REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Scholl et al 11/830,604 ADAMS WALSH dissenting 103(a) MYRIAD GENETICS INC. EXAMINER AEDER, SEAN E

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Newly discovered results of known processes directed to the same purpose are not patentable because such results are inherent.”)

1627 Ex Parte Gorissen et al 10/381,714 GREEN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Ulmer et al 10/674,053 HASTINGS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LEWIS, BEN

1765 Ex Parte Richter et al 11/333,575 GARRIS 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Wee et al 10/153,095 NAPPI 112(1)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Seymour et al 10/737,048 O’NEILL 102(b) William H. McNeill OSRAM SYLVANIA Inc. EXAMINER STERLING, AMY JO

3651 Ex Parte Stuffel et al 10/543,879 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS
EXAMINER SINGH, KAVEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Bergdoll 10/835,715 PATE III 102(b) TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. EXAMINER KENNEDY, JOSHUA T

First, it has long been held that an intermediate product or article can anticipate a claimed article even if the intermediate product is merely a stage in the final production of a non-anticipatory article. See In re Mullin, 481 F.2d 1333, 1335-36, (CCPA 1973) (an article that is intended and appreciated is no less anticipatory be it an intermediate structure rather than an end use item (citing In re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390, 1394 (CCPA 1972)).

3685 Ex Parte Lee 10/619,296 CRAWFORD 103(a) SPRINT EXAMINER WINTER, JOHN M

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2711 Ex parte ANTOR MEDIA CORPORATION 90/007,839; 90/007,936; 90/007,942; 90/007,957; and 90/009,261 5,734,961 SIU 102(a)/102(b)/103(a) Hershkovitz & Associates, LLC Counsel for Patent Owner: HERSHKOVITZ & ASSOCIATES, LLC Counsel for Third Parties: Alan L. Whitehurst Jones Day Thomas A. Rozylowics Fish & Richardson, PC EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER MILLER, JOHN W

See Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1250 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that skeletal arguments and truffle hunts do not preserve an issue); Chicago Bd. of Educ. v. Substance, Inc., 354 F.3d 624, 629 (7th Cir. 2003) (incorporation into brief not a proper way to raise an issue).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2617 Ex parte AVID IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 90/008,702 5,499,017 SIU 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: J.D. Harriman II DLS Piper US LLP Third Party Requesters: Alexander C. Johnson Jr. Marger Johnson & McCollom PC original EXAMINER SWANN III, GLEN R

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1203 DORMAN PRODUCTS, INC. LLC Requestor, Appellant v. Patent of FEDERAL-MOGUL CORP. and FEDERAL-MOGUL WORLDWIDE, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,429 7,306,235 MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC Volpe and Koenig, P.C. Patent Owner: DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLCEXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER NOT, DEFINED

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Linton et al 11/824,005 MILLS 103(a) DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC EXAMINER SULLIVAN, DANIELLE D

1652 Ex Parte Gulevich et al 11/235,254 PRATS 112(2)/103(a) CERMAK NAKAJIMA LLP EXAMINER RAGHU, GANAPATHIRAM

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Schultes et al 10/575,929 KRATZ 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P

1783 Ex Parte Wellwood et al 10/927,942 FRANKLIN 103(a) EDWARD YOO C/O BENNETT JONES LLP EXAMINER O'HERN, BRENT T

1762 Ex Parte Cao et al 11/820,408 GRIMES 103(a) Univation Technologies LLC EXAMINER
LEE, RIP A

1722 Ex Parte Dieu et al 10/457,315 KRATZ 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER CHACKO DAVIS, DABORAH

1796 Ex Parte KAWASHIMA et al 11/562,812 TIMM 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER LU, C CAIXIA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Patterson et al 11/060,605 LUCAS 101/103(a) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER LE, HUNG D

2167 Ex Parte Gargi et al 10/427,572 LUCAS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Nam et al 11/117,462 SAADAT 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM EXAMINER JACKSON JR, JEROME

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 Ex Parte Hammons et al 10/262,036 ADAMS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

3736 Ex Parte Love et al 10/175,022 PATE III 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP
EXAMINER FOREMAN, JONATHAN M

