REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Diamond et al SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) GOSZ AND PARTNERS LLP

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Bonn et al ROBERTSON 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

“[The] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining.” In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019 (CCPA 1977).

The notion that one who fully discloses, and teaches those skilled in the
art how to make and use, a genus and numerous species therewithin, has somehow
failed to disclose, and teach those skilled in the art how to make and use, that
genus minus two of those species, and has thus failed to satisfy the requirement
of s [sic] 112, first paragraph, appears to result from a hypertechnical
application of legalistic prose relating to that provision of the statute.

Id.

Johnson, In re, 558 F.2d 1008, 194 USPQ 187 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.08, 2173.05(i)

Ex Parte Harasin et al GAUDETTE 112(1) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC

The Examiner cites Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (BPAI 1993) in support of his contention that “when a negative limitation is set forth without direct support from the specification, it is not reasonable to infer that one had possession of the claimed invention.” (Ans. 5.) Appellants point out the Examiner has misapprehended our decision in Ex parte Parks. (Reply Brief (“Rep. Br.”), filed July 29, 2008, 4.) Contrary to the Examiner’s contention, Ex parte Parks supports Appellants’ position that the mere absence of literal support for the claimed “isocyanate-reactive component which is free of amine groups” (claims 1 and 11) “does not, in and of itself, establish a prima facie case for lack of adequate descriptive support under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112.” Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d at 1236 (citations omitted).

Ex parte Tanaka

Parks, Ex parte, 30 USPQ2d 1234 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) . . . . . . . . . 2173.05(i)

Ex Parte Hoarau OWENS 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Pinkowski et al KIMLIN 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750

Ex Parte Rawlins et al TIMM 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC

Ex Parte van Rossum et al TIMM 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.

Ex Parte Verity ROBERTSON 103(a) Michael F. Petock, Esquire

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Huang et al DIXON 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C.

The issue to consider when determining whether a non-statutory basis exists for a double patenting rejection is whether any claim in the application defines an invention that is merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in another patent.1 The analysis employed in an obviousness-type double patenting determination parallels the guidelines for an obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 593-94 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Braat, In re, 937 F.2d 589, 19 USPQ2d1289 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

Longi, In re, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

Ex Parte Kim SIU 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP

Ex Parte Butcher et al HUGHES 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) Nixon & Vanderhye, PC

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Willehadson et al HOFF 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Owen et al HAHN 102(e)/103(a) Eric T. Jones Reising Ethington Barnes Kisselle Learman & McCulloch

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Koppenhoehl et al STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP

Ex Parte Scheier et al LORIN 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Kivlighn et al GREEN 103(a) MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY

Ex Parte Mills et al GRIMES 112(1)/102(b) HITT GAINES, PC ALCATEL-LUCENT

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Lessley et al PAK 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) MR. DONALD J. BREH GROUP TECHNOLOGY COUNSEL ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.

Ex Parte Smotkin GAUDETTE 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

Appellant has persuasively argued that the holdings in Ex Parte Simpson 218 USPQ 1020 (BPAI 1982) and Ex Parte Fressola 27 USPQ2d 1608 (BPAI 1993) do not apply to the facts in this appeal.

In Ex Parte Simpson, we held that if a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim scope does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. 218 USPQ at 1022. "Nafion®" is not used in claim 84 to identify or describe a particular material or product. Rather, "Nafion® is simply a label on a depicted graph and the word Nafion® is used simply to refer to the label." (App. Br. 8.)

Simpson, Ex parte, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(d) , 2173.05(u)

In Ex Parte Fressola, we held that "[i]ncorporation into the claims by express reference to the specification and/or drawings is not permitted except in very limited circumstances." 27 USPQ2d at 1609. Claim 84 "does not incorporate by reference a figure or table, it displays the figure and pinpoints the elements of the figure that relate to the limitations of the claim." (App. Br. 9.)

