REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Jarvis et al BARRY 103(a) STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.

Ex Parte Kalan et al HOMERE 102(b) ROCKWELL AUTOMATION

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Ukigawa et al HAIRSTON 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

Ex Parte Hall GREEN 102(b)/103(a) MICHAEL A. BLAKE, LLC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Venkataraman GRIMES 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP

“In determining whether obviousness is established by combining the teachings of the prior art, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted).

GPAC, In re, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.03, 2145

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Smith SPIEGEL 103(a) CLARK & BRODY

In addition, one skilled in the art must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references disclose. In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962). Skill in the art is presumed. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is well settled that the prior art need not disclose the same purpose for a claimed method in order to establish its obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990). All that is necessary is that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had some reason for performing the claimed method step. In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996). However, “[o]ne cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in the prior art to deprecate the claimed invention.” In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Further, although § 103 does not define what is meant by "prior art,"

this determination is frequently couched in
terms of whether the art is analogous or not,
i.e., whether the art is "too remote to be treated
as prior art." In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741 . . .
(Fed. Cir. 1985).

. . . . . .
Two criteria have evolved for determining whether
prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from
the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not
within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether
the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is
involved. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 . . . .
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036
(CCPA 1979)

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145

Fine, In re, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . . . 707.07(f) , 2143.01 , 2143.03 , 2144

Deminski, In re, 796 F.2d 436, 230 USPQ 313 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141.01(a)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Aoyama et al FETTING 101/102(a)/103(a) JACKSON WALKER LLP

Ex Parte Morgenstern et al HORNER 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) KOESTNER BERTANI LLP

See MPEP § 2144.03(B) (“[t]he examiner must provide specific factual findings predicated on sound technical and scientific reasoning to support his or her conclusion of common knowledge.”) (citing In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 946 (CCPA 1963) and In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 711, 713 (CCPA 1943)).

Soli, In re, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .2144.02 , 2144.03

Chevenard, In re, 139 F.2d 71, 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.03

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte McGraw et al GREEN 102(b)/103(a)/ Obviousness-type Double Patenting BLANK ROME LLP

“We must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs. , 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2008).