SEARCH

Monday, March 1, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Keating et al MILLS 102(b)/103(a) MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. ATTN: PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Ex Parte Sampson et al PRATS 102(e) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.

Ex Parte Srinivasan et al WALSH, Concurring Opinion filed by FREDMAN 103(a) JIVAN BIOLOGICSC/O SUBHA SRINIVASAN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ward WARREN 103(a) THE LAW OFFICES OF CALVIN B. WARD

Ex Parte Kim et al KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP

Ex Parte Dierberger TIMM 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.

Ex Parte Morita et al GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Lowrance et al HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Ex Parte Olien et al DIXON 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Burstein JEFFERY 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Matsumoto HAIRSTON 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP

Ex Parte Pandey et al MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Lee et al BOALICK 102(e)/103(a) VOLENTINE & WHITT, PLLC

Ex Parte Wu et al SMITH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Muller BARRETT 103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

Ex Parte Casanova STAICOVICI 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC

Ex Parte Gass et al PATE III 103(a) SD3, LLC

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Pater Shannon et al MILLS 103(a) PAUL M. DENK

When evaluating claims for obviousness, “the prior art as a whole must be considered. The teachings are to be viewed as they would have been viewed by one of ordinary skill.” In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, “‘[i]t is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Id. (quoting In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965)).

Hedges, In re, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ 685 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Disalvo et al COLAIANNI 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSONJOHNSON & JOHNSON

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Carlson et al COURTENAY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Gopisetty et al JEFFERY 103(a) MARK C. MCCABE IBM CORPORATION

Ex Parte Ho COURTENAY 101/103(a) Oracle International CorporationC/O Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Hill NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY

Ex Parte Kim et al HOFF 103(a) H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC

Ex Parte Wu et al MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

Ex Parte Kim et al WHITEHEAD, JR. 101/102(b) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hendricks et al PATE III 103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Briggs HORNER 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.

See In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“One way for a patent applicant to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness is to make a showing of “unexpected results,” i.e., to show that the claimed invention exhibits some superior property or advantage that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have found surprising or unexpected.).

Soni, In re, 54 F.3d 746, 34 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f) , 2145

No comments :