droge, kubin, o'farrell

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Naoe et al 10508958 - (D) JENKS 103/obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. CARTER, KENDRA D

Although we recognize that “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success ... all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re Droge, 695 F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). In the realm of cancer treatment, however, there is insufficient predictability in the art for there to be a reasonable expectation that administering a compound to an animal that is effective for one type of cancer would reasonably provide an expectation of success for the treatment of kidney cancer as claimed.

Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) 2143.01
HARMON 4: 149, 227, 363a, 402a, 403b, 405

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
DONNER 8: 571, 604, 697, 1072

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Adam et al 10490849 - (D) METZ 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC ANGADI, MAKI A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Bayliss et al 10293475 - (D) THOMAS 103 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP KIM, PAUL

2171 Ex Parte Zander 10692504 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP SALOMON, PHENUEL S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2675 Ex Parte Jacobs et al 11214393 - (D) HOFF 103 XEROX - ROCHESTER FAY SHARPE WASHINGTON, JAMARES

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Dorr et al 11113746 - (D) PLENZLER 112(1)/112(2)/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP MONDT, JOHANNES P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte McQuoid 12070215 - (D) ASTORINO 103 RICHARD A. RYAN CONLEY, FREDRICK C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Dal et al 11995540 - (D) ASTORINO 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON TAWFIK, SAMEH

3766 Ex Parte King et al 11810941 - (D) SPAHN 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. LEE, ERICA SHENGKAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte MENK et al 11839048 - (D) PAK 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX REMAVEGE, CHRISTOPHER

1787 Ex Parte OOHIRA et al 11958818 - (D) OWENS 103 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP HUANG, CHENG YUAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Merriam et al 11186674 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 103 Basch & Nickerson LLP JACKSON, ERNEST ADEYEMI

3624 Ex Parte Tebbe et al 11323590 - (D) KIM 103/obviousness-type double patenting 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. SANTIAGO, LUIS F

3657 Ex Parte Ispolatova et al 11646198 - (D) GROSSMAN 102 102 ALFRED J MANGELS AUNG, SAN M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Hermansen et al 10495888 - (D) POWELL 103 103 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP NGUYEN, PHONG H

3774 Ex Parte Osman 11955684 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC SHARMA, YASHITA

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Mii et al 12660188 - (D) OBERMANN 112(2)/103 DLA PIPER LLP US SAAD, ERIN BARRY

1745 Ex Parte Horne 12141182 - (D) KIMLIN 103 FAY SHARPE LLP TOLIN, MICHAEL A
AFFIRMED 1763 Ex Parte Maas et al 12237408 - (D) SMITH 103/obviousness-type double patenting CANTOR COLBURN LLP USELDING, JOHN E

1785 Ex Parte Matsumoto et al 11582878 - (D) KIMLIN 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT CHAU, LINDA N

1792 Ex Parte Krebs et al 11047297 - (D) WARREN 112(2)/103 Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP THAKUR, VIREN A

1793 Ex Parte Villagran et al 11184161 - (D) KIMLIN 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC TRAN, LIEN THUY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Weissman et al 11616744 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 SALESFORCE.COM, INC. GIRMA, ANTENEH B

2159 Ex Parte Moore et al 11409427 - (D) EVANS 103 Oracle OSHA LIANG LLP CONYERS, DAWAUNE A

2176 Ex Parte Hintermeister et al 10767044 - (D) DILLON 112(2)/101/102/103 IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 HUTTON JR, WILLIAM D

2177 Ex Parte BODIN et al 11614740 - (D) McCOLLUM 102/103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. FABER, DAVID

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Hu et al 11331558 - (D) EVANS 103 IPCI CONSULTANTS GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Qi et al 11231005 - (D) KUMAR 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN Mission/BSTZ BATISTA, MARCOS

2642 Ex Parte Ramer et al 11281902 - (D) CLEMENTS 102 Jumptap, Inc. GONZALEZ, AMANCIO

2672 Ex Parte Hoes et al 10855094 - (D) RUGGIERO 102/103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC DICKER, DENNIS T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Carvalho et al 11551889 - (D) KAUFFMAN 102/103 K.P. CORRELL AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. WUJCIAK, ALFRED J

