REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Gilbert SMITH 102(e)/103(a) General Motors Corporation

If a 37 CFR § 1.131 affidavit is relied on, then the applicant needs to show priority with respect to only so much of the claimed invention as the reference discloses, as indicated by In re Stempel, 241 F.2d 755, 760 (CCPA 1957).

MPEP: Stempel, In re, 241 F.2d 755, 113 USPQ 77 (CCPA 1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.03

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

"In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1463-64 (BPAI 1990)(citations omitted).

MPEP: Levy, Ex parte, 17 USPQ2d 1461 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Ulrich et al LORIN 102(b) Stockwell & Associates PSC

Ex Parte Belokin HORNER 102(b)/103(a) JACK A. KANZ

NUIJTEN - AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Keohane et al THOMAS 101/102(b)/103(a) IBM CORP (YA)C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Myr LORIN 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) 101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RATNERPRESTIA

The Supreme Court has defined the term ‘‘machine’ is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.’ Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570 (1863). This ‘includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result.’ Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267 (1853).

In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

MPEP: Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Saunders et al RUGGIERO 103(a) SQUIRE SANDERS & DEMPSEY, LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Madden et al HORNER 102(b)/103(a) Lockheed Martin c/o DEMONT & BREYER, LLC

We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). The challenge is to interpret claims in view of the specification without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

MPEP: Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . 2111.01

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

Ex Parte Ulrich et al LORIN 102(b) STOCKWELL & ASSOCIATES PSC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Yu HORNER 103(a) MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC

[W]hen the claimed structure performs differently from the prior art, a finding of obvious design choice is precluded. In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (finding of obvious design choice precluded when claimed structure and the function it performs are different from the prior art).