3784 Ex Parte Stempfle et al 10/788,569 BAHR 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER JIANG, CHEN WEN

3761 Ex Parte Dodge et al 10/662,073 BAHR 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

REISSUE

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

1639 Ex Parte Prahl et al 11/454,180 LEBOVITZ 251/102(e)/103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG (HOU) EXAMINER WESSENDORF, TERESA D

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Lasic et al 11/377,537 ADAMS 103(a) ROBINS & PASTERNAK EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

1627 Ex Parte Wang 10/496,561 WALSH 103(a) KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO

“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references . . . is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03

Fine, In re, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2143.01, 2143.03, 2144

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Parrish 10/923,163 NAGUMO 103(a) NASA JOHN F. KENNEDY SPACE CENTER EXAMINER DUONG, THANH P

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Guterman et al 10/203,028 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER HARRELL, ROBERT B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Sanders 10/998,114 BAHR 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER HARTMANN, GARY S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Baggot et al 11/228,814 BAHR 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3742 Ex Parte Shukla et al 11/138,564 BAHR 103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Knott et al 10/732,397 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) AT&T Legal Department - JW EXAMINER STACE, BRENT S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Whittenberg et al 10/402,337 STEPHENS 102(b) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; NEW GROUND OF REJECTION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3751 SPECTRONICS CORPORATION, Requester and Appellant, v. UVIEW ULTRAVIOLET SYSTEMS INC., Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,025 6,293,319 ROBERTSON 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER DOUGLAS, STEVEN O original EXAMINER JACYNA, J CASIMER

In evaluating Declarations under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131, “(1) all the evidence must be considered in its entirety, including the Rule 131 declarations and accompanying exhibits . . . (2) an accompanying exhibit need not support all of the claimed limitations but rather a missing feature may be supplied by the declaration itself . . . and (3) it is entirely appropriate for appellants to rely on a showing of facts set forth in the Rule 131 declarations themselves to establish conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference.” Ex Parte Ovshinsky, 10 USPQ2d 1075, 1077 (BPAI 1989) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Fikstad et al 09/871,318 GRIMES 103(a) BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP EXAMINER YOUNG, MICAH PAUL

1618 Ex Parte Warren et al 11/059,763 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER VU, JAKE MINH

See Vehicular Technologies Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int’l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“A drafter uses the term ‘comprising’ to mean ‘I claim at least what follows and potentially more.’”).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Li et al 12/028,535 ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) David J. Alexander Fina Technology, Inc. EXAMINER LENIHAN, JEFFREY S

1796 Ex Parte Mager 11/451,963 PAK 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LISTVOYB, GREGORY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Curtis et al 11/759,443 PATE III 112(2)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER BROWN, DREW J

“Combining the teachings of references does not mandate combination of their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973).

Nievelt, In re, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Leslie-Martin 11/477,087 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) The Ollila Law Group LLC EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Moon et al 10/990,057 GRIMES 103(a) THE SMALL PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU

1645 Ex Parte Degelaen et al 10/170,343 GREEN 103(a) Butzel Long EXAMINER ZEMAN, ROBERT A

“[H]owever, when an applicant demonstrates substantially improved results . . . and states that the results were unexpected, this should suffice to establish unexpected results in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original). Moreover, when an obviousness rejection is based on a combination of the prior art references, the comparison need only be between the closest prior art reference and the claimed invention. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 422 (CCPA 1966). It need not be directed to a comparison between the claimed invention and the invention suggested by the combined teachings of the prior art references. Chapman, 357 F.2d at 422.

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

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

Chapman, In re, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(e)

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Varanasi et al 10/765,256 FRANKLIN 103(a) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER CHEN, BRET P

“[A] reasonable expectation of success, not absolute predictability” supports a conclusion of obviousness. In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 897 (Fed. Cir. 1985). However, to have a reasonable expectation of success, one must be motivated to do more than merely [] vary all parameters or try each of [the] numerous possible choices until one possibly arrive[s] 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. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted)).

