W.L. Gore, continental can

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Gladman et al 11/427,899 GREEN 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b)/103(a) CONVATEC INC. EXAMINER SOROUSH, ALI

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Saito et al 11/151,709 PAK 102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ZHANG, RACHEL L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Murphy et al 11/084,621 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER NGUYEN, LOAN T

2186 Ex Parte Jones et al 11/066,038 JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Berg et al 11/047,000 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER RINEHART, KENNETH

A rejection founded in anticipation cannot be predicated on conjecture as to how the allegedly anticipating structure is constructed and arranged. W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“Anticipation of inventions set forth in product claims cannot be predicated on mere conjecture respecting the characteristics of products that might result from the practice of processes disclosed in references.”) Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference.”)

W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)

Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . . . . . . . . . . .2131.01
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Atkin et al 10/388,096 DANG 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC EXAMINER PATEL, MANGLESH M
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Chen 11/327,232 FREDMAN 103(a) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER JOIKE, MICHELE K

1643 Ex Parte Gorlach 11/221,252 FREDMAN 102(b) Jane Massey Licata Licata & Tyrrell P.C. EXAMINER BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Hofmann et al 10/714,800 OWENS 112(2)/103(a) SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC EXAMINER FELTON, AILEEN BAKER

1742 Ex Parte Chevillard et al 10/766,672 OWENS 112(1)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER WOLLSCHLAGER, JEFFREY MICHAEL

1761 Ex Parte CANO et al 11/960,329 SCHEINER 103(a) Shell Oil Company EXAMINER ADMASU, ATNAF S

1763 Ex Parte Finch et al 11/515,112 GREEN 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER USELDING, JOHN E

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Booth et al 10/272,588 BARRY 103(a) Duke Yee Yee Assoicates PC EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R

2185 Ex Parte Allen et al 11/239,597 ZECHER 103(a) IBM (ROC-BLF) C/O BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER CAMPOS, YAIMA

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2471 Ex Parte Frankel et al 11/259,717 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP EXAMINER TRAN, PHUC H

schering, omeprazole, continental can

REVERSED

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Frohlich et al 10/426,039 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHEN, WENPENG

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

2873 Ex parte Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. 90/008,993 6,560,047 LEE 103(a) Patent Owner: STAAS & HALSEY LLP Third Party Requester: Lindsay S. Adams DAY PITTNEY, LLPEXAMINER NGUYEN, MINH T original EXAMINER CHOI, WILLIAM C

AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2431 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/208,718 NAPPI 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHERKAT, AREZOO

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1773 Ex Parte Zurcher 10/337,092 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) David W. Highet, VP & Chief IP Counsel Becton, Dickinson and Company EXAMINER HANDY, DWAYNE K

See Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Continental Can does not stand for the proposition that an inherent feature of a prior art reference must be perceived as such by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the critical date.”); In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., v. Andrx Pharms, Inc., 483 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (recognition in the prior art is not necessary when the claimed characteristic or function is inherently present in the prior art).

Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112

Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131.01