REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Burchfield et al 12016280 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. CAMPBELL, SHANNON S
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Daniel et al 12572769 - (D) FREDMAN 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC HUGHES, SAMUEL T
3737 Ex Parte IRIE 13768405 - (D) HOELTER 103 SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC AKAR, SERKAN
All statements premised on the exact location along 11b where the adhesive is applied, and specifically which side of protuberance 26 the adhesive can be found, are merely speculative because Sakamoto is silent in this regard (furthermore, Sakamoto does not illustrate any adhesive in any figure).
In such a situation, we are instructed by the predecessor to our reviewing court that
The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It 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. To the extent the Patent Office rulings are so supported, there is no basis for resolving doubts against their correctness. Likewise, we may not resolve doubts in favor of the Patent Office determination when there are deficiencies in the record as to the necessary factual bases supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness.
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (emphasis added).
Warner, In re, 379 F.2d 1011, 154 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1967) 2142
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte Bruce et al 11201410 - (D) DERRICK 103 103 STOUT, UXA, BUYAN & MULLINS, LLP GUPTA, YOGENDRA N
We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive the Examiner erred reversibly because it fails to address the Examiner’s proffered combination of prior art teachings and reasoning, and it is not necessary that the motivation and reasoning be from the prior art. See, e.g., DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating motivation to modify the prior art “may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself”) (cited with approval in Alcon Research LTD. v. Apotex, Inc., 687 F.3d 1362, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Nor is it of import that the motivation differs from that of Appellants. DyStar, 464 F.3d at 1368 (“We have repeatedly held that the motivation to modify a prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention need not be the same motivation that the patentee had.”) As to the argument that disclosure of a single step during which both demolding and delensing occurs leads away from the Examiner’s position, we find it without persuasive merit. See, e.g., Dystar., 464 F.3d at 1364 (“We will not read into a reference a teaching away from a process where no such language exists.”)
Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2143.01 , 2144
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Baran 12771855 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(2) Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY WEINHOLD, INGRID M
3681 Ex Parte HAMILTON et al 12189225 - (D) WIEDER 103 102/103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Wehling et al 12170946 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 ALLISON JOHNSON, P.A. HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11554926 - (D) THOMAS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY POINT, RUFUS C
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Camarillo 12022987 - (D) WOODS 103 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP HOLWERDA, STEPHEN