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

Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 82 USPQd 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . 2143.01, 2145

1767 Ex Parte Strickler et al 11/285,885 NAGUMO 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PCEXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

1798 Ex Parte Morman et al 10/285,288 FRANKLIN 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Jakubik et al 10/615,438 SAADAT 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Fukui 09/902,711 KRIVAK 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER GOINS, DAVETTA WOODS

2618 Ex Parte Gupta 11/066,956 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER PAN, YUWEN

2618 Ex Parte Everett et al 11/002,044 SAADAT 102(e)/103(a) LARIVIERE, GRUBMAN & PAYNE, LLP EXAMINER AKINYEMI, AJIBOLA A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Lee 11/280,971 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) Robert D. Atkins EXAMINER CHU, CHRIS C

2825 Ex Parte Poirier et al 10/644,625 RUGGIERO 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WHITMORE, STACY

2854 Ex Parte Kron et al 11/269,116 KRIVAK 112(1)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ZIMMERMAN, JOSHUA D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Berger 10/154,923 SCHEINER 102(e)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) John S. Hale c/o Gipple & Hale EXAMINER WOODALL, NICHOLAS W

3752 Ex Parte Chen 10/987,040 McCARTHY 103(a) Charles W. Stewart Shell Oil Company EXAMINER NGUYEN, DINH Q

3761 Ex Parte Kaun et al 11/413,444 McCARTHY 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Mizuta et al 10/424,941 MacDONALD 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER PAN, YUWEN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Glassman et al 10/803,560 TURNER 102(e) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER YOO, JASSON H

3721 Ex Parte Reuteler et al 11/872,409 McCARTHY 103(a) KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte May et al 11/210,986 NAGUMO 103(a) LNG/LSI JOINT CUSTOMER C/O LUEDEKA, NEELY & GRAHAM, P.C. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

1761 Ex Parte Ford 11/599,858 GARRIS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1798 Ex Parte Veillat et al 10/530,435 KRATZ 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M

2600 Communications
2619 Ex Parte Zuniga et al 10/334,858 MacDONALD 112(1)/103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER SEFCHECK, GREGORY B

2625 Ex Parte McKelvey 10/198,919 SAADAT 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER DULANEY, BENJAMIN O

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Bhavnagarwa at al 10/643,193 MacDONALD 103(a) F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER WEST, JEFFREY R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Keene 10/329,144 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R .§ 41.50(b) William E. Schiesser IBM Corporation EXAMINER ERB, NATHAN

A field-of-use limitation is insufficient to render an otherwise patent-ineligible process patent eligible. See Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981). Cf. SiFR Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 601 F.2d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010): In order for the addition of machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of the claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Mahl 11/203,783 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) GARVEY SMITH NEHRBASS & NORTH, LLC EXAMINER TYLER, CHERYL JACKSON

3753 Ex Parte Balsdon 10/103,489 PATE III 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C

3766 Ex Parte Rashidi 10/260,242 LEE 103(a) SJM/AFD-WILEY EXAMINER SCHAETZLE, KENNEDY

REISSUE

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2861 Ex Parte Goto et al 10/360,670 5,940,957 MacDONALD 251 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO
EXAMINER FEGGINS, KRISTAL J

The “Orita doctrine” precludes applicants from obtaining by reissue claims which, because of a requirement for restriction in which they had acquiesced, they could not claim in their patent. In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277, 1280 (CCPA 1977).

When applicants acquiesce in the examiner’s requirement for restriction, such action manifestly is not “error” causing patentee to claim “less than he had a right to claim in the patent” in the language of 35 U.S.C. § 251. Id, 550 F.2d at 1280.

The so-called Orita doctrine precludes reissue applicants from obtaining substantially identical claims to those of non-elected groups identified in an examiner's restriction requirement when such claims could not have been prosecuted in the application from which they were restricted. In re Doyle, 293 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

Orita, In re, 550 F.2d 1277, 193 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1412.01, 1457

Doyle, In re, 293 F.3d 1355, 63 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1412.01

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Dobler 10/233,136 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) Paul M. Denk EXAMINER FUBARA, BLESSING M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Zhao 11/444,649 NAGUMO 103(a) LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER BODAWALA, DIMPLE N

1746 Ex Parte Hethcock et al 10/533,427 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. WALTON, PLLC EXAMINER AFTERGUT, JEFF H

