SEARCH

Showing posts with label kollman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kollman. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

kao, kollman, cree

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Preisler et al 13762956 - (D) DENNETT 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DANIELS, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2482 Ex Parte AUGST 12725153 - (D) CRAIG 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Wepfer et al 13272524 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC LIN, KO-WEI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Leininger et al 12304535 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) PALENIK, JEFFREY T

1617 Ex Parte Woeller et al 13499861 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 41.50 103 Abel Law Group, LLP ZHANG, YANZHI

“An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut that case.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011). When unexpected results are proffered by Appellants, Appellants must “provide [] an adequate basis to support the conclusion that other embodiments falling within the claim will behave in the same manner” in order to “establish that the evidence is commensurate with [the] scope of the claims.” Id. at 1068. One data point is insufficient to “to ascertain a trend in the exemplified data which would allow [one having ordinary skill in the art] to reasonably extend the probative value thereof.” In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (Fed. Cir. 1979).

Kao, In re, 639 F.3d 1057, 98 USPQ2d 1799 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2111.05 2112.01 2153.02

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

1621 Ex Parte Huang et al 13989016 - (D) ADAMS 103 Parker Highlander PLLC MATOS NEGRON, TAINA DEL MAR

1653 Ex Parte Wang et al 13320585 - (D) FREDMAN 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP MARTIN, PAUL C

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Noar 12865765 - (D) DENNETT 103 Acuity Law Group, P.C. PENNY, TABATHA L

1756 Ex Parte Berke et al 11734118 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 BOWDITCH & DEWEY, LLP DINH, BACH T

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Kuether et al 11931450 - (D) FISHMAN 103 AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP] ALAM, MUSHFIKH I

2492 Ex Parte Zhang 14494844 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 HAMILTON DESANCTIS & CHA LLP KORSAK, OLEG

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Kristensson et al 13514440 - (D) CAPP 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. LOUIS, LATOYA M

We think the Examiner has articulated adequate non-hindsight reasoning to sustain the rejection. Id. See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Monday, September 22, 2014

kunzmann, kollman, lebounty, dwight & lloyd

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Wakade et al 12359391 - (D) SMITH 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP ZHU, WEIPING

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Fouquet et al 12059979 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Avago Technologies Limited CHAN, TSZFUNG JACKIE

2884 Ex Parte Petrick et al 12274220 - (D) OWENS 102/103 GE HEALTHCARE c/o FLETCHER YODER, PC BRYANT, MICHAEL C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3681 Ex Parte Agarwal et al 11890957 - (D) FETTING 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/Yahoo! HENRY, RODNEY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Uecker et al 12040183 - (D) MURPHY 103 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) JENNISON, BRIAN W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Inaba et al 12288538 - (D) SMITH 103 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT HERNANDEZ-DIAZ, JOSE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Pekarsky 12302673 - (D) OWENS 103 103 DIEDERIKS & WHITELAW, PLC LEE, SHUN K

Moreover, even if an element which Maglich desires to detect can have the same decay rate as an interfering element, the Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that Maglich uses energy line strength ratios of at least one interfering elements’ induced gamma rays to calculate an amount of induced gamma rays emitted by the at least one interfering element at an energy line of interest associated with at least one element of interest (final rejection mailed Nov. 25, 2011, pp. 2-3, 5). Hence, we accept that finding as fact. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1755 Ex Parte Kang et al 12427689 - (D) SMITH 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP TRINH, THANH TRUC

1765 Ex Parte Jacobine et al 11772843 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Henkel Corporation SERGENT, RABON A

1782 Ex Parte Beckwith et al 11845944 - (D) HOUSEL 103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP KASHNIKOW, ERIK

“Synergism, in and of itself, is not conclusive of unobviousness in that synergism might be expected.” In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 55, n.6 (CCPA 1979).

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

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Huang et al 11880302 - (D) KUMAR 103/ obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RIZK, SAMIR WADIE

2184 Ex Parte Ronkainen et al 10816694 - (D) FISHMAN 102(e)/103 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP PARK, ILWOO

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Kawai 11703174 - (D) BEAMER 112(2)/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP MENDOZA, JUNIOR O

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Jones 11119379 - (D) SAADAT 102(e)/103 Christopher Croft Jones ARMAND, MARC ANTHONY

See also LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Com’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (in quoting with approval from Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. Greenawalt, 27 F.2d 823, 828 (2d Cir. 1928)):

The use for which the [anticipatory] apparatus was intended is irrelevant, if it could be employed without change for the purposes of the patent; the statute authorizes the patenting of machines, not of their uses.