Fressola, Ex parte, 27 USPQ2d 1608 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) . . . .2173.05(r) , 2173.05(s)

Ex Parte Blank et al HASTINGS 103(a) DOUGLAS S. FOOTE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION NCR CORPORATION

Ex Parte Booten et al HANLON 102(b)/103(a) HAYES SOLOWAY P.C.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Choudhary et al HUGHES 101/112(1)/obviousness-type double patenting/102(b)/103(a) Carey, Rodriguez, Greenberg & Paul, LLP Steven M. Greenberg

Claims directed to data structures per se are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Chua et al WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) KATHY MANKE AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte ONG CRAWFORD 112(2)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis

Ex Parte Vick et al HORNER 102(b) SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Lowe et al O’NEILL 102(e)/102(b) CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P.

VACATED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lancefield J. Thomas 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Brasz et al BAHR 103(a) MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP

Ex Parte Gunderson KERINS 102(b)/103(a) FELLERS, SNIDER, BLANKENSHIP, BAILEY & TIPPENS, P.C.

Ex Parte Mann et al PATE III 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Averill et al DIXON 103(a) ROBERT R. WILLIAMS IBM CORPORATION

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Ernest et al MOHANTY 101/112(2)/102(a)/102(e) George R. Pettit Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP

Ex Parte Foster et al HORNER 102(b)/103(a) QUINN LAW GROUP, PLLC

Appellants also contend that Kundermann teaches away from the axial groove of claim 1. App. Br. 15-16. Because teaching away is irrelevant to anticipation, this argument is unpersuasive. See Seachange Int'l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Ex Parte Hance et al HORNER 102(b)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Moyer DIXON 101/103(a) PREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.

Here, the processor recited in claim 1 is programmed to process data processing instructions in a particular way, i.e., forming an immediate value/operand of 32 bits with only one instruction (FF 1). Therefore, we conclude that the processor claimed in claim 1 is a “particular machine” within the meaning of the M/T test. Accordingly, we conclude that claim 1 satisfies the machine prong of the M/T test. 1

1 We do not need to go through the transformation prong of the M/T test after the machine prong of M/T test is passed.

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Blair et al BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC.

Ex Parte Chang et al HAIRSTON 103(a) HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte van't Hooft GREEN 112(1)/103(a) LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD

The Examiner must therefore “determine[] the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp. , 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.Cir.2005) (emphasis added) (quoting In re American Academy Of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, “[c]laims are not to be read in a vacuum[;] while it is true they are to be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution, their terms still have to be given the meaning called for by the specification of which they form a part.” In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984 (CCPA 1974).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

American Academy of Science Tech. Center, In re, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . 2111, 2111.01

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Pogue et al MARTIN 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Ballevre et al GREEN 103(a) K&L GATES LLP

Moreover, the Examiner must consider all of the claim limitations in setting forth a rejection over the prior art. See, e.g., In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (CCPA 1974) (in considering grounds of rejection, “every limitation in the claim must be given effect rather than considering one in isolation from the others.”).

Ex Parte Markman et al SCHEINER 103(a) MODERN TIMES LEGAL

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Choi et al OWENS 103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP

Ex Parte Jiang HASTINGS 112(1) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC

It is well established that the content of the drawings may also be considered in determining compliance with the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Kaslow, 707 F. 2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Kaslow, In re, 707 F.2d 1366, 217 USPQ 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(v), 2141.02, 2161.01, 2163.02

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Kushnick HOMERE 103(a) CREDENCE C/O MURABITO HAO BARNES, LLP

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Brown et al NAPPI 102(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Uchida et al KRIVAK 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Chapman et al SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) JASON D. KELLY SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P.A.

Ex Parte Dalton WALSH 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) CAROTHERS AND CAROTHERS

Ex Parte Denison PATE III 102(b)/103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP

Ex Parte Grady et al KERINS 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. (P & W)

The established precedent of our reviewing court sets up a two-fold test for determining whether art is analogous: “First, we decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved.” In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Deminski, In re, 796 F.2d 436, 230 USPQ 313 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141.01(a)

Ex Parte Williams et al SILVERBERG 112(1)/102(b)/102(e) MEDICINELODGE INC.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Kiefer et al GRIMES 112(1)/102(e) SHERIDAN ROSS PC

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Drunert OWENS 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.

