SEARCH

PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Showing posts with label robertson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label robertson. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

lantech, robertson

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11262499 - (D) GRIMES 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11286133 - (D) GRIMES 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2196 Ex Parte Crisan et al 10407536 - (D) ADAMS 103 KONRAD RAYNES DAVDA & VICTOR, LLP ATTN: IBM54 CAO, DIEM K

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Brown 11610156 - (D) BAHR 103 Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. SHAW, PETER C

However, this menu of options does not satisfy the requirements in claims 1 and 13 for both a presentation of a query and a presentation of its predetermined responses. See, e.g., Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in infringement context, a single conveyor held not to meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).

Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio, Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2145

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2112 2114 2163 2163.07(a)

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Frank et al 11395088 - (D) MOHANTY 103 AT&T Legal Department - H&C BROWN, ALVIN L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11327644 - (D) DESHPANDE 102(e) 102(e)/103 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP ALLEN, NICHOLAS E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Holmquist et al 11302923 - (D) DELMENDO 102(e) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. ASSOUAD, PATRICK J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Ferren et al 11171649 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE CRANDALL, LYNSEY P

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Han et al 11875775 - (D) WILSON 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP ENIN-OKUT, EDU E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Bukris 12359761 - (D) McMILLIN 112(2)/102 MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & DUNLEAVY, P.C. KIM, KENNETH S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte LaJoie et al 12432871 - (D) KINDER 102(e)/103 STRAUB & POKOTYLO PENG, HSIUNGFE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Son et al 10834806 - (D) SHIANG 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. PHUONG, DAI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Maekawa 10653193 - (D) LORIN 103 Cheng Law Group, PLLC PORTER, RACHEL L

3635 Ex Parte BURGER et al 11959542 - (D) ZECHER 103 MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC - GM WENDELL, MARK R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Dilger et al 11250792 - (D) BAHR 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. MULLER, BRYAN R

Friday, October 25, 2013

trintec, robertson

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Williams 12495222 - (D) PLENZLER 112(2)/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC KNUTSON, JACOB D

3632 Ex Parte Nahas 10193397 - (D) BAHR 102(b) Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co., LPA MARSH, STEVEN M

3686 Ex Parte Birbara et al 11489213 - (D) LORIN 102/103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP RANGREJ, SHEETAL

It is possible that one or other of the depicted determinations could be “generated” but “[i]nherent anticipation requires that the missing descriptive material is ‘necessarily present,’ not merely probably or possibly present, in the prior art.” Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)
trintec HARMON 3: 3, 50
robertson HARMON 3: 46, 5-; 4: 109; 19: 438
DONNER 7: 790-95

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Ziman 12289264 - (D) GROSSMAN 102(b) LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO MEHTA, BHISMA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Belady et al 11111066 - (D) BROWNE 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FLANIGAN, ALLEN J

3752 Ex Parte LEBEDA et al 11466013 - (D) DANIELS 103 Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. TRAN, LEN

Monday, November 12, 2012

bond, robertson, schriber-schroth, sneed

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Wolf et al 10909380 - (D) BUI 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LY, CHEYNE D

While claim terms are given their “broadest reasonable construction,” any such construction must be “consistent with the specification, … and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (emphasis added).

Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2131, 2183, 2184

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

[C]laims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. See Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217, 61 S.Ct. 235 (1940) (“The claims of a patent are always to be read or interpreted in light of its specifications.”).

2183 Ex Parte Master et al 09997530 - (D) JEFFERY 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP VICARY, KEITH E

see also In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing only two means using one element twice)

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Appleyard et al 11359264 - (D) SMITH 102/103 VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN

1777 Ex Parte Oklejas 12023194 - (D) SMITH 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. MENON, KRISHNAN S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Roberts et al 09855804 - (D) CALDWELL 103 AT&T Legal Department - CC MATTIS, JASON E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2664 Ex Parte Ramos et al 11215571 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG HSU, AMY R

2679 Ex Parte Rackham 10096310 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 ANDREWS KURTH LLP AMINI, JAVID A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Cookson et al 10748441 - (D) BAHR 102 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

robertson

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Carlucci et al 11/471,929 FREDMAN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KASSA, TIGABU

1624 Ex Parte Gerlach et al 10/608,520 FREDMAN 112(1)/103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP EXAMINER WARD, PAUL V

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Nightingale 10/764,495 HAHN 101/102(e) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER ALHIJA, SAIF A

2164 Ex Parte Majd et al 10/961,735 BROCKETTI 103(a) Leslie J. Payne IBM Corporation- Dept. 917 EXAMINER GEBRESENBET, DINKU W