LaBounty Mfg. Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 22 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2004 ,   2133.03 ,   2133.03(e) ,   2133.03(e)(2)

2893 Ex Parte Luk et al 12542796 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP SCHOENHOLTZ, JOSEPH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3675 Ex Parte Debrody et al 12239869 - (D) MOORE 102/103 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO MERLINO, ALYSON MARIE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Schaeffer et al 10984417 - (D) FREDMAN 103/ obviousness-type double patenting BGL/Cook - Chicago HUGHES, SAMUEL T

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11849148 - (R) KIM 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN DANNEMAN, PAUL

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 SYNQOR, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant v. MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. Requester and Respondent Ex Parte 7558083 et al 11/900,207 95001405 - (D) PERRY 103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. For THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER MURATA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD c/o KEATING & BENNETT, LLP HEYMAN, JOHN S original NGUYEN, MATTHEW VAN

2875 Ex parte YLX LTD. Patent Owner Ex Parte 7,547,114 B2 et al 11/830,311 90011694 - (R) DANG 102/103 Chen Yoshimura LLP Third Party Requester: Adli Law Group P.C. GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original CRANSON JR, JAMES W

Friday, October 26, 2012

rinehart, kollman, atlas powder

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Karanam et al 11966051 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - SABIC (CPP) SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

In re Rinehart, 531 F. 2d 1048, 1052 (CCPA 1976) ("When prima facie obviousness is established and evidence is submitted in rebuttal, the decision-maker must start over.")

Rinehart, In re, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) 2107.02, 2142, 2143.02, 2144.04

1772 Ex Parte Ostrowski et al 11526393 - (D) PAK 103 Covidien LP WHITE, DENNIS MICHAEL

1772 Ex Parte Ostrowski et al 11526417 - (D) PAK 103 Covidien LP WHITE, DENNIS MICHAEL

1772 Ex Parte Ostrowski et al 11526369 - (D) PAK 103 Covidien LP WHITE, DENNIS MICHAEL

1772 Ex Parte Ostrowski et al 11526834 - (D) PAK 103 Covidien LP WHITE, DENNIS MICHAEL

1782 Ex Parte Mengel et al 11523953 - (D) PAK 103 BEMIS COMPANY, INC. PATTERSON, MARC A

1786 Ex Parte Boehm et al 10490893 - (D) BEST 102/103 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. THOMPSON, CAMIE S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Claydon 10450615 - (D) SMITH 102/103 WEIDE & MILLER - MINDSPEED COLEMAN, ERIC

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Komaki et al 10308142 - (D) Per Curiam 102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC SRIVASTAVA, VIVEK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Farrell et al 10696583 - (D) ASTORINO 103 CAHN & SAMUELS LLP GILBERT, WILLIAM V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Rysavy 11745555 - (D) GREENHUT 103 WRB-IP LLP SWINNEY, JENNIFER B

3726 Ex Parte Schnyder 11022881 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. AFZALI, SARANG

3767 Ex Parte Marshall et al 10506472 - (D) ASTORINO 102 YOUNG & THOMPSON GILBERT, ANDREW M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Valenta et al 11933498 - (D) ADAMS 112(1) 102 PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP ROONEY, NORA MAUREEN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Poletto et al 10701356 - (D) MOORE 102 112(2)/102 Riverbed Technology Inc. - PVF c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP MEHRMANESH, ELMIRA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Myers et al 11465999 - (D) GREENHUT 103 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN RALIS, STEPHEN J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Ramnarayan et al 10923620 - (D) ADAMS 103 Sapient Discovery Dr. Kal Ramnarayan BRUSCA, JOHN S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Yan et al 11762103 - (D) HOUSEL 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL

1764 Ex Parte He et al 11290064 - (D) HANLON 103/obviousness-type double patenting MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS INC. c/o Dilworth & Barrese, LLP PAK, HANNAH J

1767 Ex Parte SOUNIK et al 12132722 - (D) GARRIS 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

1775 Ex Parte Jung et al 11729276 - (D) PRAISS 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC EDWARDS, LYDIA E

1781 Ex Parte DeBiccari et al 11588814 - (D) HASTINGS 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global MEHTA, MEGHA S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Baluja et al 11004499 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. VY, HUNG T

2164 Ex Parte Vasey 10933466 - (D) SMITH 103 Anderson Gorecki & Rouille LLP CHOI, YUK TING

2184 Ex Parte Lathrop et al 11343794 - (D) GIANNETTI 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BORROMEO, JUANITO C

2185 Ex Parte Hampel et al 11381349 - (D) DILLON 103 Rambus MARC P. SCHUYLER LI, ZHUO H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Dougherty et al 10957229 - (D) CURCURI 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

2483 Ex Parte He et al 10888268 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC HOLDER, ANNER N

We recognize that a trend in results may be shown where the full scope of a claim has not been tested. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (CCPA 1979).