Ex Parte Finkelshtain et al OWENS 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) DR. MARK M. FRIEDMAN

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Goodwin et al MANTIS MERCADER 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hansen et al PATE III 102(b)/103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Coverstar, Inc. LEE 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC

Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily operates exactly as claimed, then the claimed invention is met. MEHL/Biophile International Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999). That a claim feature may possibly, or even probably, result from the prior art is not sufficient to show inherency. Id. The Examiner must make out a prima facie case, through evidence or explanation, that what is urged as inherent necessarily flows from the teachings of the prior art before the burden is shifted to an applicant to disprove the inherency theory. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

King, In re, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir.1986) . . . . . . .1206, 2112.02, 2131.01

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte El Bakkouri et al GREEN 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP

Thus, the claim requires treatment of a chronic immune disease, and not a symptom of such a disease, for example the symptom of chronic fatigue in CFS. See Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that "‘treatment of sleep apnea[]’" was properly interpreted as limited to the underlying apnea itself; claim term did not include treatment of anxiety that can occur secondary to sleep apnea).

Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 59 USPQ2d 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . 2111.01

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Pircher et al HANLON 103(a) PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Duisenberg BARRETT 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

"[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f) , 2145

Ex Parte Error et al LUCAS 102(e) RAUBVOGEL LAW OFFICE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Banerjee et al STEPHENS 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL)C/O VAN LEEUWEN & VAN LEEUWEN

According to the single source rule, all the claim's limitations must be contained in a single reference, see, e.g., Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and the reference "must describe the patented subject matter with sufficient clarity and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art and that such existence would be recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the field of the invention." Crown Operations Int'l, Ltd. v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).

Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 60 USPQ2d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2131

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Rush et al HAIRSTON 103(a) HOGAN & HARTSON LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gueret LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,GARRETT & DUNNER LLP

“Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).

Best, In re, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . 2112, 2112.01, 2112.02

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Biles J. THOMAS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Wu et al SAADAT 103(a) MACPHERSON KWOK CHEN & HEID LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Haas PAK 103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Murren et al BLANKENSHIP 112(1)/102(e) LEE & HAYES PLLC

For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference. However, this is not an “ipsissimis verbis” test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . 2131, 2183, 2184

Ex Parte Ryan et al COURTENAY 102(e) LISA K. JORGENSON STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.

A basic canon of claim construction is that one may not read a limitation into a claim from the written description. Renishaw plc v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 48 USPQ2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Moran et al BARRY 102(e) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

"[A]nticipation is a question of fact." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 812, 814-15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). "A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention 'such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.'" In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962)). Furthermore, "[e]very patent application and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that [which is] disclosed." In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons "must be presumed to know something" about the art "apart from what the references disclose." In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962).

Hyatt, In re, 211 F.3d 1367, 54 USPQ2d1664 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

LeGrice, In re, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2121.03

Wiggins, In re, 488 F.2d 538, 179 USPQ 421 (CCPA 1973) . . . . .2121.02, 2131.04, 2173.02, 2173.05(b)

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hollis et al HORNER 102(b)/103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP

Ex Parte Seidita O’NEILL 102(b) KNOBLE, YOSHIDA & DUNLEAVY

A predecessor to our reviewing court stated that a drawing in a utility patent can be cited against the claims of a utility patent application even though the feature shown in the drawing was unintended or unexplained in the specification of the reference patent. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979) citing In re Meng, 492 F.2d 843, 847 (CCPA 1974) (the staggered cheese slices case); In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 231 (CCPA 1947); In re Wagner, 63 F.2d 987, 988 (CCPA 1933).

