979) 2125

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3774 Ex Parte Ryan et al 12059495 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).

Merck & Co., Inc., In re, 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 707.07(f), 716.02,  2143.02,  2144.08,  2144.09, 2145

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

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Skinlo 10665687 - (D) HASTINGS 103 QUALLION LLC RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

1762 Ex Parte Stueven et al 12438835 - (D) McKELVEY 103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP ENG, ELIZABETH

In order to rely on an alleged expected result (or a "substantial effect"), applicant must show that it in fact gets that result. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972) (inventor must show that the results the inventor says the inventor gets with the invention are actually obtained with the invention). See also McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 429 (1891) (conclusive evidence needed to establish new function).

1763 Ex Parte Okada et al 12531655 - (D) McKELVEY 102/103 Styron/BHGL USELDING, JOHN E

1771 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 12019276 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC STEIN, MICHELLE

1774 Ex Parte Zetlmeisl et al 11601401 - (D) METZ 103 Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC ROBINSON, RENEE E

1784 Ex Parte Munro et al 11758765 - (D) NAGUMO 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC MCNEIL, JENNIFER C

1785 Ex Parte Hood 11546067 - (D) OBERMANN 103 INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM

Where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).

Fout, In re, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982) 2129, 2143.01, 2144.06

1791 Ex Parte Ikuina et al 11498154 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC PADEN, CAROLYN A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Lim 11615637 - (D) DANG 103 AKA CHAN LLP REYES, MARIELA D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Lee 11353584 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L

2477 Ex Parte Sadot 11238924 - (D) EVANS 102/103 Cochran Freund & Young/ AVAYA, Inc. ZHOU, YONG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte SONG et al 11564760 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC CHI, SUBERR L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte McGee 11117022 - (D) WALSH 112(1)/103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC LUONG, PETER
 
REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2863 GARRY IAN HOLLOWAY Requester and Appellant v. GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001542 7,571,060 10/952,386 SIU 102/103 DLA PIPER US LLP NASSER, ROBERT L original LE, JOHN H

mlot-fijalkowski, keller, specialty

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1642 Ex Parte Fodstad et al 11/047,913 PRATS 103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER EXAMINER YU, MISOOK

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1762 Ex Parte Hung et al 10/408,141 FRANKLIN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

1789 Ex Parte Sandhu 10/903,295 GARRIS 103(a) Wells St. John P.S. EXAMINER GEORGE, PATRICIA ANN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2111 Ex Parte Rhee 11/244,482 POTHIER 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER MISIURA, BRIAN THOMAS

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2444 Ex Parte Curran et al 10/154,009 POTHIER 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER SHAW, PELING ANDY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2838 Ex Parte Sutardja 10/810,452 RUGGIERO 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. EXAMINER ROSARIO BENITEZ, GUSTAVO A

2893 Ex Parte Otsuka et al 10/350,219 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, DILINH P

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

3643 Ex Parte Modglin 10/919,079 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) Hovey Williams LLP EXAMINER POON, PETER M

3656 Ex Parte Nagle et al 11/561,122 SPAHN 103(a) MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP EXAMINER LUONG, VINH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3742 Ex Parte Vinegar et al 10/693,816 O’NEILL 103(a) DEL CHRISTENSEN SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER CAMPBELL, THOR S

3746 Ex Parte Krisher 11/094,581 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER WEINSTEIN, LEONARD J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2172 Ex Parte Parker et al 10/174,619 COURTENAY 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER PILLAI, NAMITHA

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1627 Ex Parte Gershon 10/883,406 GREEN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1771 Ex Parte Ayoub et al 11/446,853 KRATZ 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2179 Ex Parte Phillips et al 10/656,015 DIXON 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2493 Ex Parte Lazaridis 12/751,263 ZECHER 112(2)/103(a) Leveque Intellectual Property Law, P.C. EXAMINER THIAW, CATHERINE B

Evidence of classification of prior art in different categories by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “is inherently weak . . . because considerations in forming a classification system differ from those relating to a person of ordinary skill seeking solution for a particular problem.” In re Mlot-Fijalkowski, 676 F.2d 666, 670 n.5 (CCPA 1982).

Mlot-Fijalkowski, In re, 676 F.2d 666, 213 USPQ 713 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . . 2141.01(a)

2600 Communications

2612 Ex Parte Tylicki et al 10/890,620 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER WALK, SAMUEL J

“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425.

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

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3733 Ex Parte Justis et al 11/341,239 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) Medtronic, Inc. (Spinal) EXAMINER HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA

3761 Ex Parte Rosenberg 10/656,973 McCARTHY 103(a) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R

3768 Ex Parte Doorn et al 11/192,203 SCHEINER 103(a) LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU

See Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“If the invention here would not have been obvious to one of extraordinary skill, it follows that in this case it would not be obvious to one with lesser skills.”).

Wednesday December 1, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Adkesson et al 10/839,188 PRATS GRIMES GREEN 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER KEYS, ROSALYND ANN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Muhs et al 10/824,291 COLAIANNI GARRIS HANLON 103(a) ORNL-UTB-LUEDEKA, NEELY & GRAHAM EXAMINER MOWLA, GOLAM

"[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Segner et al 10/632,145 GRIMES ADAMS GREEN 102(b)/103(a) POPOVICH, WILES & O'CONNELL, PA EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte MacNeil et al 11/797,365 6,550,486 COLAIANNI KIMLIN TIMM 103(a)VERMETTE & CO. EXAMINER STINSON, FRANKIE L

The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).