2165 Ex Parte Crucs 11/125,930 HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP EXAMINER CHBOUKI, TAREK

2166 Ex Parte Holland et al 10/372,346 CHANG 102(e) MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) EXAMINER YEN, SYLING

See e.g., In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (The claims were drawn to a disposable diaper having three fastening elements. The reference disclosed two fastening elements that could perform the same function as the three fastening elements in the claims. The court construed the claims to require three separate elements and held that the reference did not disclose a separate third fastening element, either expressly or inherently.).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

2191 Ex Parte Sreedhar 09/925,580 BROCKETTI 102(b) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER VO, TED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Green 09/950,253 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER COONEY, ADAM A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Ando 11/401,301 GONSALVES 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER AMAYA, CARLOS DAVID

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Epstein et al 09/750,500 MacDONALD 102(e) Gilman Pergament LLP EXAMINER EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Olson et al 09/855,196 SILVERBERG 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3767 Ex Parte Mizus 11/067,729 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Otsubo et al 11/058,281 GREEN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, FRANK I

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Diao et al 10/648,179 KOHUT 102(b) 102(b) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS

2183 Ex Parte Shui et al 10/374,147 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER LI, AIMEE J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Watson, et al 10/289,492 CHEN 103(a) 103(a) Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Nakamura et al 10/669,653 DANG 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER MOTSINGER, SEAN T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Quintus et al 10/328,933 FETTING 103(a) 103(a) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER ANDERSON, FOLASHADE

3673 Ex Parte Mossbeck 11/329,998 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER LIU, JONATHAN


REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3725 Ex Parte 6550701 et al US RE40,042 95/000,165 SONG 112(2)/103(a) FELLOWES, INC. Requester, Appellant v. MICHILIN PROSPERITY, LTD Patent Owner, Respondent PATENT OWNER STEFAN KIRCHANSKI VENABLE LLP 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST THIRD PARTY REQUESTER BRYAN P. COLLINS PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER HONG, WILLIAM

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Otsubo et al 11/071,204 GREEN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) obviousness-type double patenting SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

1616 Ex Parte Otsubo et al 11/058,246 GREEN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, FRANK I

1616 Ex Parte Otsubo et al 11/058,284 GREEN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

1616 Ex Parte Otsubo et al 11/078,358 GREEN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, FRANK I

1629 Ex Parte Au et al 10/807,620 FREDMAN 112(1)/103(a) MUELLER AND SMITH, LPA EXAMINER ANDERSON, JAMES D

1648 Ex Parte NAUWYNCK et al 11/944,555 FREDMAN 112(1)/112(2) CLARK & ELBING LLP EXAMINER MOSHER, MARY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Brooks et al 10/059,478 COURTENAY 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER TAN, ALVIN H

2179 Ex Parte Khakzadi et al 10/719,673 JEFFERY 103(a) Leo Peters LSI Logic Corporation EXAMINER WIENER, ERIC A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Brittenham et al 10/328,873 POTHIER 102(e) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BOUTAH, ALINA A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Jordan et al 10/108,254 FETTING 103(a) Eddie E. Scott Assistant Laboratory Counsel Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory EXAMINER BOYCE, ANDRE D

REHEARING

DENIED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Preisach 10/752,597 HAHN 102(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER LE, DON P

Monday, August 1, 2011

lantech, robertson, lovin

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Weber 10/928,999 SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER LOVE, TREVOR M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Lee 11/025,123 GARRIS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW D. FORTNEY, PH.D., P.C. EXAMINER RAYMOND, BRITTANY L

1742 Ex Parte Funaoka et al 10/973,392 WARREN 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP EXAMINER HUSON, MONICA ANNE

1767 Ex Parte Herbiet et al 11/573,581 SCHEINER 103(a) ALBEMARLE CORPORATION EXAMINER GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Ferren et al 11/223,898 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL

When a claim requires two separate elements, mapping one disclosed element to both recited elements is improper. See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing only two means using one element twice).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

2187 Ex Parte Kreuchauf et al 10/911,319 STEPHENS 102(e)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER THAMMAVONG, PRASITH

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Larson 10/449,025 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, MADELEINE ANH VINH

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Hunter et al 11/337,783 SAADAT 103(a) LARSON NEWMAN, LLP EXAMINER HUR, JUNG H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Batke et al 09/967,124 HOFF 103(a) ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./BF EXAMINER EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A

3677 Ex Parte Tolan et al 10/688,032 ASTORINO 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BATSON, VICTOR D

3679 Ex Parte Maciag 10/839,079 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Rankin, Hill & Clark LLP EXAMINER DUNWOODY, AARON M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Zwilling et al 10/833,541 BLANKENSHIP 101/103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER LY, ANH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Burak et al 10/400,239 ASTORINO 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER COBURN, CORBETT B

3736 Ex Parte Ehrenberger et al 11/002,955 BAHR 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T

These vague statements do not constitute separate arguments for patentability of the dependent claims pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See In re Lovin, No. 2010-1499, 2011 WL 2937946, at *7
(Fed. Cir. Jul. 22, 2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Appellants have waived any argument for separate patentability of these dependent claims. See id.

