REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Jung et al KIMLIN 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Musselman BARRY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION

"'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

Bell, In re, 991 F.2d 781, 26 USPQ2d1529 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . .2144.08, 2144.09, 2163

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Mojsilovic et al HAIRSTON 102(b)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HARRINGTON & SMITH, PC

The meaning of a claim term and the scope of the claim can not depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of the person practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

“While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a claim term, to be definite, requires an objective anchor.” Datamize v. Plumtree Software, 417 F.3d at 1350. “Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.” Id.

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(b)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Frey et al SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Palestrant BOALICK 103(a) MESCHKOW & GRESHAM, P.L.C.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Marion et al HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) IBM Corp. (YA) c/o Yee & Associates PC

Ex Parte Chen DANG 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Crain O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP

Appellant’s argument focuses on a time that the claimed ground contact is set in position and disregards the actual structure of the ground contact when comparing the claimed ground contact to Thalhammer’s claw point. “It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Our reviewing court’s predecessor stated that “[t]he manner or method in which [a] machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580 (CCPA 1967). And, “a statement of intended use… does not qualify or distinguish the structural apparatus claimed over the reference.” In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492 (CCPA 1962).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

Casey, In re, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115

Sinex, In re, 309 F.2d 488, 135 USPQ 302 (CCPA 1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02