REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Dinh et al SPIEGEL 102(e)/103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A.

Ex Parte Zerbe et al PRATS 102(b)/103(a) PRICE, HENEVELD, COOPER, DEWITT & LITTON, LLP

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Aoki et al FRANKLIN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVASK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Jennings et al OWENS 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.

Ex Parte Hui et al COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) K & L GATES LLP

Ex Parte Herzhaft et al HASTINGS 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY STOUT & KRAUS, LLP

See W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1551, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (“To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention in suit, when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against its teacher.”).

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)

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

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Bullinger et al HOFF 102(b)/103(a) THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING INC

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte SUGIYAMA GAUDETTE 103(a) AKIRA SUGIYAMA

Ex Parte Crews et al GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP

To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Howard LORIN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Ogino et al CRAWFORD 102(e) SUGHRUE-265550

Ex Parte Sting et al BAHR 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC.

Ex Parte Hoshino CRAWFORD 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS

As the court in In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) stated: “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious- the claim becomes indefinite.” Id. at 1385.

Wilson, In re, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, (CCPA 1970).. . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Chen et al LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.

Ex Parte Hann WILLIAM F. PATE, III 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP

Ex Parte Ellin et al WILLIAM F. PATE III 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC

Ex Parte Asius et al WILLIAM F. PATE III 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP

Ex Parte Kirschner et al WILLIAM F. PATE III 102(b)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP

NUIJTEN - AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Gardner BARRETT 101/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Nicolaos et al WARREN 103(a) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Barturen et al BARRETT 102(e)/103(a) DILLON & YUDELL LLP

Arguments not made are considered waived. Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art."); In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 936 (CCPA 1967) ("This court has uniformly followed the sound rule that an issue raised below which is not argued in this court, even if it has been properly brought here by a reason of appeal, is regarded as abandoned and will not be considered. It is our function as a court to decide disputed issues, not to create them.")

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

Wiechert, In re, 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Campisano et al SAADAT 103(a) WHITHAM CURTIS CHRISTOFFERSON, PC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Braco LORIN 102(e)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C.

Ex Parte Ramajois et al PATE, III 103(a) LINIAK, BERENATO & WHITE

“When a piece of prior art ‘suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant’ the piece of prior art is said to ‘teach away’ from the claimed invention.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Whether a reference teaches away from a claimed invention is a question of fact. In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Harris, In re, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2144.05

Ex Parte Patel LEE 102(b)/103(a) SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS

Ex Parte Debler et al BAHR 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.

To adequately traverse the Examiner's finding of Official Notice, Appellants' traversal must contain information or argument that is adequate to create, on its face, a reasonable doubt as to the circumstances justifying the Examiner's notice. See In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). Appellants must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner's action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well known in the art. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b); see also MPEP § 2144.03.