REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Thomas et al SPIEGEL 103(a) GE HEALTHCARE BIO-SCIENCES CORP.

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Matsumura et al PAK 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.


As stated in In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003), referring to Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir.1985): We have also held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art range do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.

Peterson, In re, 315 F.3d 1325, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . 716.02(d), 2144.05

Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112.01, 2131.01, 2131.03, 2144.05

According to In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955): [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.

Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.05

A prior art reference teaching away from the claimed invention is evidence of nonobviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145
 Ex Parte O'NEIL et al SMITH 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Meagley et al FRANKLIN 102(e)/103(a) TROP PRUNER & HU, PC

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Pearlman et al COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) Paul D. Greeley, Esq.Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Michaelis et al COURTENAY 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Purvis et al BLANKENSHIP 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BASCH & NICKERSON LLP

That ordinarily skilled artisans could carry out the recited function in a variety of ways is precisely why claims written in “means-plus-function” form must disclose the particular structure that is used to perform the recited function. By failing to describe the means by which the access control manager will create an access control list, Blackboard has attempted to capture any possible means for achieving that end. Section 112, paragraph 6, is intended to prevent such pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333.

Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Sterchi et al HOFF 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.

Ex Parte Obert SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Akimoto et al MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP

Ex Parte Dow et al MARTIN 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Roth et al FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) ULMER & BERNE LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Forbes et al PATE III 102(b)/103(a) HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP

Ex Parte Nguyen HORNER 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) ROBERT A. KENT

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Siravo et al PATE III 102(b)/112(1) FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP

Ex Parte Caluori PATE III 102(b) MIRICK, O'CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP

Ex Parte Yampolsky et al TIERNEY 103(a) Edward S. Wright

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Resnick et al COURTENAY 103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD
Invention or discovery is the requirement which constitutes the foundation of the right to obtain a patent . . . unless more ingenuity and skill were required in making or applying the said improvement than are possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there is an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute the essential elements of every invention. Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 197 (1876) (citing Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248, 267 (1850))

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hughes LORIN 102(e) KENYON & KENYON LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Liu et al KERINS 102(b) PATRICK S. YODER FLETCHER YODER

Ex Parte Goodin et al BOALICK 102(e)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A.

“[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). The “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Id. at 1313.

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

Ex Parte Mehawej SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) JULIE POST H.B. FULLER COMPANY