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

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Pearson et al 10/080,479 LORIN CRAWFORD FISCHETTI 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J

A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) involves two analytical steps. FN6 First, the Board must interpret the claim language, where necessary. Because the PTO is entitled to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, our review of the Board's claim construction is limited to determining whether it was reasonable. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed.Cir.1997). Secondly, the Board must compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference." Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.Cir.1998). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . 2123, 2131.05

Crish, In re, 393 F.3d 1253, 73 USPQ2d1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.03, 2112

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Dlugos 11/182,070 STAICOVICI KERINS SILVERBERG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER LACYK, JOHN P

3754 Ex Parte Lassota 10/819,828 LEE TORCZON LANE 103(a) JAMES W. POTTHAST LAW OFFICES OF POTTHAST & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER CARTAGENA, MELVIN A

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1755 ICE BAN AMERICA, INC. & EARTH FRIENDLY CHEMICALS, INC. Requesters v. Patent of SEARS ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS CO., LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,136 6,299,793 DELMENDO TORCZON LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) For Patent Owner: MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP For Third Party Requesters: JAMES J. KELLY OBLON SPIVAK MCCELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER GREEN, ANTHONY J

“In civil litigation, a challenger who attacks the validity of patent claims must overcome the presumption of validity [under 35 U.S.C. § 282] with clear and convincing evidence that the patent is invalid.” In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “If this statutory burden is not met, “‘[c]ourts do not find patents ‘valid,’ only that the patent challenger did not carry the ‘burden of establishing invalidity in the particular case before the court.’’” Id. (quoting Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1429 n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). By contrast, “[i]n PTO examinations and reexaminations, the standard of proof – a preponderance of the evidence – is substantially lower than in a civil case.” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377 (citation omitted). Also, “unlike in district courts, in reexamination proceedings ‘[c]laims are given ‘their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification . . . .’’” Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377-78 (internal citations omitted). Thus, “[t]he two forums take different approaches in determining validity and on the same evidence could quite correctly come to different conclusions.” Ethicon, 849 F.2d at 1428. Moreover, the PTO was not a party to the patent infringement action and thus cannot be estopped by its holdings. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297-98 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 7 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . .1442.02, 2242,2286, 2642, 2686.04

Trans Texas Holdings Corp., In re, 498 F.3d 1290, 83 USPQ2d 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2286, 2686.04

AFFIRMED

1612 Ex Parte Buck et al 11/328,247 MILLS EXAMINER SUTTON, DARRYL C
3612 Ex Parte Compton et al 11/202,793 BAHR EXAMINER BLACK, MELISSA ANN
1633 Ex Parte Cosenza 10/735,203 WALSH EXAMINER WEHBE, ANNE MARIE SABRINA
1628 Ex Parte Ebens et al 11/141,344 MILLS EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
1782 Ex Parte Elder et al 10/931,021 LANE EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A
1785 Ex Parte Hansson et al 10/440,317 TIERNEY EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L
3686 Ex Parte Hartlaub 10/002,669 FETTING EXAMINER I NAJARIAN, LENA
2456 Ex Parte Huynh et al 10/611,698 DANG EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
2123 Ex Parte Kalley 09/983,597 BARRY EXAMINER PROCTOR, JASON SCOTT
1627 Ex Parte Levy et al 11/529,199 GREEN EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN
2193 Ex Parte MacInnis et al 10/786,195 J. THOMAS EXAMINER MALZAHN, DAVID H
1618 Ex Parte Pandey et al 11/431,275 GREEN EXAMINER JONES, DAMERON LEVEST
3731 Ex Parte Simonson 10/899,707 McCARTHY EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANH TUAN TUONG
1656 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/360,284 WALSH EXAMINER DESAI, ANAND U

REHEARING DENIED

1729 Ex Parte Fujikawa et al 11/437,328 FRANKLIN EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG
2174 Ex Parte Hackbarth et al 09/886,876 BLANKENSHIP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F
1742 Ex Parte Klotz 10/403,545 FRANKLIN EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D
3621 Ex Parte Marcon 10/266,660 LORIN EXAMINER FISCHER, ANDREW J
1649 Ex Parte Schenk 10/777,792 WALSH EXAMINER KOLKER, DANIEL E
3732 Ex Parte Shluzas et al 10/926,579 PATE III EXAMINER MAI, HAO D
1746 Ex Parte Sjoberg et al 11/129,497 KIMLIN EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L
1781 Ex Parte Zeller 10/919,472 KRATZ EXAMINER HEGGESTAD, HELEN F

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Grawe et al SPIEGEL 103(a) BAYER SCHERING PHARMA AG MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. 

Ex Parte Mahant et al ADAMS 103(a) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC 

Ex Parte Mahant et al ADAMS 103(a) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Kim et al TIMM 102(b)/103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM 

Ex Parte Rodrigues et al KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. 

Ex Parte Bakke HASTINGS 103(a) non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting CABOT CORPORATION 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Francis et al DANG 101/103(a) U.S. ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH AND MATERIEL COMMAND 

Ex Parte Murray et al BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Amano et al MOHANTY 102(b)/112(1)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) KATTEN MUCHIN ZAVIS ROSENMAN 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Perini KERINS 103(a) McGLEW & TUTTLE, P.C. 

See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (nonobviousness can not be established by attacking references individually where rejections are based on combinations of references). 

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

Merck & Co., Inc., In re, 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . .707.07(f), 716.02, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2144.09, 2145

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

Ex Parte Jones et al PRATS 103(a) OSHA LIANG/MI 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Saklecha et al THOMAS 102(e) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 

Ex Parte Iliff DANG 101/112(1)/102(b)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Maughan et al CRAWFORD 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Siemens Corporation