3653 Ex Parte Herden et al 11800498 - (D) SPAHN 112(1)/112(2) 102 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP SUAREZ, ERNESTO A

3687 Ex Parte Killian et al 11964343 - (D) PETRAVICK 102/103 BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC CRAWLEY, TALIA F

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Staebler 11641386 - (D) DeFRANCO 112(1)/102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION PAIK, SANG YEOP

3744 Ex Parte Taras et al 11909086 - (D) WEATHERLY 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. KOAGEL, JONATHAN BRYAN

3753 Ex Parte McNerney 11107616 - (D) HORNER 102/103 Masco Corporation Faegre Baker Daniels LLP MCCALISTER, WILLIAM M

3753 Ex Parte Swarts 11557858 - (D) BROWN 112(2)/102/103 HEIMLICH LAW FOX, JOHN C

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 SIDENSE CORP. Requester and Appellant v. KILOPASS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95001495 6940751 10/765,802 WEINBERG 102/103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General GE, YUZHEN original AUDUONG, GENE NGHIA

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3713 Ex parte ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC. 90009524 90010666 6193520 09/109,784 MARTIN 103 Whitaker Law Group Third Party Requester KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. WOOD, WILLIAM H original CHENG, JOE H

amgen3, kubin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Burns et al 11153720 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 L.C. BEGIN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

An obviousness determination requires that a skilled artisan would have perceived a reasonable expectation of success in making the invention in light of the prior art. Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-LA Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).

Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 92 USPQ2d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 2113

Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) 2143

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte SEAH Teo Leng 11465793 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 ISHIMARU & ASSOCIATES LLP TRAN, TAN N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Nichols et al 11465498 - (D) GROSSMAN 103 Jerome R. Drouillard MORGAN, EMILY M

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2682 HTC CORPORATION Requester and Cross-Appellant v. IPCOM GMBH Patent Owner and Appellant 95001192 6,879,830 09/478,586 SIU 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP FOSTER, ROLAND G original MILORD, MARCEAU

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kim et al 11173070 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP CONLEY, OI K

1786 Ex Parte Harada et al 10333744 - (D) TORCZON 103 KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP THOMPSON, CAMIE S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Ma et al 11525982 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN Mission/BSTZ KARIMY, TIMOR

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2616 HTC CORPORATION Requester and Cross-Appellant v. IPCOM GMBH Patent Owner and Appellant 95001212 7,245,636 10/111,511 SIU 102 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original PHAN, MAN U

CAE, kubin

custom search

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Hatfield et al 10736155 - (D) ERIC GRIMES 103 USDA-ARS-OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NATIONAL CTR FOR AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

1631 Ex Parte Bangera et al 11807336 - (D) GREEN obviousness-type double patenting THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE BRUSCA, JOHN S

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Bengston et al 11113968 - (D) OWENS 103 Whirlpool Patents Company - MD 0750 HECKERT, JASON MARK

1712 Ex Parte Compains et al 10582927 - (D) OWENS 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A

1722 Ex Parte CHANG et al 11427017 - (D) HANLON 112(2)/103/obviousness-type double patenting HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP DUDA, KATHLEEN

1727 Ex Parte Fagley et al 11130804 - (D) BEST 102/103 General Motors Corporation MARTIN, ANGELA J

1742 Ex Parte Isobe et al 11464346 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP KHARE, ATUL P

1781 Ex Parte Clark McIver et al 10390905 - (D) HANLON 103 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP BEKKER, KELLY JO

1785 Ex Parte Stork et al 11478167 - (D) KRATZ 103 Cozen O'Connor HESS, BRUCE H

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Schacher et al 11396673 - (D) HUGHES 102 RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION  LE, THU NGUYET T

2172 Ex Parte Martin 10967446 - (D) SMITH 103 MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC ENGLAND, SARA M

2175 Ex Parte Janakiraman et al 11456230 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. Dissenting HOMERE 102/103 IBM CORP (YA) VU, THANH T

