mayne, christensen, graver tank

custom search

all pdfs are here google drive

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Yamazaki et al 14366055 - (D) TIMM 103 Chris Mizumoto LEE, JAEYUN

1777 Ex Parte Wilson et al 13480053 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 TraskBritt / Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC PEO, KARA M

The Examiner correctly indicates that the substitution of one known element for a known equivalent is prima facie obvious (see Ans. 14 ). See In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, the Examiner fails to appreciate that the burden is on the Examiner to first provide evidence establishing that compounds are well-known equivalents/or a specific purpose. See In re 
Christensen, 82 F.2d 715, 716 (CCPA 1936); see also Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 609 (1950) ("In determining equivalents, things equal to the same thing may not be equal to each other .... Consideration must be given to the purpose for which an ingredient is used in a patent ... and the function which it is intended to perform."). 

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) 2144.09 , 2145

Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) 2183 , 2184 , 2186

1779 Ex Parte Rothman 14364439 - (D) TIMM 103 WARE, FRESSOLA, MAGUIRE & BARBER LLP ORME, PATRICK JAMES

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Taylor et al 14062503 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD SHEPARD, JUSTINE

2482 Ex Parte Kaye 13276581 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 Brokaw Patent Law, PC MESSMORE, JONATHAN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Nedelman 14701786 - (D) MURPHY 103 Ford Global Technologies, LLC/ King & Schickli, PLLC GUTMAN, HILARY L

3626 Ex Parte Fung et al 14039125 - (D) THOMAS 101 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (Cerner Corporation) HOLCOMB, MARK

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3794 Ex Parte Bhatt et al 14535403 - (D) SONG 102 102 Covidien LP FOWLER, DANIEL WAYNE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Yamazaki et al 11968078 - (D) COTTA 112(1) McDermott Will & Emery LLP FOSTER, CHRISTINE E

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte OKAZAKI et al 14892251 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA C/0 KEA TING & BENNETT, LLP FIORITO, JAMES A

1733 Ex Parte PECK et al 14478258 - (D) INGLESE 103 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC WYSZOMIERSKI, GEORGE P

1776 Ex Parte Martin et al 14490744 - (D) HASTINGS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L HOBSON, STEPHEN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte WILSON et al 14667229 - (D) DIXON 102/103 NXP USA, Inc. HUISMAN, DAVID J

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2684 Ex Parte BELLOWS 14064119 - (D) SZPONDOWSKI 103 Zebra Technologies Corporation FOXX, CHICO A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Yoo 13465402 - (D) KIM 101/103 MatterLight IP WILDER, ANDREW H

3691 Ex Parte Greim 13112845 - (D) HOFF 103 101/103 Johnson, Marcou & Isaacs, LLC SHRESTHA, BIJENDRA K

3691 Ex Parte Bruno 13412758 - (D) KIM 112(1)/101 MAIER & MAIER, PLLC VYAS, ABHISHEK

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Rao et al 12966852 - (D) JENKS 112(1)/103 Foley & Lardner LLP TON, MARTIN TRUYEN

mayne, catalina, superior industries, hewlett-packard, roberts, paragon, texas instruments

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2899 Ex Parte Sonsky 12065622 - (D) TIMM 102 NXP B.V. Intellectual Property and Licensing YEUNG LOPEZ, FEIFEI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Eaton 11145716 - (D) GREEN 102/103 102/103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

This appeal is before us on remand from our reviewing court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In re Eaton, 545 Fed. Appx. 994 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-precedential).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Bowden et al 12036369 - (D) ASTORINO 102 102/103 Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation BATSON, VICTOR D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Schlichting et al 13048966 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such structurally similar zirconia-based coatings would likewise share other similar properties, such as abradability. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Structural relationships often provide the requisite motivation to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds.”).

