fisher, harwood, spada

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 11/880,603 GARRIS 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Raschke 10/246,880 ZECHER 103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER SAXENA, AKASH

2163 Ex Parte Santosuosso 11/424,268 CALDWELL 102(e) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D

2166 Ex Parte Blaicher et al 10/446,276 HOMERE 103(a) Brake Hughes Bellermann LLP c/o CPA Global EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Scaramozzino 11/000,795 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER BROWN, VERNAL U

2613 Ex Parte Steinhorst et al 10/609,332 DANG 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER CURS, NATHAN M

2617 Ex Parte Preece 10/617,074 JEFFERY 101/112(1)/112(2) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER CUMMING, WILLIAM D

To comply with the utility requirement of § 101, the claimed invention must “have a specific and substantial utility.” In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). An asserted utility is (1) specific if shows that the “claimed invention can be used to provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public,” and (2) substantial if it shows that the “claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public.” Id. “An inoperative invention . . . does not satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101 that an invention be useful.” In re Harwood, 390 F.2d 985, 989 (CCPA 1968).

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01

Harwood, In re, 390 F.2d 985, 156 USPQ 673 (CCPA 1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2107.01

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Squibbs et al 11/035,802 RUGGIERO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KIM, TAE W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Bushey et al 11/034,509 HORNER 103(a) BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. EXAMINER O'BRIEN, JEFFREY D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Houser et al 11/291,174 GRIMES 103(a) Thompson Hine LLP EXAMINER SIMPSON, SARAH A
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2483 Ex Parte Keren et al 09/770,767 HOFF 103(a) 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER CZEKAJ, DAVID J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Matsushita et al 10/013,505 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 103(a) SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS, PLLC EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Morita et al 10/486,787 HORNER 102(e) 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery EXAMINER MANCHO, RONNIE M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Soltys 11/480,273 KAUFFMAN 102(b) 102(b) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER PIERCE, WILLIAM M

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2604 Ex Parte 5394140 et al Ex parte MOTOROLA CORPORATION, INC. 90/010,278 07/980,047 GONSALVES 103(a) 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BROWNE, LYNNE HAMBLETON original EXAMINER HORABIK, MICHAEL
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Litwin et al 11/224,188 GARRIS 102(b) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER BELL, WILLIAM P

1767 Ex Parte Shooshtari et al 11/322,985 OBERMANN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.”)

Spada, In re, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112.01

1774 Ex Parte Germaine et al 11/922,662 SMITH 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER ROBINSON, RENEE E

2421 Ex Parte Ibrahim Sezan et al 10/894,722 RUGGIERO 103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Christian 10/714,182 PER CURIAM 103(a) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER YENKE, BRIAN P

2829 Ex Parte Farooq et al 11/308,396 WEINBERG 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C EXAMINER BROWN, VALERIE N

3622 Ex Parte Black et al 11/491,695 PETRAVICK 112(2)/103(a) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

3736 Ex Parte Heruth et al 11/081,857 ADAMS 102(e) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Leinders et al 10/133,703 BAHR 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) EXAMINER EVANISKO, GEORGE ROBERT

spada, corkill, caveney, johnson, leshin, agilent

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/800,622 PRATS 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER EBRAHIM, NABILA G
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Dewey 10/864,716 GARRIS 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O

1776 Ex Parte Ostein et al 10/480,946 FRANKLIN 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER WU, IVES J

Under such circumstances, we are persuaded by Appellants of error in the Examiner’s rejections for lacking sufficient motivation to combine. After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant in response
to the Examiner’s case, patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Caveny, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Suh 11/684,026 LEE 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER SULLIVAN, MATTHEW J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Sawano et al 11/011,492 HORNER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER AHMED, MASUD
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Liversidge et al 11/377,650 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER SAMALA, JAGADISHWAR RAO
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Bailey et al 10/943,688 HASTINGS 103(a) MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC EXAMINER CHUO, TONY SHENG HSIANG
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/191,415 DANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOI, YUK TING
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lamstein 11/024,398 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC EXAMINER PRICE JR, RICHARD THOMAS

Cf. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199 (CCPA 1960) (the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art).
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Turkel et al 11/039,506 PRATS obviousness-type double patenting/102(b)/103(a) Stephen Donovan Allergan, Inc. EXAMINER FORD, VANESSA L

It is well settled that the “very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question.” Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Ueberschar et al 10/783,864 NAGUMO 103(a) Todd T. Taylor Taylor & Aust, P.C. EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Gambino et al 10/163,884 HORNER 101/103(a) Thomas M. Galgano EXAMINER SHEPARD, JUSTIN E

2456 Ex Parte Ball et al 10/677,797 ROBERTSON 103(a) CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP EXAMINER BATES, KEVIN T
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Huckins 11/481,319 BAUMEISTER 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Moses 11/113,425 KIM 112(2)/103(a) Manuel Brad Moses EXAMINER JOHNS, CHRISTOPHER C

3682 Ex Parte Adams et al 10/865,998 MOHANTY 102(b)/103(a) SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP EXAMINER HOAR, COLLEEN A
REHEARING

DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Kesavan et al 11/243,144 WALSH 103(a) Kevin E Mcveigh RHODIA INC. EXAMINER METZMAIER, DANIEL S