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Wasilewski et al 10602987 - (D) GONSALVES 102 MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY CHAI, LONGBIT

2431 Ex Parte Wasilewski et al 10602986 - (D) GONSALVES 102/103 MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY CHAI, LONGBIT

2431 Ex Parte Wasilewski et al 10602988 - (D) GONSALVES 102 MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY CHAI, LONGBIT

2451 Ex Parte Bagsby 10402392 - (D) GIANNETTI 102/obviousness-type double patenting AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler DIVECHA, KAMAL B

We start with the well-settled proposition that “[i]n the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.” CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Shafer et al 11144883 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 Tyco International LABBEES, EDNY

2612 Ex Parte Junker et al 11490645 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 Maginot, Moore & Beck WONG, ALBERT KANG

2625 Ex Parte Fischer et al 10844993 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY VO, QUANG N

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Renntoft 10468292 - (D) GREENHUT 103
VENABLE LLP GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A
3721 Ex Parte Buchenau et al 11639605 - (D) SAINDON 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB CHUKWURAH, NATHANIEL C

3725 Ex Parte Schroth et al 11671493 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 Quinn Law Group, PLLC EKIERT, TERESA M

3742 Ex Parte Miki et al 10505453 - (D) CALVE 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

3761 Ex Parte Bertrand et al 11605936 - (D) GRIMES 103 IPLM GROUP, P.A. MARCETICH, ADAM M

3763 Ex Parte Kanamura et al 11501672 - (D) JENKS 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC HOLLOWAY, IAN KNOBEL

3766 Ex Parte Struble et al 11380353 - (D) MARTIN 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) PORTER, JR, GARY A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Bangera et al 11724593 - (D) GREEN 112(1)/obviousness-type double patenting obviousness-type double patenting THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE BRUSCA, JOHN S

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Mohammed 10116186 - (D) GONSALVES 103 103 ADELI & TOLLEN, LLP IQBAL, KHAWAR

2629 Ex Parte Daly 10973157 - (D) SMITH 103 103 CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP SHERMAN, STEPHEN G

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Drader et al 10857966 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 Research in Motion Corp./CR AMRANY, ADI

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Kissner et al 10707570 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. ALMATRAHI, FARIS S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Hahn et al 11517724 - (D) ASTORINO 112(2)/103 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB WEEKS, GLORIA R

3735 Ex Parte Castillo et al 10860829 - (D) FRANKLIN 112(1)/103 103 FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN MARMOR II, CHARLES ALAN

3738 Ex Parte Wyss et al 11121408 - (D) WALSH 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP MILLER, CHERYL L

See also, In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“This court cannot, in the face of KSR, cling to formalistic rules for obviousness, customize its legal tests for specific scientific fields in ways that deem entire classes of prior art teachings irrelevant, or discount the significant abilities of artisans of ordinary skill in an advanced area of art”)

3764 Ex Parte Dyer et al 11342936 - (D) HOELTER 103 102/103 TERENCE P. O'BRIEN AMER SPORTS NORTH AMERICA THANH, LOAN H

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Kucharik 10846822 - (D) SCHEINER 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP SPIVACK, PHYLLIS G

1654 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 11891331 - (D) GREEN 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE SKOWRONEK, KARLHEINZ R

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Elhamid et al 11450793 - (D) OWENS 103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION DOUYETTE, KENNETH J

1772 Ex Parte Dath et al 10719267 - (D) WARREN 103 David J. Alexander Fina Technology, Inc. DANG, THUAN D

1782 Ex Parte Harrington 11316149 - (D) HANLON 103 GENERAL MILLS, INC. DYE, RENA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Chen 09944969 - (D) HUGHES 101/112(2)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ROBERTSON, DAVID

2191 Ex Parte Gehman et al 10816213 - (D) HUGHES 103 LSI Logic Corporation RAMPURIA, SATISH

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Brooks 09956688 - (D) JEFFERY 103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC SCHNURR, JOHN R

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Ashikhmin et al 10835085 - (D) HUGHES 102/103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP KIM, KEVIN

