REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Wang et al LEBOVITZ 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Beckhoff et al DANG 103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Skillas LEE 102(b)/103(a) WELSH & FLAXMAN LLC

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Siber ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP

In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, the Examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness based upon the prior art. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On appeal to this Board, Appellants must show that the Examiner has not sustained the required burden. See Ex parte Yamaguchi, 88 USPQ2d 1606, 1608 and 1614 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); Ex parte Fu, 89 USPQ2d 1115, 1118 and 1123 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Lewis et al HORNER 103(a) MR. STEPHEN E. BONDURA DORITY & MANNING, P.A.

Ex Parte Mori et al KERINS 102(b)/103(a) FRASER CLEMENS MARTIN & MILLER LLC

An appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See Ex parte Yamaguchi, 88 USPQ2d 1606, 1614 (BPAI 2008) (on appeal, applicant must show examiner erred); Ex parte Fu, 89 USPQ2d 1115, 1123 (BPAI 2008); Ex parte Catan, 83 USPQ2d 1569, 1577 (BPAI 2007); and Ex parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509, 1519 (BPAI 2007).

Catan, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1569 (Bd. Pat. App.& Int. 2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01

Smith, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte DiPoto McCARTHY 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) CROMPTON, SEAGER & TUFTE, LLC

“Although [the applicant] does not have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, . . . the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the applicant] invented what is claimed” as of the filing date of the application. In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussing the written description requirement in the context of a claim of foreign priority).

Gosteli, In re, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . 608.01(p), 715.03, 2131.02, 2136.05, 2163.02, 2163.03, 2163.05

The Examiner’s stated rationale for concluding that the subject matter of claims 10-17 would have been obvious resembles the holding of In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 452 (CCPA 1955) (cited in MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 2144.04(VI)(A)). Despite this resemblance, the Examiner has not made sufficient findings to show that Gazda supports the conclusion that the subject matter would have been obvious.

Gazda, In re, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04