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

schering, miller, CAE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Ackerman et al 09/791,138 GREEN 103(a) FRANK ROSENBERG EXAMINER NAFF, DAVID M 

In general, a limitation is inherent if it is the "‘natural result flowing from’" the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms. , 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

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

Ex Parte Beermann et al 10/497,173 PRATS 112(2)/103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER OLSON, ERIC "

[B]readth is not to be equated with indefiniteness." In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971). 

Miller, In re, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.04 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Eckels et al 11/158,480 OWENS 102(e)/103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER SIEFKE, SAMUEL P 

However, the use of different terms in a claim indicates, absent evidence to the contrary, that different elements are required. Cf. CAE Screen Plates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GMBH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”) (citation omitted).