2612 Ex Parte Adamczyk et al 10899855 - (D) KRIVAK 103 AT&T Legal Department - CC SWARTHOUT, BRENT

2612 Ex Parte Smith et al 11486494 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 Delphi Technologies, Inc. MCNALLY, KERRI L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Schmitt 11123265 - (D) COURTENAY 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX MALEK, MALIHEH

2816 Ex Parte Kocaman et al 11116160 - (D) HOFF 103 Brake Hughes Bellermann LLP C/O Intellevate TRA, ANH QUAN

2823 Ex Parte Gasner et al 11737395 - (D) SMITH 103 Fogg & Powers LLC/Intersil Americas LLC LEE, HSIEN MING

2856 Ex Parte Hobert 10888824 - (D) SMITH 103 Johns Manville ROGERS, DAVID A

2872 Ex Parte Schmidt 11506123 - (D) SCHAFER 103 Dickinson Wright PLLC DOAK, JENNIFER L

2884 Ex Parte Kindem et al 10776645 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/112(2)/103 Law Office of Scott C Harris Inc LEE, SHUN K

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Rosenberg 09823943 - (D) FITZPATRICK 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP CEGIELNIK, URSZULA M
 
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2771 Ex parte NETAPP, INC., Appellant and Patent Owner 90009103 90008903 5819292 08/454,921 ARBES 102 CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP CHOI, WOO H original LINTZ, PAUL R

REHEARING

GRANTED
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Hazebrouck et al 11860833 - (D) BONILLA 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102/103
  BARNES & THORNBURG LLP HOBAN, MELISSA A

celeritas, wiseman, kubin

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Srinivas et al 11/916,685 GREEN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC. EXAMINER HEYER, DENNIS

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Kotnis et al 10/380,392 KRATZ 103(a) HUNTSMAN ADVANCED MATERIALS AMERICAS LLC EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I

1716 Ex Parte Choi et al 11/173,210 FRANKLIN 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER ZERVIGON, RUDY

1731 Ex Parte Bagala 11/277,897 FRANKLIN concurring NAGUMO 103(a) BASF CORPORATION EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

1731 Ex Parte Brady et al 11/275,416 GUEST 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A

1741 Ex Parte Willden et al 10/942,501 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) HUGH P. GORTLER EXAMINER DANIELS, MATTHEW J

1781 Ex Parte Shimek et al 10/620,038 NAGUMO 102(e)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Lee 10/423,942 BROCKETTI 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ALMO, KHAREEM E

2829 Ex Parte VanBuskirk et al 11/095,849 MACDONALD 102(b) SPANSION LLC C/O MURABITO , HAO & BARNES LLP EXAMINER MAI, ANH D

2837 Ex Parte Takagi et al 11/446,507 KRIVAK 102(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER COLON SANTANA, EDUARDO

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Schuller et al 10/423,471 CRAWFORD 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER GATLING, STACIE D

3657 Ex Parte Walters et al 10/741,760 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) Chrysler Group LLC EXAMINER BURCH, MELODY M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Jansen et al 10/221,379 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER EREZO, DARWIN P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte German 10/642,093 ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER HAYES, ROBERT CLINTON

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Busam et al 09/955,665 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HARMAN - BRINKS HOFER CHICAGO Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione EXAMINER TRAN, NGHI V

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Cook Jr et al 10/480,326 CRAWFORD 103(a) SULLIVAN & WORCESTER LLP EXAMINER SHAH, AMEE A

3664 Ex Parte Ban et al 10/989,432 ASTORINO 112(2)/102(b) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC) EXAMINER TRAN, KHOI H

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Borzym 10/762,430 PATE III 103(a) Thomas N. Young Young & Basile P.C. EXAMINER RACHUBA, MAURINA T

3734 Ex Parte Falahee 10/689,124 GREENHUT 102(e)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D

3761 Ex Parte Zander et al 11/025,645 SPAHN 102(a)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

The question of whether a prior art reference “teaches away” from the claimed subject matter is irrelevant to an anticipation analysis. See Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. Thus, the question whether a reference ‘teaches away’ from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.”) (Citations omitted).