Aslanian, In re, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2125

Seid, In re, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Herold et al SCHEINER 102(a)/102(e)/103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Alivisatos et al TIMM 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP

see also In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“hindsight” is inferred when the specific understanding or principal within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the modification of the prior art in order to arrive at appellant's claimed invention has not been explained).

Rouffet, In re, 149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . 2143.01

Ex Parte Pires KIMLIN 103(a) Paul F. Wille Cantor Colburn, LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Crain et al BARRETT 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte BLUMENAU et al BARRETT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC

Descriptive material is not entitled to patentable weight unless there is a functional relationship to the substrate. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential) (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1003, aff’d Fed. Cir. R. 36 June 12, 2006). Here, a data structure is only an arrangement of data that bears no functional relationship to the substrate (computer readable medium) that stores the data and it is not entitled to patentable weight.

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Samper et al PRATS 102(b)/103(a) WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK P.C.

Also, the Examiner cannot establish inherency merely by demonstrating that the asserted limitation is probable or possible. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). “If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.” Id. (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (CCPA 1939)).

Oelrich, In re, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112

1635 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Eljamal et al WALSH 102(e)/103(a) NOVARTIS

“The combination of elements from nonanalogous sources, in a manner that reconstructs the applicant’s invention only with the benefit of hindsight, is insufficient to present a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Oetiker, In re, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .707.07(f), 716.01(d), 1504.01(a), 2106, 2107.02, 2142, 2145, 2164.07

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Groitzsch et al KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP

Ex Parte Pospichal et al NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Frey et al SIU 102(e) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP

Ex Parte Gartner et al SIU 101/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

“[T]o satisfy the ‘substantial’ utility requirement, an asserted use must show that that claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public.” In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). An application must also “disclose a use which is not so vague as to be meaningless.” Id.

Fisher, In re, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . .. . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01

Ex Parte Macy et al LUCAS 101 INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Cheline et al STEPHENS 102(e)/103(a) Hughes Electronics Corporation

Ex Parte Boivie et al BARRETT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Frank EASTHOM 102(e) MOTOROLA, INC.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Brown MOHANTY 103(a) JOEL I. ROSENBLATT

Ex Parte Caporali HORNER 103(a) WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Crow PATE III 102(b)/103(a) CROMPTON, SEAGER & TUFTE, LLC

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Gaggar et al HANLON 102(a)/103(a) LARSON & ANDERSON, LLC

One of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have skills apart from what the prior art references expressly disclose. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Fitzgerald et al TURNER 102(b)/103(a) Siemens Corporation

Ex Parte Hirsch et al HORNER 102(b)/103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Parsons McCARTHY 112(2)/103(a) HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS, LLP

Properties of preferred embodiments described in the specification which are not recited in a claim do not limit the reasonable scope of the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2111.01

Breadth does not imply 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

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Barrett et al SILVERBERG 102(e)/103(a) OSHA LIANG/MI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Pollard BAHR 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 must rest on a factual basis. In making such a rejection, the examiner has the initial duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).

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

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Arciniegas et al LEBOVITZ nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/102(b)/102(e)/103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte King et al LUCAS 103(a) B. NOEL KIVLIN CONLEY, ROSE, & TAYON, P.C.

In sustaining a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Board may rely on one reference alone without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966).

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Carver NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C.

As our reviewing court observed in a related context, “what the patentee subjectively intended his claims to mean is largely irrelevant to the claim's objective meaning and scope.” Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. , 216 F.3d 1272, 1379 (Fed Cir. 2000).

Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 55 USPQ2d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2172

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hamons et al SILVERBERG 103(a) POLSTER, LIEDER, WOODRUFF & LUCCHESI

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Moscato et al HANLON 103(a) CLEMENTS BERNARD PLLC

Ex Parte Wilson et al McKELVEY 102(b)/102(e)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.59(b) Flindt Intellectual Property Law Group, PLLC

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Gschwind et al COURTENAY 103(a) TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C.

