SEARCH

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Snow et al PRATS 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

Also, as noted in Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2009), “patents are not barred just because it was obvious ‘to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.’” (quoting In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

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
Ex Parte Lark et al HANLON 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A.

Ex Parte Parrish OWENS Obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Randall M. Heald, John F. Kennedy Space Center

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Anderson HOMERE 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) The Grafe Law Office, P.C.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Watarai McCARTHY 103(a) GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Knowles HORNER 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) YOUNG & THOMPSON

No comments :