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

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1724 Ex Parte 7105091 et al 10/883,378 7,105,091 Ex parte KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. LEE 103(a) PATENT OWNER: GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BORIS M. KHUDENKO, Ph.D., P.E. KHUDENKO ENGINEERING, INC. EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER PRINCE, FRED G

EXAMINER REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2624 Ex Parte 7088862 et al 95/001,179 7,088,862 MVTec SOFTWARE GmbH Requester and Appellant v. COGNEX CORPORATION Patent Owner and Respondent SIU 102/103(a) PATENT OWNER COGNEX CORPORATION PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER LAROSE, COLIN M original EXAMINER MARIAM, DANIEL G

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2621 Ex Parte 6771808 et al 95/001,176 6,771,808 MVTec SOFTWARE GmbH Third Party Requester, Appellant v. COGNEX CORPORATION Patent Owner, Respondent SIU 102/103 PATENT OWNER COGNEX CORPORATION PROSKAUER ROSE LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER LAROSE, COLIN M original EXAMINER WERNER, BRIAN P
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Wallach et al 10/761,370 WALSH 103(a) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA

“[Appellants] are, in effect, arguing that a structure suggested by the prior art, and, hence, potentially in the possession of the public, is patentable to them because it also possesses an Inherent, but hitherto unknown, function which they claim to have discovered. This is not the law. A patent on such a structure would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art.” In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1023 (CCPA 1979); see also In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Wiseman, In re, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) 2141.02, 2145, 2164.06(c)

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Jux et al 11/224,395 COLAIANNI 103(a) CIBA VISION CORPORATION EXAMINER ANGEBRANNDT, MARTIN J

1733 Ex Parte Bruckner et al 10/380,792 COLAIANNI 103(a) PROSKAUER ROSE LLP EXAMINER MCGUTHRY BANKS, TIMA MICHELE

1741 Ex Parte Lindsay et al 10/895,594 FRANKLIN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Dority & Manning, P.A. EXAMINER FORTUNA, JOSE A

1763 Ex Parte Carter et al 12/054,476 COLAIANNI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

1767 Ex Parte Ito 11/364,327 PRATS 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER MCCULLEY, MEGAN CASSANDRA

1785 Ex Parte Campbell et al 11/378,780 TIMM 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Kalliokulju et al 10/118,656 KOHUT 103(a) WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER EHICHIOYA, FRED I

2156 Ex Parte Kalthoff et al 11/273,598 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP EXAMINER LIAO, JASON G

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Fellenstein et al 10/205,571 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) CAHN & SAMUELS, LLP EXAMINER CALDWELL, ANDREW T

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Jacob et al 10/386,974 SMITH 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER PANWALKAR, VINEETA S

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Hidaka et al 11/704,916 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER LAM, TUAN THIEU

2824 Ex Parte Hudgens 11/447,821 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, VAN THU T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte McClendon et al 09/923,362 CRAWFORD 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

3679 Ex Parte Knowles 09/982,928 PATE III 103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER BOCHNA, DAVID

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 Ex Parte Braxton 10/034,720 ADAMS 103(a) VAN OPHEM & VANOPHEM, PC REMY J VANOPHEM, PC EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

3761 Ex Parte Schlinz et al 10/883,378 LEE 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3783 Ex Parte Botelho et al 10/825,989 PATE III 103(a) HODGSON RUSS LLP EXAMINER KAMEN, NOAH P
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Armstrong et al 10/889,481 OWENS 103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte Cochran et al 10/879,401 LUCAS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W
VACATED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte King 11/031,648 GRIMES 102(b) 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 103(a) Vista IP Law Group LLP EXAMINER HELLER, TAMMIE K

giacomini, kubin, o'farrell, rolls-royce

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Batke et al 09/967,742 MacDONALD 103(a) ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./BF EXAMINER SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Vayssiere 11/024,094 COURTENAY 102(e) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP EXAMINER LY, ANH

“[A]n applicant is not entitled to a patent if another’s patent discloses the same invention, which was carried forward from an earlier U.S. provisional application or U.S. non-provisional application. . . . An important limitation is that the provisional application must provide written description support for the claimed invention.” In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

The 35 U.S.C. 102(e) critical reference date of a U.S. patent or U.S. application publications and certain international application publications entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is the filing date of the provisional application with certain exceptions if the provisional application(s) properly supports the subject matter relied upon to make the rejection in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.

