warner, dystar, alcon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Burchfield et al 12016280 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. CAMPBELL, SHANNON S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Daniel et al 12572769 - (D) FREDMAN 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC HUGHES, SAMUEL T

3737 Ex Parte IRIE 13768405 - (D) HOELTER 103 SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC AKAR, SERKAN

All statements premised on the exact location along 11b where the adhesive is applied, and specifically which side of protuberance 26 the adhesive can be found, are merely speculative because Sakamoto is silent in this regard (furthermore, Sakamoto does not illustrate any adhesive in any figure).

In such a situation, we are instructed by the predecessor to our reviewing court that

The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis. To the extent the Patent Office rulings are so supported, there is no basis for resolving doubts against their correctness. Likewise, we may not resolve doubts in favor of the Patent Office determination when there are deficiencies in the record as to the necessary factual bases supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness.

In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (emphasis added).

Warner, In re, 379 F.2d 1011, 154 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1967) 2142

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte Bruce et al 11201410 - (D) DERRICK 103 103 STOUT, UXA, BUYAN & MULLINS, LLP GUPTA, YOGENDRA N

We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive the Examiner erred reversibly because it fails to address the Examiner’s proffered combination of prior art teachings and reasoning, and it is not necessary that the motivation and reasoning be from the prior art. See, e.g., DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating motivation to modify the prior art “may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself”) (cited with approval in Alcon Research LTD. v. Apotex, Inc., 687 F.3d 1362, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Nor is it of import that the motivation differs from that of Appellants. DyStar, 464 F.3d at 1368 (“We have repeatedly held that the motivation to modify a prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention need not be the same motivation that the patentee had.”) As to the argument that disclosure of a single step during which both demolding and delensing occurs leads away from the Examiner’s position, we find it without persuasive merit. See, e.g., Dystar., 464 F.3d at 1364 (“We will not read into a reference a teaching away from a process where no such language exists.”)

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2143.01 , 2144

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Baran 12771855 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(2) Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY WEINHOLD, INGRID M

3681 Ex Parte HAMILTON et al 12189225 - (D) WIEDER 103 102/103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Wehling et al 12170946 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 ALLISON JOHNSON, P.A. HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11554926 - (D) THOMAS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY POINT, RUFUS C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Camarillo 12022987 - (D) WOODS 103 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP HOLWERDA, STEPHEN

dystar

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Townsend et al 11735594 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. ELDRED, JOHN W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Baumann et al 12044188 - (D) BUI 103 Mitch Harris (END) CONYERS, DAWAUNE A

2165 Ex Parte Zamir et al 11097792 - (D) STEPHENS 103 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP / GOOGLE HICKS, MICHAEL J

2177 Ex Parte Petri 11671836 - (D) GRIMES 103 IBM CORPORATION BLACKWELL, JAMES H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2482 Ex Parte Liebhold 10521386 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Thomson Licensing Inc FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G

2488 Ex Parte Lu et al 11053001 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. PE, GEEPY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2882 Ex Parte Boyden et al 11906172 - (D) BUI 103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE HO, ALLEN C

Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner’s rationale is erroneous or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reached the conclusions reached by the Examiner. See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.”).

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2143.01 , 2144

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Stefik et al 11175452 - (D) FETTING 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Reed Smith LLP MCINTYRE, CHARLES AARON

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 MURATA MANUFACTURING Co., LTD. Requester v. SYNQOR, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001206 7272021 11/407,699 MOORE 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. Third Party Requester: Keating & Bennett, LLP NGUYEN, LINH M original BERHANE, ADOLF D

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 Ex parte INTOUCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 90012151 7222000 11/039,341 GREENHUT 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP Third Party Requester: Hankin Patent Law, APC original InTouch Health C/O CPA Global KASHNIKOW, ANDRES original MARC, MCDIEUNEL

dystar

custom search

REVERSED
3644 Ex Parte McGrady et al 11512827 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 DEERE & COMPANY NGUYEN, TRINH T

AFFIRMED
1785 Ex Parte Dumond et al 11504266 - (D) HASTINGS 103 O'Shea Getz P.C. REDDY, SATHAVARAM I

See also DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Our suggestion test is in actuality quite flexible and not only permits, but requires, consideration of common knowledge and common sense.”).