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) 2144.09 , 2145

1723 Ex Parte Yoshioka 12458537 - (D) HOUSEL 102 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P

1755 Ex Parte Li et al 12100131 - (D) OWENS 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. PILLAY, DEVINA

1766 Ex Parte Sherman et al 11821568 - (D) McKELVEY 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY LOEWE, ROBERT S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Goyal et al 11953652 - (D) ENGELS 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG ZHEN, WEI Y

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Wen et al 12141054 - (D) KAISER 103 NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION MURPHY, CHARLES C

2461 Ex Parte Ross et al 11958272 - (D) DANG 103 BGL/Broadcom CLAWSON, STEPHEN J

Our reviewing court guides the patentability of an apparatus/system claim “depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Superior Industries, Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., 553 Fed. Appx. 986, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Rader, J., concurring):

[A] system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 [] (1875) (“The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.”). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v.Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

...
That is, as discussed above, claim 1 merely requires forming a “controller” intended “for detecting” and “appending” markers to each stream “thereby resulting in a modified” stream. That is, a “modified” stream is provided in a “thereby” clause describing the results of the intended “appending” function to be performed by a “controller” in the claimed “circuit.”

Given the language used, the “thereby” clause is reasonably interpreted to identify the intended result if and when a controller within the claimed circuit performs its intended function of “appending” markers to each elementary stream. Thus, the “thereby” clause at issue is akin to a “whereby” clause that merely states an intended result. Our reviewing court has concluded that “[a] ‘whereby’ clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.” Texas Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we will not read a “modifying” step into the circuit of claim 1.

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04

2481 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11843049 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP TOPGYAL, GELEK W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Darby et al 12964962 - (D) FINK 102/103 TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Kosowsky 12832022 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC (1511) YANG, MINCHUL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Luthardt et al 10588335 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 41.50 103 VENABLE LLP MAYE, AYUB A

mayne

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte Yokoyama et al 12541220 - (D) POLLOCK 103 CERMAK NAKAJIMA MCGOWAN LLP MOORE, WILLIAM W

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Aoyama et al 12323633 - (D) POTHIER 103 41.50(b) 101 DAMBROSIO & MENON, P.L.L.C. CONYERS, DAWAUNE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Tallet 11297027 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/CISC CRUTCHFIELD, CHRISTOPHER M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Alexander et al 11644651 - (D) BUI 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK MCCORD, PAUL C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte CONSTANT et al 11972018 - (D) STEPINA 103 Ballard Spahr LLP CLEMENT, MICHELLE RENEE

3688 Ex Parte Theiste et al 10641173 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Cherry 12260670 - (D) MARSCHALL 102 PRICE HENEVELD LLP KUE, KAYING

3777 Ex Parte Avni et al 10551053 - (D) GRIMES 103 Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP BRUTUS, JOEL F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Isberg et al 12630908 - (D) McKEOWN 102 102 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON VO, TRUONG V

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Dudde et al 11572791 - (D) HOUSEL 103 103 LATHROP & GAGE LLP CHAN, KAWING

2845 Ex Parte Baker 11818996 - (D) NAGUMO 103 103 FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) JEAN PIERRE, PEGUY

To be clear, the issue is not the adequacy of the original disclosure, which is directed to persons having ordinary skill in the art. Rather, the issue is whether the record contains sufficient evidence that a non-expert reviewer can make adequate findings to draw conclusions as to the meaning of these terms to the artisan. Cf. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1997) in which the Applicant tried to show unexpected results. The court held that “[e]ven were it obvious to a practitioner of the art, applicants have the burden to provide the PTO with evidence showing that such is the case.”

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) 2144.09 , 2145

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Epstein et al 11158452 - (D) GRIMES 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC LUNDGREN, JEFFREY S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Keppers 12378671 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO BOYER, RANDY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2199 Ex Parte Lin et al 11615891 - (D) FINK 102/103 KONRAD RAYNES DAVDA & VICTOR, LLP IBM54 GOORAY, MARK A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Tanaka et al 11921741 - (D) COURTENAY 103 OLIFF PLC YANG, RYAN R

2641 Ex Parte Hildebrand et al 10536253 - (D) HUME 112(2) 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP AJIBADE AKONAI, OLUMIDE

2687 Ex Parte Michalk et al 11948774 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 Sheridan Ross PC TWEEL JR, JOHN ALEXANDER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte McCaffrey 11775523 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY ELLIS, RYAN H

mayne

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Leukel et al 12157278 - (D) NAGUMO 103 BASF Corporation KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C

