REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Snow et al PRATS 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

Also, as noted in Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2009), “patents are not barred just because it was obvious ‘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.’” (quoting In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

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 Lark et al HANLON 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A.

Ex Parte Parrish OWENS Obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Randall M. Heald, John F. Kennedy Space Center

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Anderson HOMERE 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) The Grafe Law Office, P.C.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Watarai McCARTHY 103(a) GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Knowles HORNER 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) YOUNG & THOMPSON

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Akhavan-Tafti et al SCHEINER 103(a) NEXGEN DIAGNOSTICS, LLC

Ex Parte Bodmeier GRIMES 112(2)/102(e)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting INNOVAR, LLC

“[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 Raffel et al NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP

As the Appellant, Raffel bears the procedural burden of showing harmful error in the Examiner’s rejections. See, e.g., Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S.Ct. 1696, 1706 (2009):

it is clear that the burden of showing that the error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency’s determination. . . . To say that the claimant has the ‘burden’ of showing that an error was harmful is not to impose a complex system of ‘burden shifting’ rules or a particularly onerous requirement. . . .the party seeking reversal normally must explain why the erroneous ruling caused harm.

See also, In re Chapman, 2010 WL 638277, at *6 (Fed. Cir. 2010), citing Sanders as well as Federal Circuit precedent. In parallel with appeals to the Federal Circuit, an appellant to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences must show error in the Examiner’s rejections. The necessity of such a showing is emphasized by the court’s rulings that a failure to raise arguments to the Board results in waiver of such arguments before the court. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

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

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Rutledge et al COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) JACKIE JAY SCHWARTZ

Ex Parte Sahota et al BARRETT 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD

We will not speculate that the functions are the same just because the names are the same. It is improper to resort to speculation or unfounded assumptions to supply deficiencies in the factual basis for a rejection. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("[The Patent Office] may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.").

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

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Galli et al C. THOMAS 103(a) Robert V. Wilder

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Leistner et al HORNER 102(b) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.

Ex Parte Shichi MOHANTY 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON

Ex Parte Smith et al LORIN 112(2)/102(e) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Langdon et al O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY

The drawing has to show the subject matter with great particularity when the subject matter is unexplained in order for the drawing to be dispositive in finding the subject matter lying within a claim to be old. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972).

Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2125

Ex Parte McDonnell O’NEILL 103(a) MANELLI DENISON & SELTER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Roberts et al McCOLLUM 103(a) NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS

"Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence." In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). "An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

In addition, "it is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. ‘Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice.’" Id. (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). "[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art." In re Baxter-Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Geisler, In re, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.05, 2145

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

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

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Nevill JEFFERY 102(b) WHITE & CASE LLP

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Vancoille WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Srivastava et al LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) RICHARD ARON OSMAN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Ku et al BOALICK 102(e)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.

Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities, and “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131.01

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Doerwald et al FETTING 101/103(a) BERESKIN AND PARR LLP/S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Coffey2 WALSH 112(1)/103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Madsen McCARTHY 103(a) MORRISS OBRYANT COMPAGNI, P.C.

Ex Parte Simpson et al FETTING 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Merck & Co., Inc., In re, 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . .707.07(f), 716.02, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2144.09, 2145

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Coffey WALSH 112(1)/103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Coehoorn et al PRATS 102(e)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Venigalla KIMLIN 103(a) MARTHA ANN FINNEGAN, ESQ.CABOT CORPORATION

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Dolbear et al HOFF 102(e) JONATHAN P MEYER MOTOROLA INC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Oakeson et al FETTING 102(e)/103(a) 37 CFR § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Scheiblhofer et al MARTIN 102(b)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Lefner et al LORIN 103(a) WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER

See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (functional language does not confer patentability if prior art structure has capability of functioning in the same manner).

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

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Zhang et al KIMLIN 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Mitrovic SIU 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.

Ex Parte Mitrovic SIU 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Strang SIU 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Burris et al PAK 103(a) CORNING INCORPORATED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Sansone FETTING 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Haas et al McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON ET AL.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Pauly et al GREEN 102(a) FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

“[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “When the claimed compositions are not novel they are not rendered patentable by recitation of properties, whether or not these properties are shown or suggested in the prior art.” Id. at 709.

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

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Strang SIU 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Kumar Venkatachalam MARTIN 103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Banks et al FETTING 102(e) ELSA KELLER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Cook et al FREDMAN 103(a) BRETT L. NELSON EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Chen et al JEFFERY 103(a) Samuel H. Dworetsky AT&T CORP.

Generally, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. . . . Conversely, a preamble is not limiting “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that when the claim preamble recites structural limitations of the claimed invention, the USPTO must give effect to that usage).

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

Ex Parte Vincent LUCAS 103(a) FLEIT GIBBONS GUTMAN BONGINI & BIANCO P.L.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Damikolas McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Haefner SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK

Ex Parte Lee et al SILVERBERG 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A.