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Herle et al KRIVAK 102(a)/102(e) KIS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Freytag SIU 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

“[I]t is inappropriate for appellants to discuss in their reply brief matters not raised in . . . the principal brief[]. Reply briefs are to be used to reply to matter[s] raised in the brief of the appellee.” Kaufman Company v. Lantech, Inc. , 807 F.2d 970, 973 n.* (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Kaufman Co. v. Lantech, Inc., 807 F.2d 970, 1 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . 2293, 2693

“Considering an argument advanced for the first time in a reply brief . . . is not only unfair to an appellee but also entails the risk of an improvident or ill-advised opinion on the legal issues tendered.” McBride v. Merrell Dow and Pharms., Inc. , 800 F.2d 1208, 1211 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Petersen TIERNEY 102(b) McCormick, Paulding & Huber, LLP

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Engel SCHEINER 112(1) GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP

Ex Parte Wershofen et al FREDMAN 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE, LLC

We conclude that the improvement was not simply the result of routine experimentation. While O'Farrell states that “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success”, O'Farrell identifies two kinds of error.

In some cases, what would have been “obvious to try” would have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful. . . . In others, what was “obvious to try” was to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.

In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed.Cir.1988). The instant situation fits O'Farrell’s first kind of error, since the prior art of Wershofen does not identify the addition of terminator as a critical parameter and provides no direction which suggests multiple additions of the same terminator.

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Hunt et al HANLON 102(b) JoAnn Villamizar Ciba Corporation

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Veit BARRY 102(e)/103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP

Ex Parte Campbell et al HUGHES 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) Christensen, O’Connor, Johnson, Kindness, PLLC

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Isoda BAUMEISTER 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974).

“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Cruciferous Sprout Litig., In re, 301 F.3d 1343, 64 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . 2111.02

Ex Parte Smith et al HAHN 103(a) GRAY ROBINSON, P.A.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Xia et al FREDMAN 103(a) ERIC P. MIRABEL

Rather, the Examiner merely postulated as to why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found the modification of “flipping” obvious, without any teachings from the prior art to support this reasoning. Such a conclusion, without more, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972) (A prima facie case of obviousness is made by presenting evidence that the “reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references before him to make the proposed substitution, combination or other modification.”); see also In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Lintner, In re, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) . . . . . . . . . .2142, 2143.01, 2144, 2144.08, 2145

Oetiker, In re, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .707.07(f) , 716.01(d) , 1504.01(a) , 2106, 2107.02 , 2142, 2145, 2164.07

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Gore WARREN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Cohen HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) Carey, Rodriguez, Greenberg & Paul, LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Mabe et al HORNER 103(a) KNOBLE & YOSHIDA, LLC

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Lockwood et al FREDMAN 112(1) MEYERTONS, HOOD, LIVLIN, KOWERT &
GOETZEL P.C.

Ex Parte Papp et al FREDMAN 112(1)/112(2) CRAWFORD MAUNU PLLC

The court has "found adequate written descriptive support for a claimed invention where the disclosure specifies ‘relevant identifying characteristics,’ such as ‘complete or partial structure, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics.’" In re Alonso, 545 F.3d 1015, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 63 USPQ2d 1609 (Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2163

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Stahl et al GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC

Ex Parte DiVergilio et al NAPPI 103(a) ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES, LLC

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Parry SIU 112(1)/102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Tremblay et al KRIVAK 103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Dietz et al HOFF 103(a) IBM CORPORATION

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Fay et al WARREN 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE CORPORATION

Ex Parte Klimov et al NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY

Attorney argument is not a substitute for evidence. Moreover, as our reviewing court has remarked in a related context, “[e]ven were it obvious to a practitioner of the art [that the results were unexpected], applicants have the burden to provide the PTO with evidence showing such is the case.” In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

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

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Betts et al SIU 102(e)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Raghavan et al SAADAT 103(a) FLETCHER YODER (LUCENT)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Champion et al PAK 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kaufhold et al DANG 102(b) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI)
C/O FLETCHER YODER