“An examination for unexpected results is a factual, evidentiary inquiry . . . .” In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) 2144.09 , 2145

1791 Ex Parte Kohane et al 11846212 - (D) PAK 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. DUBOIS, PHILIP A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2133 Ex Parte Barrenscheen et al 10116490 - (D) WORMMEESTER 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP ROJAS, MIDYS

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 11443154 - (D) FISCHETTI 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DENNISON, JERRY B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte De et al 12198447 - (D) FISCHETTI 102/103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

3636 Ex Parte Campbell et al 12150255 - (D) MAYBERRY 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Lawson & Persson, P.C. HAWK, NOAH CHANDLER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Chen et al 11610830 - (D) COURTENAY 102 102/103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP COBY, FRANTZ

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Yoo et al 12005626 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP JIANG, LISHA

1736 Ex Parte Grant 12892025 - (D) PAK 103 obviousness-type double patenting WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A. IQBAL, SYED TAHA

1786 Ex Parte McCormack et al 11774016 - (D) GARRIS 103 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. CHOI, PETER Y

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2131 Ex Parte Chapel et al 10498191 - (D) ZADO 103 Thomas Licensing Inc MACKALL, LARRY T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Gustafson et al 12366756 - (D) BROWN 112(2) 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC COY, NICOLE A

3679 Ex Parte Larsen 10920650 - (D) STEPINA 103 J. MARK HOLLAND AND ASSOCIATES MACARTHUR, VICTOR L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Costa 13368597 - (D) HILL 112(a) 251 CANTOR COLBURN LLP FREAY, CHARLES GRANT

3777 Ex Parte Viswanathan 10977466 - (D) WIEKER 103 HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C ROY, BAISAKHI

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2785 Ex parte ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC PATENT OWNER and APPELLANT Ex Parte 6170067 et al 08/942,384 90012325 - (D) SMITH 103 102/103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC CRAVER, CHARLES R original HUA, LY

fout, mayne

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Bolli et al 10579357 - (D) PRATS 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP KIM, YUNSOO

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2667 Ex Parte Shen 11188366 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Siemens Corporation BROOKS, JULIAN D

2671 Ex Parte Severens 10445049 - (D) FREDMAN 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP VO, QUANG N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Segato 11577754 - (D) SPAHN 102(b)/103 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL

3665 Ex Parte Noguchi 11065069 - (D) GREENHUT 103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC MAWARI,REDHWAN K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Tehrani 11841806 - (D) ADAMS 103 One LLP LOUIS, LATOYA M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte May et al 12253259 - (D) SCHEINER 103 103 Harness Dickey & Pierce (Biomet) STEWART, JASON-DENNIS NEILKEN

3766 Ex Parte Gerber 11116932 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/102(e) 102(e)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BERTRAM, ERIC D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte ODONNELL 12230413 - (D) BEST 103 BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC - LAM RESEARCH CORP GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN

1727 Ex Parte Gibbons et al 11387010 - (D) PRAISS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY HAN, KWANG S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Shaper 10433914 - (D) PETRAVICK 112(2)/103 101/103 Sue Z. Shaper LOFTUS, ANN E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Hill et al 12012911 - (D) ADAMS 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. ORKIN, ALEXANDER J

“Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious.” In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, (CCPA 1982); see also In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Because the applicants merely substituted one element known in the art for a known equivalent, this court affirms [the rejection for obviousness].”).

Fout, In re, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982) 2129, 2143.01, 2144.06

DONNER 8: 126,156,162

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) 2144.09, 2145

HARMON 4: 373; 20: 167
DONNER 2: 310; 8: 1047, 1069, 1370

hauserman, arvin, freeman, de blauwe, baxter travenol, grasselli2, clemens, freeman, klosak, dillon, mayne, schulze, greenfield, woodruff

REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/21/2011 1655 Ex Parte Yang 10/505,015 ADAMS 103(a) WANG & HO EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