Ex Parte Vanderhye et al KERINS 102(b)/103(a) ROBERT A. VANDERHYE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Wollenberg FREDMAN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) MICHAEL E. CARMEN, ESQ. M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

See, e.g., Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“When a word of degree is used … [it] must [be determined] whether the patent's specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.”).

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(b)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Keane et al LORIN, Opinion Dissenting and Concurring filed by FREDMAN 102(e)/103(a) VISTA PRINT USA, INC.

Ex Parte Renner SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Bass et al FREDMAN 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.

Ex Parte Canada et al FREDMAN 103(a) LEGAL DEPARTMENT (M-495)

An examiner’s reliance on equivalents as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection is inappropriate without evidence that the equivalency was recognized in the prior art. See In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 599 (CCPA 1958) ("The equivalence must be disclosed in the prior art").

Ruff, In re, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.06

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Plummer NAGUMO 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF GLENN R. SMITH

Ex Parte Sosa et al KIMLIN 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC

Ex Parte Spandern et al NAGUMO 103(a)/112(1) SIMPSON & SIMPSON, PLLC

Although the term “consisting essentially” opens a claim to “the inclusion of ingredients which would not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of appellant’s compositions as defined in the balance of the claim . . . ” In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954 (CCPA 1963), no such understanding has developed for the phrase “comprising essentially.” Reading the term broadly, we interpret the term “comprising essentially” as open and equivalent to the term “comprising.”

Janakirama-Rao, In re, 317 F.2d 951, 137 USPQ 893 (CCPA 1963) . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Domenico COURTENAY 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Brusca MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) VERIZON

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Meeusen WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b) NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Brenner et al HOFF 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Keating et al MILLS 102(b)/103(a) MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. ATTN: PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Ex Parte Sampson et al PRATS 102(e) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.

Ex Parte Srinivasan et al WALSH, Concurring Opinion filed by FREDMAN 103(a) JIVAN BIOLOGICSC/O SUBHA SRINIVASAN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ward WARREN 103(a) THE LAW OFFICES OF CALVIN B. WARD

Ex Parte Kim et al KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP

Ex Parte Dierberger TIMM 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.

Ex Parte Morita et al GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lowrance et al HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Ex Parte Olien et al DIXON 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Burstein JEFFERY 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Matsumoto HAIRSTON 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP

Ex Parte Pandey et al MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Lee et al BOALICK 102(e)/103(a) VOLENTINE & WHITT, PLLC

Ex Parte Wu et al SMITH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Muller BARRETT 103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Casanova STAICOVICI 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC

Ex Parte Gass et al PATE III 103(a) SD3, LLC

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Pater Shannon et al MILLS 103(a) PAUL M. DENK

When evaluating claims for obviousness, “the prior art as a whole must be considered. The teachings are to be viewed as they would have been viewed by one of ordinary skill.” In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, “‘[i]t is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Id. (quoting In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965)).

Hedges, In re, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ 685 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Disalvo et al COLAIANNI 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSONJOHNSON & JOHNSON

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Carlson et al COURTENAY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Gopisetty et al JEFFERY 103(a) MARK C. MCCABE IBM CORPORATION

Ex Parte Ho COURTENAY 101/103(a) Oracle International CorporationC/O Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Hill NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY

Ex Parte Kim et al HOFF 103(a) H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC

Ex Parte Wu et al MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Kim et al WHITEHEAD, JR. 101/102(b) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hendricks et al PATE III 103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Briggs HORNER 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.

See In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“One way for a patent applicant to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness is to make a showing of “unexpected results,” i.e., to show that the claimed invention exhibits some superior property or advantage that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have found surprising or unexpected.).

Soni, In re, 54 F.3d 746, 34 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f) , 2145

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Vanderby et al PRATS 103(a) DEWITT ROSS & STEVENS SC

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Zhao et al FRANKLIN 103(a) Lynn Schwenning

The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Napier, In re, 55 F.3d 610, 34 USPQ2d 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112

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

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Kariya BLANKENSHIP 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Katayama HAIRSTON 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Miyata BAUMEISTER 112(1)/112(2)/112(6) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WESTERMAN HATTORI DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP

Ex Parte Gruchala et al HAIRSTON 103(a) AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT – GB

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Fukuizumi HAIRSTON 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, L.L.P.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Morsa CRAWFORD 112(2)/112(6)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Steve Morsa

Ex Parte Allen et al BARRETT 112(1)/103(a) MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Dutt et al COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting/non-statutory obviousness type double-patenting MHKKG/SUN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Disney HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADLEY J. BEREZNAK

A reference may not be antedated by a Rule 131 affidavit or declaration that shows that Applicant had invented, prior to the reference date, a part, some parts, or even a combination of parts, if the part or parts are not within the scope of the claims being sought by Applicant. In re Tanczyn, 347 F.2d 830, 833 (CCPA 1965).