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Takabayashi et al 10/338,891 RUGGIERO 102(e)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER DICKERSON, CHAD S

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2675 CHIMEI INNOLUX CORP., Requester and Appellant v. Patent of MONDIS TECHNOLOGY, LTD., Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,460 6,304,236 MacDONALD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) DECHERT LLP EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHANH DUY

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Blau et al 10/508,264 WALSH 112(2)/103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER WORLEY, CATHY KINGDON

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1736 Ex Parte Cao et al 11/173,095 FRANKLIN 102(b) Charles Muserlain EXAMINER ZIMMER, ANTHONY J

1764 Ex Parte Finegan et al 11/711,351 ADAMS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L

“[T]he motivation in the prior art to combine the references does not have to be identical to that of the applicant to establish obviousness.” In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

1783 Ex Parte Morgan 10/950,103 KRATZ 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER O'HERN, BRENT T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Cost 10/405,017 LEE 102(b)/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (NY) EXAMINER SEVERSON, JEREMY R

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Berggren et al 11/510,105 ADAMS 112(2)/112(1) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER DUTT, ADITI

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Park et al 10/854,942 FRANKLIN 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER VETERE, ROBERT A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Lofgren et al 10/435,612 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) Foley & Lardner LLP EXAMINER CALLAHAN, PAUL E

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/928,641 PATE III 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER BATSON, VICTOR D

Thus, the only evidence of record for what the Examiner purports to be a well-known reason for making the modifications proposed is found in Appellants’ own Specification. Using the invention as a template for its own reconstruction is “an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1553).

W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)

3622 Ex Parte Kaiwa et al 10/070,331 LORIN 103(a) NTT DoCoMo Inc/BHGL EXAMINER DURAN, ARTHUR D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Lewis et al 11/057,004 PATE III 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) Douglas H. Pauley
Pauley Petersen & Erickson EXAMINER SINGH, KAVEL

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3723 Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant 90/010,107 6,520,847 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORGAN S. HELLER, II DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN, PLLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER SHANLEY, DANIEL G

3723 Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant 90/010,106 5,921,855 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORGAN S. HELLER, II DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN, PLLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER ELEY, TIMOTHY V

3723 Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant 90/010,109 6,824,455 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORGAN S. HELLER, II DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN, PLLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER MCDONALD, SHANTESE L

3723 Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc., Appellant 90/010,108 6,699,115 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORGAN S. HELLER, II DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN, PLLC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER SHANLEY, DANIEL G

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2822 Ex parte i2 Technologies, US, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,645 5,930,645 SIU 102(b) Patent Owner Booth Udall, PLC Third Party Requester Paul A. Harrity Harrity Snyder LLP EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER GUERRERO, MARIA F

Appellant cites TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and argues that “corroboration is required of any witness whose testimony alone is asserted to invalidate a patent.” (App. Br. 55). However, in TypeRight Keyboard Corp., as opposed to the present case, the court found doubts as to the credibility of the testimony of witnesses because “the . . . document itself is undated,” “the testimony itself is somewhat tentative,” there was a “discrepancy in the file date” for which a witness failed to “determine whether his recollection was correct,” and the author of the document “filed two patent applications . . . for similar keyboards (which arguably would not have been proper if the . . . document was publicly distributed).” TypeRight Keyboard Corp., 374 F.3d at 1158. In the present case, Appellant has not raised any specific doubts as to the credibility of the evidence. For example, the Insight reference is dated (1983), Appellant has not argued that statements made by Roberts are “tentative” or that there is any discrepancy in the date of the reference or any other aspect of the reference and statements made regarding the cited reference.

2763 Ex parte i2 Technologies, US, Inc., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,630 5,764,543 SIU 102(b) Patent Owner Booth Udall, PLC Third Party Requester Paul A. Harrity Harrity Snyder LLP EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER TRANS, VINCENT N

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Odenike 11/281,666 MILLS 103(a) ANDRUS, SCEALES, STARKE & SAWALL, LLP EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Debe et al 11/248,441 GARRIS 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER FORREST, MICHAEL

1745 Ex Parte Kuenzel et al 10/354,374 PAK 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER TOLIN, MICHAEL A

"In order to gain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement" under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997), citing In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 609 (CCPA 1977). As stated in In re Schneider, 481 F.2d 1350, 1356 (CCPA 1973):

[T]here has to be a continuous chain of copending applications each of which satisfies the requirements of § 112 with respect to the subject matter presently claimed. There must be continuing disclosure through the chain of applications, without hiatus, to ultimately secure the benefit of the earliest filing date. [(Emphasis added; citations omitted.)]