2600 Communications
07/22/2011 2624 Ex Parte Fushiki et al 11/041,033 KOHUT 102(b)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER WANG, CLAIRE X
REEXAMINATION EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/22/2011 3765 Ex parte CHRISTOPER SEAN VAN WINKLE and DAVID COX Appellants 90/009,210 7,076,806 SONG 102(b)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC Third Party Requester: VENABLE LLP EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER PATEL, TAJASH D

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/22/2011 1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/089,525 NAGUMO 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER SCULLY, STEVEN M

07/21/2011 1747 Ex Parte Yokota et al 10/277,646 GUEST 103(a) BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS HOLDINGS, INC. EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

The word “substantially” has been construed many times by our reviewing court. While the term “substantially” certainly broadens the term it modifies to some degree, it “cannot be allowed to negate the meaning of the word it modifies.” In re Hauserman, Inc., 892 F.2d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Arvin Industries, Inc. v. Berns Air King Corp., 525 F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1975)).
07/22/2011 1731 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/820,972 OWENS 103(a) K&L GATES LLP EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

That argument is not persuasive because, first, evidence must not merely show an unexpected property but, rather, must show an unexpected difference in a property between the claimed invention and the prior art. See In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973). Second, the Appellants have not provided a side-by-side comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims, and explained why the results would have been unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Freeman, 474 F.2d at 1324; In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).

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

De Blauwe, In re, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . 716.01(c), 2145

Grasselli, In re, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2112, 2145

Clemens, In re, 622 F.2d 1029, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . 716.02(d), 2145

07/21/2011 1796 Ex Parte Dreier et al 11/032,434 ROBERTSON 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

A showing of unexpected results may be sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). Such a showing must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965). The evidence must also be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978). Further, the Federal Circuit has held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is a claimed range; the applicant must show that the range is critical through unexpected results. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted).

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09, 2145

Schulze, In re, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965) . . . .716.01(c), 2145, 2164.06(c)

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

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . 2144.05

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/21/2011 2162 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11/058,972 THOMAS 103(a) Baker Botts L.L.P EXAMINER BULLOCK, JOSHUA

07/22/2011 2164 Ex Parte Avinash et al 11/016,081 MORGAN 103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

07/21/2011 2181 Ex Parte Azadet et al 10/880,331 GONSALVES 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST

2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
07/21/2011 2456 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/672,601 DANG 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T

2600 Communications
07/21/2011 2617 Ex Parte Filipovic et al 10/412,928 RUGGIERO 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M

dillon, mayne, payne, hammack,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Bays et al 10/682,289 ADAMS 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. EXAMINER DAVIS, RUTH A 

Ex Parte Donde et al 10/916,243 GREEN 103(a) ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R 

In order to make a prima facie case of obviousness based on the structural similarity between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the prior art, not only must the structural similarity exist, but the prior art must also provide reason or motivation to make the claimed compound. See In re Dillon, 919 F. 2d 688, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), In re Mayne, 104 F. 3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313 (CCPA 1979) 

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145 

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09, 2145 

Payne, In re, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) . . . 716.02(a), 716.02(e), 2144.09 

Ex Parte Faecke et al 11/007,015 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR 

Ex Parte Yamashita 10/794,187 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Fayet et al 10/529,533 DELMENDO 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK, LLP EXAMINER CHEN, KEATH T 

Ex Parte Wieners et al 10/257,002 NAGUMO 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) PROPAT, L.L.C. EXAMINER AHMED, SHEEBA 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Dresti et al 10/288,727 BARRY 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Nomura et al 09/969,845 NAPPI 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HUNTSINGER, PETER K 

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

Ex Parte Bates et al 09/848,573 CRAWFORD 102(e) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER ELISCA, PIERRE E 

Ex Parte McClary 11/101,897 KERINS 112(2)/103(a)/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HONEYWELL/FOGG EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHUONG P 

A principal purpose of the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,

is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance.

In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382 (CCPA 1970). 

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Marlborugh et al 10/497,925 FREDMAN 103(a) HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CHIN, CHRISTOPHER L 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte McCarty 10/347,095 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER GOLD, AVI M 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Simpson 10/052,617 NAPPI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER THOMAS, ASHISH 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Gluck 11/022,751 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER NEGRON, ISMAEL