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

2486 Ex Parte MacInnis et al 11269424 - (D) GONSALVES 102 (Broadcom) THOMAS
HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) VO, TUNG T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Costello et al 11271293 - (D) GONSALVES 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE LLP THOMAS, BRADLEY H

AtlasPowder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”).

Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 51 USPQ2d 1943 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2112, 2131.01, 2131.05

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Johnson et al 12157550 - (D) FREDMAN dissenting WALSH 102 JOHNSON & JOHNSON PHILIP S. JOHNSON SHI, KATHERINE MENGLIN

3754 Ex Parte Lasserre et al 11178283 - (D) WOOD 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. NGO, LIEN M

Friday, October 19, 2012

baxter travenol, chapman, general foods, nuijten, greenfield, burckel, tiffin, kollman

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Ariyapadi et al 12782346 - (D) GARRIS 103 KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT LLC MERKLING, MATTHEW J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Argenbright et al 10240479 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP PORTER, RACHEL L

3664 Ex Parte Krause et al 11273659 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 Dierker & Associates, P.C. SAMPLE, JONATHAN L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Kim et al 11656460 - (D) VANOPHEM 102/103 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL

3761 Ex Parte Allen et al 11414032 - (D) ASTORINO 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TREYGER, ILYA Y

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Adams et al 10785227 - (D) MacDONALD 103 101/102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC BELANI, KISHIN G

Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because:

Appellants respectfully disagree and point out that the Examiner's position is based entirely upon taking of words out-of-context of its intended meaning in the specification, clearly directed to media used to store computer instructions, when interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art, who is willing to be free of the bias of attempting to interpret every reference to "transmission media" as somehow referring to a "signal", which is reasonably considered non-statutory under the holding of Nuijten, and that every reference to "transmission media" converts any claim remotely related to this reference as equivalent to a "signal."

That is, "energy" per se is not used to store computer instructions. Nor is this claim directed to a "signal" per se, as were the facts of Nuijten. Moreover, to one having any genuine skill in the art, signals per se are not used to store instructions, and, contrary to the confusion running rampant within the USPTO in the aftermath of the Nuijten holding, the terminology "transmission media" is not equivalent to "signal." Indeed, if taken outside any other context, the terminology "transmission media" would clearly mean the media through which a transmission occurs and would not even refer to a signal per se. Therefore, someone at the USPTO is clearly very confused about underlying technology.

(App. Br. 9)(Emphasis omitted).


AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Constantz et al 11189555 - (D) MILLS 103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provisional double patenting rejection EPA - Bozicevic Field & Francis LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V

“Because nonstatutory double patenting compares earlier and later claims, an earlier patent’s disclosure is not available to show nonstatutory double patenting. See Gen. Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1281-82 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Mosseveld et al 10551109 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. REDDY, KARUNA P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2413 Ex Parte Christenson et al 11279667 - (D) WINSOR 103 IBM CORPORATION COSTIN, JEREMY M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Reid 10864866 - (D) MCKONE 102/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. ALAM, FAYYAZ

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Slatter 11258352 - (D) FETTING 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHUMPITAZ, BOB R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte McKiernan et al 11145353 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CRAIG, PAULA L  

When an obviousness rejection is based on a combination of components in the prior art reference as in the instant situation, the comparison to show unexpected results need only be between the closest prior art reference and the claimed invention. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 422 (CCPA 1966). It need not be between the claimed invention and the invention suggested by the combined teachings in the prior art reference or references. Chapman, 357 F.2d at 422. To do so would require Appellants to compare the claimed invention against itself.   

Chapman, In re, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) 716.02(e)  

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01, 2145


REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Boffa 11435698 - (R) OBERMANN 103 M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC VASISTH, VISHAL V

In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179-80 (CCPA 1979) (the claimed subject matter must be compared with the closest prior art in a manner which addresses the thrust of the rejection).

Burckel, In re, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(e)

“Establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for ‘it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’” In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971))...

Greenfield, In re, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1978) 2145

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) 716.03(a)

Cf. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (CCPA 1979) (acknowledging that in some cases several data points may enable an ordinary artisan “to ascertain a trend in the exemplified data which would allow him to reasonably extend the probative value thereof”)

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

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

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)