3753 Ex Parte Schafer et al 10/697,376 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and Schoenebaum, P.L.C EXAMINER PRICE, CRAIG JAMES

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2875 Ex Parte 6830358 et al FIBER OPTIC DESIGNS, INC. and HOLIDAY CREATIONS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. SEASONAL SPECIALTIES, LLC Requestor 95/000,137 EASTHOM 102(e)/103(a)/305 Liniak Berenato Longacre & White Third Party Requester: Patterson, Thuente, Skaar & Christensen, PA Attn: Bradley J. Thorson, Esq. EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER HUSAR, STEPHEN F

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Birke et al 11/352,845 COLAIANNI 102(b) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, REBECCA Y

1761 Ex Parte Morgan 11/506,064 SMITH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R

1771 Ex Parte Koshima et al 10/515,822 HANLON 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GOLOBOY, JAMES C

The Appellants do note that Tipton “fails to disclose or suggest the more specific succinimide compounds/compositions encompassed by claims 2, 3, 9 and 11.” App. Br. 7. However, this general assertion does not constitute a separate argument under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010). In re Lovin, No. 2010-1499, slip op. at 16 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 22, 2011)

1781 Ex Parte Skjervold et al 10/276,065 PAK 103(a)/112(1) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

1792 Ex Parte Nihei et al 11/063,572 PAK 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte LeCrone et al 10/955,470 HOMERE 103(a)/provisional obviousness double patenting MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC EXAMINER RUTZ, JARED IAN

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Sablak et al 10/306,509 KRIVAK 103(a) BAKER & DANIELS LLP EXAMINER PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Furry 11/298,862 KOHUT 112(1)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. David A. Rose EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1644 Ex Parte Stumvoll et al 10/027,625 GRIMES 103 PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP EXAMINER ROONEY, NORA MAUREEN

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

lantech, robertson

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kim 11/207,126 PRATS 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER ORWIG, KEVIN S

As stated in TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2001):
The written description requirement and its corollary, the new matter prohibition of 35 U.S.C. § 132, both serve to ensure that the patent applicant was in full possession of the claimed subject matter on the application filing date. When the applicant adds a claim or otherwise amends his specification after the original filing date . . ., the new claims or other added material must find support in the original specification.
...We acknowledge that it is improper to base an obviousness rejection on an unknown inherent property present in the prior art. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“'That which may be inherent is not necessarily known. Obviousness cannot be predicated on what is unknown.' Such a retrospective view of inherency is not a substitute for some teaching or suggestion supporting an obviousness rejection.”) (quoting In re Spormann, 363 F.2d 444, 448 (CCPA 1966)).

Rijckaert, In re, 9 F.3d 1531, 28 USPQ2d 1955 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . .2112, 2141.02, 2144.08

1625 Ex Parte Singh et al 10/931,481 McCOLLUM 112(1) McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP EXAMINER SEAMAN, D MARGARET M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Hutter et al 10/474,022 MORGAN 102(e)/103(a) Joseph S Tripoli Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc EXAMINER PARK, ILWOO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Trampuz et al 11/083,196 GRIMES 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER MACAULEY, SHERIDAN RLink
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Selwyn et al 11/317,374 WALSH 103(a) COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC EXAMINER HAMMER, KATIE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Rummel et al 11/007,634 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER NDUBIZU, CHUKA CLEMENT

See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in infringement context, a single conveyor held to not meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 746 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Vargo et al 10/291,279 NAGUMO 103(a) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY EXAMINER KNABLE, GEOFFREY L

1786 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 11/347,406 OWENS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Weissman et al 10/689,903 STEPHENS 101/102(e) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER SHECHTMAN, CHERYL MARIA

2162 Ex Parte Baek et al 10/973,959 DANG 101/103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER KERZHNER, ALEKSANDR

2186 Ex Parte Bellows et al 11/008,768 COURTENAY 103(a) Leslie Payne IBM Corporation EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/281,056 HOMERE 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - HFZ EXAMINER HIGA, BRENDAN Y