Tanczyn, In re, 347 F.2d 830, 146 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.02

Ex Parte Lee LORIN 101/103(a) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Azar et al BAHR 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting PRTSI

Ex Parte Stiles BAHR 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ota et al FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Tachibana et al JEFFERY 102(e) IBM CORPORATION

Ex Parte Dettinger et al BARRY 102(e) IBM CORPORATION

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Williams et al KRIVAK 103(a) INTEL/BSTZBLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, L.L.P.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Kawai CRAWFORD 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP

Ex Parte KANE LORIN 102(b) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Barrese MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Roberts et al EASTHOM 102(e) GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ, LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Zhang et al PATE III 112(1)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD

The accepted definition of the term “connected” is restricted to neither a direct nor an indirect connection, and it is therefore applicable to an indirect connection. Ullstrand v. Coons, 147 F.2d 698, 700, 64 USPQ 580, 581 (CCPA 1945).

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Remias et al MILLS 103(a) Lyondell Basell Industries

When evaluating claims for obviousness, "the prior art as a whole must be considered. The teachings are to be viewed as they would have been viewed by one of ordinary skill." In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, "‘[i]t is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.’" Id. (quoting In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965)).

Hedges, In re, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ 685 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

Ex Parte Takei et al MILLS 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.

Ex Parte Zheng et al LEBOVITZ 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION

Ex Parte Cherepinsky et al LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2)/102(f)/102(b)/103(a) ERIC P. MIRABEL

It is well established that working examples are not required to comply with § 112, first paragraph. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908 (CCPA 1970).

Borkowski, In re, 422 F.2d 904, 164 USPQ 642 (CCPA 1970) . . 707.07(l), 2164.02, 2174

Ex Parte Minna et al PRATS 112(1)/103(a) STEVEN L. HIGHLANDER FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Khoo et al DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Krajewski et al DIXON 102(b)/103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD

Ex Parte Matsa et al JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FLEIT GIBBONS GUTMAN BONGINI & BIANCO P.L.

Ex Parte Anonsen et al BARRETT 102(e)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)

Ex Parte Bitsch et al SIU 102(e)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)

Ex Parte Fish et al COURTENAY 102(e)/102(a)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Igarashi BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Hanes HOFF 103(a) Hewlett-Packard Company

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Ortiz et al PATE III 102(b)/103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP

Ex Parte Williams et al KERINS 102(b)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./LEAR CORPORATION

Ex Parte Zhang et al LORIN 103(a)/101 37 CFR § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

The attachment of a value is an abstraction. Cf. Bilski, 545 F.3d at 943:

Purported transformations or manipulations simply of public or private legal
obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions cannot
meet the machine-ortransformation test to determine patent-eligibility of
process claims, because they are not physical objects or substances, and they
are not representative of physical objects or substances.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Rioux et al O’NEILL 102(b) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP

Ex Parte Sabbagh STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) DARBY & DARBY P.C.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Harnack et al SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Hashmi et al PRATS 112(2)/103(a) ERIC P. MIRABEL

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Sumiya et al GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) 37 CFR § 41.50(b) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Haeberle et al HOMERE 102(a)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Siemens Corporation

Ex Parte Berke et al BARRETT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Bonilla COURTENAY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Brown et al JEFFERY 102(a) IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL)

Ex Parte Novaes JEFFERY 101/112(1)/103(a)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC

Ex Parte Vandersluis BLANKENSHIP 101/102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DALE B. HALLING

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Mayer et al NAPPI 103(a) THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Burkhart et al LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP

Ex Parte Das FISCHETTI 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC.

Ex Parte Lambert et al LORIN 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN

Ex Parte Menon et al LORIN 102(e) INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Favet et al PATE III 102(b)/103(a) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK

Ex Parte Ferree STAICOVICI 112(1)/102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Lowman et al ADAMS 103(a) ROBERT L. MCDOWELL

Ex Parte Pastan et al GREEN 112(1) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP

Ex Parte Slimak SCHEINER 112(1) NOVAK, DRUCE & QUIGG LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lubbers et al DIXON 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Martinez et al BARRY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Chater-Lea HAHN 103(a)/112(1) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MOTOROLA, INC.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Goujon et al O’NEILL 103(a) WESTERNGECO L.L.C. KEVIN MCENANEY

Ex Parte Marui HORNER improper recapture KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP

If a patentee attempts to “recapture” what the patentee previously surrendered in order to obtain allowance of original patent claims, that “deliberate withdrawal or amendment … cannot be said to involve the inadvertence or mistake contemplated by 35 U.S.C. § 251, and is not an error of the kind which will justify the granting of a reissue patent which includes the [subject] matter withdrawn.” Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc. , 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Haliczer v. United States, 356 F.2d 541, 545 (Ct. Cl. 1966)); see also Hester Industries Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 27 USPQ2d 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . 1412.02

Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641(Fed. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1412.02

Ex Parte Miller CRAWFORD 102(b) Siemens Corporation

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Lindgren MEDLEY 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Holland KRIVAK 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Kim GARRIS 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Fulks STAICOVICI 103(a) RICHARD D. FUERLE

Ex Parte Eschenburg LEE 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Ferree STAICOVICI 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C