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2143.01, 2144
DONNER 8: 92a, 107, 108, 402, 403, 735, 736, 804, 805
HARMON 4: 18b, 139a, 354, 361, 362, 393

2814 Ex Parte Fujii et al 12153481 - (D) KIMLIN 102(e)/103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP WEISS, HOWARD

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
3745 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. Requester v. BORGWARNER, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000431 6,663,347 09/875,760 GUEST 102(b)/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Alston & Bird, LLP TILL, TERRENCE R original VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M

AFG, xiao, chef america, princeton, dystar

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Liu et al 10/920,915 HUGHES 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, SON T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Kobayashi et al 11/204,038 HORNER 102(b) KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP EXAMINER LE, TAN

3684 Ex Parte Hicks et al 11/159,914 TURNER 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Costea et al 10/346,898 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3761 Ex Parte King 10/704,860 GREEN 112(1)/102(b) Susan Clark King EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

“Consisting of” is a closed transitional phrase that is “understood to exclude any elements, steps, or ingredients not specified in the claim.” AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., Inc., 239 F.3d 1239, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

AFG Industries, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Company, Inc., 239 F.3d 1239, 57 USPQ2d 1776 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . 2111.03

3777 Ex Parte Mathew 10/681,634 ASTORINO 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER RAMIREZ, JOHN FERNANDO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Saito et al 10/315,583 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER STACE, BRENT S

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Nowlin et al 09/991,089 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER PEACHES, RANDY
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Koningstein et al 10/750,451 PETRAVICK 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) Straub & Pokotylo EXAMINER BEKERMAN, MICHAEL

In re Xiao, No. 2011-1195, 2011 WL 4821929, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2011) (non-precedential) (non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight)

3654 Ex Parte Duke et al 11/446,005 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) THE GATES CORPORATION EXAMINER REESE, ROBERT T

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Westervelt et al 10/837,787 BEST 103(a) Gesmer Updegrove LLP EXAMINER MENDEZ, ZULMARIAM

1731 Ex Parte Kolodziej et al 11/592,589 GAUDETTE 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER WOOD, JARED M

1771 Ex Parte De Rezende Pinho et al 10/480,966 TIMM 103(a) Albemarle Netherlands B.V. EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Roy et al 12/698,671 SIU 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER TRAN, TUNG Q

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Ugail 11/072,065 SIU 103(a)/101 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP EXAMINER REPKO, JASON MICHAEL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Schaepkens et al 10/817,531 STRAUSS 102(e)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER CHU, CHRIS C

Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning, are construed to mean exactly what they say.)

Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Fransen et al 11/087,631 FREDMAN 112(1)/103(a) HOYNG MONEGIER LLP EXAMINER VALENTI, ANDREA M

3687 Ex Parte Thoren 10/843,304 TURNER 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Solem et al 11/343,382 WALSH 103(a) Edwards Lifesciences LLC EXAMINER MCEVOY, THOMAS M

See Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming obviousness where motivation was found in the knowledge of those skilled in the art at the time, and where the nature of the problem also supplied a motivation). “In other words, the nature of the problem called for exactly the solutions in the prior art.” Id. at 1339. Accord, DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied”).

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

3733 Ex Parte Myint et al 11/268,786 FREDMAN 102(a)/103(a) STOEL RIVES LLP - SLC EXAMINER CARTER, TARA ROSE E

3767 Ex Parte Peterson et al 11/247,436 LEE 112(2)/103(a) Faegre Baker Daniels LLP EXAMINER HALL, DEANNA K

3774 Ex Parte Hlavka et al 10/622,207 BAUMEISTER 112(1) Leason Ellis LLP EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

REHEARING
 
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Chandler 11/401,198 SMITH 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER WARDEN, JILL ALICE

hoffer, gartside, princeton biochemicals, dystar, merck2, gechter, champagne

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1615 Ex Parte Ahlgren et al 11/057,480 MILLS 103(a) Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. EXAMINER SASAN, ARADHANA

07/25/2011 1624 Ex Parte Pathi et al 11/574,642 WALSH Concurring FREDMAN 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER WILLIS, DOUGLAS M

07/25/2011 1628 Ex Parte Bieringer et al 10/198,580 MILLS 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2161 Ex Parte Rath et al 11/388,012 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

See Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.”).