MPEP § 2136.03 (III.)(bold in original).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Benz et al 10/791,432 KAUFFMAN 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER LE, DAVID D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Song 10/638,920 GRIMES 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER VU, JAKE MINH

1633 Ex Parte Blanche et al 11/582,427 FREDMAN 103(a) WILEY REIN LLP EXAMINER KAUSHAL, SUMESH

We are not persuaded. Kubin stated that “[r]esponding to concerns about uncertainty in the prior art influencing the purported success of the claimed combination, this court [in O’Farrell] stated: ‘[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success … all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”’ In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-904 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1776 Ex Parte Louis Schupp 11/145,205 NAGUMO 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER ORLANDO, AMBER ROSE

1781 Ex Parte Chaudhry et al 11/127,714 GAUDETTE 112(1)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER BADR, HAMID R

Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Technologies Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“If a person of ordinary skill, before the time of invention and without knowledge of that invention, would have found the invention merely an easily predictable and achievable variation or combination of the prior art, then the invention likely would have been obvious.”).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/191,469 DANG 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOI, YUK TING

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Wee et al 10/245,892 GONSALVES 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D

NEW

AFFIRMED

06/01/2011 1767 Ex Parte Gong et al 10/518,127 GAUDETTE 103(a) EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

06/01/2011 1764 Ex Parte Guenther et al 12/008,740 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER HUHN, RICHARD A

hafner, rasmusson, beattie, gershon, kubin

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Maurer et al 11/629,751 SMITH 103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Johnston et al 10/877,903 COURTENAY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HICKS, MICHAEL J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Poyhonen et al 10/898,726 DIXON 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUONG

2486 Ex Parte Banerji et al 10/074,765 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. EXAMINER VO, TUNG T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Cogar et al 11/152,884 PETRAVICK 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER DENISSE ORTIZ ROMAN

3632 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/532,370 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Wallace et al 10/744,853 BAHR 103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP/BSC - NEUROMODULATION EXAMINER BERTRAM, ERIC D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Morsa 09/832,440 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) Steve Morsa EXAMINER OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

Initially, we note that the standard for what constitutes proper enablement of a prior art reference for purposes of anticipation under section 102 differs from the enablement standard under section 112. In In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403, 1405 (CCPA 1969). A disclosure lacking a teaching of how to use a fully disclosed invention for a specific, substantial utility is, under the present state of the law, entirely adequate to anticipate a claim. See Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Hafner, In re, 410 F.2d 1403, 161 USPQ 783 (CCPA 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201.11

Rasmussen, In re, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . 706.03(o), 1504.04, 2163, 2163.01, 2163.04, 2163.05, 2163.06
3695 Ex Parte Nalbandian et al 10/206,894 LORIN 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BAIRD, EDWARD J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Lauterjung 10/832,159 STAICOVICI 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Warmerdam et al 10/516,663 PAK 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

See also In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“As long as some [reason,] motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”)

Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985) (“The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.”); In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539 (CCPA 1967) (“We think it is sufficient that the prior art clearly suggests doing what appellants have done, although an underlying explanation of exactly why this should be done, other than to obtain the expected superior beneficial results, is not taught or suggested in the cited references.”); In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Even if no prior art of record explicitly discusses the [limitation], [applicant’s] application itself instructs that [the limitation] is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims on the [claimed invention], but rather a property necessarily present in [the claimed invention]”).