The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, requires that each application in the chain leading back to the earliest application relied upon must “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the [claimed] invention” of the present application. See, e.g., Carnegie Mellon University v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008), “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added; original emphasis not reproduced). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter.” Id.

Hogan, In re, 559 F.2d 595, 194 USPQ 527 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2124, 2164.05(a)

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

1715 Ex Parte Yabe et al 10/576,230 GAUDETTE 103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Bridger 11/004,146 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER PHAM, THANH V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Garcia 10/977,606 HORNER 103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER COZART, JERMIE E

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Lei et al 11/101,667 COURTENAY 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER LE, JESSICA N

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Rossbach et al 10/137,974 DANG 102(e) OSTRAGER CHONG FLAHERTY & BROITMAN, P.C. EXAMINER MIRZA, ADNAN M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Chard et al 10/103,433 CRAWFORD 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Hovey Williams LLP EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3628 Ex Parte Elliott 09/770,613 McCARTHY 103(a) SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD EXAMINER JABR, FADEY S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Engel 11/135,206 PATE III 102(b) THE HILL FIRM, DENNIS A. GROSS EXAMINER CARTAGENA, MELVIN A

3753 Ex Parte Widenmann et al 11/408,581 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER FRISTOE JR, JOHN K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Jordan et al 11/151,906 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) ROBERT M. MCDERMOTT, ESQ. EXAMINER DINH, TIEN QUANG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Carlomagno 11/128,693 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER RALIS, STEPHEN J

3742 Ex Parte Prociw et al 11/050,686 BAHR 103(a) OGILVY RENAULT LLP (PWC) EXAMINER RALIS, STEPHEN J

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex parte DENNIS P. DEGREGORIO, JR. 90/010,091 6,978,547 LEE 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER MAYER BROWN LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER WATTS, DOUGLAS D

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3742 Ex parte SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC. 90/009,341 6,392,190 LEE 103(a) OSHA LIANG L.L.P. Third Party Requester: DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte WARING et al 09/341,821 LEBOVITZ 103(a) CONVATEC INC. EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Whether a reference in the prior art is “analogous” is a fact question. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 658.

Wyers et al. v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.08

1644 Ex Parte Lazar et al 10/672,280 GREEN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP (SF) EXAMINER DAHLE, CHUN WU

Objective evidence of nonobviousness (also called “secondary considerations”) must always be considered in making an obviousness determination, Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983), but it is not necessarily conclusive, Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refrac., Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 306 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A “nexus” is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in the determination of nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A “nexus” is required between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations in order for the evidence to be given substantial weight in an obviousness decision. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Stratoflex, 713 F.2d at 1539. The burden of proving commercial success (and other types of secondary considerations, such as long felt need) during prosecution is on the applicant or patent owner. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“In the ex parte process of examining a patent application … the PTO lacks the means or resources to gather evidence which supports or refutes the applicant's assertion that the sales constitute commercial success.”). The burden of proving a nexus between the commercial success and the merits of the claimed invention during prosecution is also on the applicant or patent owner. Huang, 100 F.3d at 140 (“In sum, Huang simply has not carried his burden to prove that a nexus existed between any commercial success and the novel features claimed in the application.”).

Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . . .716.01(a), 2141, 2141.01(a), 2141.02, 2144.08

Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281,227 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . 716.01(b), 716.01(c), 2145

Demaco Corp. v. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . 716.01(b), 716.01(d), 716.03, 716.03(a), 716.03(b)

GPAC, In re, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.03, 2145

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Appellants cite Takeda v. Alphapharm, 492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007) for the proposition that the closest prior art compound directed the ordinary artisan away from the claimed compound, and thus it would not have been “obvious to try” and modify the prior art compound to arrive at the claimed compound. Id. at 1359.
...