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04

07/25/2011 2168 Ex Parte Idicula et al 11/014,442 DIXON 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER MOBIN, HASANUL

07/25/2011 2179 Ex Parte Uotila et al 11/124,651 GONSALVES 102(b)/103(a) HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3624 Ex Parte Fama et al 11/478,714 PETRAVICK 103(a) SETTER ROCHE LLP EXAMINER WALKER III, GEORGE H

07/25/2011 3634 Ex Parte Rieder et al 11/288,682 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/25/2011 3767 Ex Parte Torris et al 10/419,934 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO EXAMINER GRAY, PHILLIP A
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1626 Ex Parte Almirante et al 10/566,292 WALSH 103(a) ARENT FOX LLP EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R

“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references. . . is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Motivation to apply prior art teachings may be found when “the nature of the problem called for exactly the solutions in the prior art.” Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming obviousness). Accord, DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied”). The prior art’s disclosure of a multitude of combinations does not necessarily render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. .716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

07/25/2011 1637 Ex Parte Park et al 11/965,687 ADAMS 103(a) MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. EXAMINER TUNG, JOYCE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/25/2011 1763 Ex Parte Gestermann et al 11/709,411 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

07/25/2011 1787 Ex Parte NOWAK et al 09/178,329 KRATZ 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2166 Ex Parte Kreulen et al 10/851,754 DANG 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2436 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos et al 10/810,025 DROESCH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, DANIEL L

07/25/2011 2464 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 10/354,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) EXAMINER HAN, CLEMENCE S

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Smith 10/658,896 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Nakhjiri et al 11/169,406 DANG 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

2600 Communications
07/26/2011 2617 Ex Parte Heaven et al 11/239,346 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3621 Ex Parte Goodwin III 12/128,694 KIM 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E
REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2187 Ex Parte Lake 10/960,184 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N

Our reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has had occasion to analyze the word “review” as it is used in its jurisdictional statutes – 35 U.S.C. § 144.3 See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1458, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (discussing the scope of review, and vacating a Board decision that omits several crucial findings); accord Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir 1998) (J. Michel concurring) (citing Gechter). We find the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the term “review,” in the context of the Federal Circuit’s review of Board decisions, to be particularly helpful in determining the meaning of the word “review” in the context of our statutory duty to review adverse decisions of examiners.

johns hopkins, engel, dystar, kollman,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Christakos et al 11/177,790 ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) LICATA & TYRRELL P.C. EXAMINER LONG, SCOTT 

Ex Parte Liu 10/870,766 GREEN 103(a) DR. GEORGE DACAI LIU EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J 

Ex Parte Marcel et al 10/315,445 PRATS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BUNNER, BRIDGET E 

"The enablement requirement is met if the description enables any mode of making and using the invention." Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Cellpro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 946 F.2d 1528, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).

Written Description Training Materials (http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/written.pdf)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Iyengar 10/629,284 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Moderegger et al 09/944,379 FISCHETTI 102(e)/103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Fischer et al 10/679,725 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BUTLER, DENNIS 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Lochner et al 09/994,520 HAHN 102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER DINH, DUC Q 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Apps 11/099,423 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting REHRIG PACIFIC EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Clark et al 10/901,884 BAHR 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN 

REEXAMINATION 

EXAMINER AFFIRMED ex parte 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Ex parte FELLOWES, INC. 90/010,137 5,789,051 EASTHOM 103(a) WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK, & MORTIMER Third Party Requester: SHEWCHUK IP SERVICES EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J

[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal - and even common-sensical - we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.

Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

inter partes 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

FIDIA FARMACEUTICI S.p.A.,Requester and Respondent v. CHEMI S.p.A., Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,138 6,645,742 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting FOR PATENT OWNER: CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI

In order for a showing of unexpected results to overcome the teachings of the prior art, the results presented must be commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48 (CCPA 1979).

Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(d)