Beattie, In re, 974 F.2d 1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . 716.01(c), 2145

Obiaya, Ex parte, 227 USPQ 58 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) 707.07(f), 2145, 2258

Gershon, In re, 372 F.2d 535, 152 USPQ 602 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(c), 716.04

(appealed) Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Monnerie et al 11/285,454 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

NEW

REVERSED

1712 Ex Parte Blonigan et al 11/425,679 OWENS 102(e)/103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER MILLER, MICHAEL G

2437 Ex Parte Carroll 10/710,491 HAHN 102(e)/112(2)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Patent Venture Group EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2457 Ex Parte Krawetz 10/159,093 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DALENCOURT, YVES

AFFIRMED

3627 Ex Parte Buckman et al 09/875,639 CRAWFORD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

1776 Ex Parte DE BUSSY et al 11/959,734 SMITH 102(b) American Air Liquide, Inc. EXAMINER JONES, CHRISTOPHER P

1736 Ex Parte Hilgendorff et al 11/564,494 GARRIS 103(a) BASF CATALYSTS LLC EXAMINER ZIMMER, ANTHONY J

REHEARING

DENIED

1627 Ex Parte Smith 10/294,509 WALSH HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP EXAMINER FAY, ZOHREH A

Wednesday December 8, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte Bruno et al 11/058,054 FREDMAN ADAMS MILLS 103(a) WINSTEAD PC EXAMINER CHONG, KIMBERLY

Kubin stated that

[t]o differentiate between proper and improper applications of ‘obvious to try,’ this court outlined two classes of situations where ‘obvious to try’ is erroneously equated with obviousness under § 103. In the first class of cases, what would have been ‘obvious to try’ would have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful.

In re Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359 (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at 903).

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Harrison et al 10/774,616 McCARTHY BARRETT PATE III 102(b) WILEY REIN LLP EXAMINER LE, TAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Murray et al 11/383,201 SILVERBERG BARRETT KERINS 102(b)/103(a)
WOLFF LAW OFFICE, PLLC EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

3741 Ex Parte Tiemann et al 10/524,523 PATE III HORNER STAICOVICI 103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER SUNG, GERALD LUTHER

However, the claimed invention “must be viewed not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which posed the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.01

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/301,918 SAADAT EASTHOM KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER SURVILLO, OLEG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Nevin 11/318,202 HORNER KERINS MCCARTHY 103(a) EXAMINER ROBINSON, DANIEL LEON EPSTEIN DRANGEL LLP

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1617 Ex parte ALZA CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,142 6,440,457 LEBOVITZ
DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) cc (Patent Owner): RATNERPRESTIA cc (Third Party Requester): WILMERHALE/DC EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L original EXAMINER WEBMAN, EDWARD J

“References relied upon to support a rejection under 35 USC 103 must provide an enabling disclosure, i.e., they must place the claimed invention in the possession of the public.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 314
(CCPA 1979).

Payne, In re, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) . . . 716.02(a), 716.02(e), 2144.09

“Thus, upon careful reconsideration it is our view that if the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a method for making a claimed compound, at the time the invention was made, it may not be legally concluded that the compound itself is in the possession of the public. [footnote omitted].” In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 274 (CCPA 1968).

Hoeksema, In re, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). . . . . . . 2121.01, 2121.02,2144.09, 2145

AFFIRMED

3634 Ex Parte Barkman et al 11/071,813 SILVERBERG EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
1633 Ex Parte Gromeier et al 10/304,059 PRATS EXAMINER KELLY, ROBERT M
3732 Ex Parte Kuo 10/894,555 FREDMAN EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE
2839 Ex Parte Lavie 10/644,416 SAADAT EXAMINER TA, THO DAC
3774 Ex Parte Lukic 10/101,378 MILLS EXAMINER STEWART, ALVIN J
3724 Ex Parte Pennell et al 11/524,148 STAICOVICI EXAMINER ALIE, GHASSEM
2872 Ex Parte Piehl et al 11/284,225 MacDONALD EXAMINER PRITCHETT, JOSHUA L
3673 Ex Parte Ricketts 11/343438 SILVERBERG EXAMINER CONLEY, FREDRICK C

REHEARING

DENIED

2445 Ex Parte Gilbert et al 10/635,586 LUCAS EXAMINER BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D