Thus, the instant appeal is distinguishable from Takeda, which dealt with thiazolidine derivatives useful as antidiabetic agents, Takeda, 492 F.3d at 1353, wherein the court found there was no reason to modify the prior art compound to arrive at the compound at issue, id. at 1357.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/720,963 DIXON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW EXAMINER DWIVEDI, MAHESH H

2175 Ex Parte Allen et al 10/959,820 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER DISTEFANO, GREGORY A

2182 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 10/894,208 JEFFERY 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. EXAMINER PHAN, DEAN

2183 Ex Parte Elwood 10/994,179 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER VICARY, KEITH E

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/814,682 MacDONALD 103(a) HITT GAINES, PC EXAMINER MALDONADO, JULIO J

2883 Ex Parte Fernald et al 10/755,708 MacDONALD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER EL SHAMMAA, MARY A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Coulter et al 11/284,866 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SENSENIG, SHAUN D

3688 Ex Parte Zhang 10/684,125 FETTING 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW EXAMINER DAGNEW, SABA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Burkhart et al 11/277,640 CRAWFORD 103(a) INTERNATIONAL CORP (BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER ELISCA, PIERRE E

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Breese et al 11/054,202 HANLON 103(a) Lyondell Basell Industries EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R

1714 Ex Parte Tadych 10/427,179 TIMM 103(a) WHYTE HIRSCHBOECK DUDEK S C EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

1716 Ex Parte Engesser 11/584,652 NAGUMO 102(b)/102(e) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER MACARTHUR, SYLVIA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Clark et al 10/404,306 HOMERE 103(a) LUEDEKA, NEELY & GRAHAM, P.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, STEVE N

2161 Ex Parte Kumpitsch et al 10/367,618 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) ACCENTURE CHICAGO 28164 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2486 Ex Parte Daniels 09/993,780 RUGGIERO 103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER LEE, Y YOUNG

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Battaglin et al 11/409,125 SAADAT 112(1)/101 GRAYBEAL JACKSON LLP EXAMINER BUDD, MARK OSBORNE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/019,023 BAHR 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER FOX, CHARLES A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Fontaine et al 10/476,700 KERINS 103(a) MCCRACKEN & FRANK LLP EXAMINER NGO, LIEN M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Westfall 11/137,826 GARRIS 103(a) KAGAN BINDER, PLLC EXAMINER MUI, CHRISTINE T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2825 Ex Parte Hess et al 11/003,291 MacDONALD 102(e) Entropy Matters LLC EXAMINER MEMULA, SURESH

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Cline et al 10/993,242 FETTING 103(a) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP EXAMINER BROWN, ALVIN L
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Warren et al 10/152,924 FREDMAN 103(a)/obviousness type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA

“[M]ere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . 2123, 2141.02, 2143.01, 2145

1639 Ex Parte McAlister et al 10/494,895 FREDMAN 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/103(a) DANN, DORFMAN, HERRELL & SKILLMAN EXAMINER LIU, SUE XU

1643 Ex Parte Gavilondo Cowley et al 10/511,794 WALSH 103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER BRISTOL, LYNN ANNE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Raynor et al 10/677,850 FRANKLIN 103(a) ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST P.A. EXAMINER LUDLOW, JAN M

1796 Ex Parte Becker 10/313,373 HASTINGS 103(a) JONES & SMITH , LLP EXAMINER SELLERS, ROBERT E
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Edwards et al 11/051,551 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHONG H
2163 Ex Parte Ismail 10/788,099 JEFFERY 102(e) BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2817 Ex Parte Frank et al 11/232,581 MacDONALD 103(a) Kathy Manke Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER KINKEAD, ARNOLD M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Barney 11/458,429 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) EDWIN D. SCHINDLER EXAMINER AVILA, STEPHEN P
REHEARING

DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Xiao 11/108,978 WALSH 103(a) David W. Highet, VP & Chief IP Counsel Becton, Dickinson and Company EXAMINER SINGH, ANOOP KUMAR

The Examiner’s production of that evidence shifted the burden to Appellant to prove the Examiner wrong. See, e.g., In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (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