REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Diamond et al SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) GOSZ AND PARTNERS LLP

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Bonn et al ROBERTSON 112(1) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

“[The] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining.” In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019 (CCPA 1977).

The notion that one who fully discloses, and teaches those skilled in the
art how to make and use, a genus and numerous species therewithin, has somehow
failed to disclose, and teach those skilled in the art how to make and use, that
genus minus two of those species, and has thus failed to satisfy the requirement
of s [sic] 112, first paragraph, appears to result from a hypertechnical
application of legalistic prose relating to that provision of the statute.

Id.

Johnson, In re, 558 F.2d 1008, 194 USPQ 187 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.08, 2173.05(i)

Ex Parte Harasin et al GAUDETTE 112(1) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC

The Examiner cites Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (BPAI 1993) in support of his contention that “when a negative limitation is set forth without direct support from the specification, it is not reasonable to infer that one had possession of the claimed invention.” (Ans. 5.) Appellants point out the Examiner has misapprehended our decision in Ex parte Parks. (Reply Brief (“Rep. Br.”), filed July 29, 2008, 4.) Contrary to the Examiner’s contention, Ex parte Parks supports Appellants’ position that the mere absence of literal support for the claimed “isocyanate-reactive component which is free of amine groups” (claims 1 and 11) “does not, in and of itself, establish a prima facie case for lack of adequate descriptive support under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112.” Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d at 1236 (citations omitted).

Ex parte Tanaka

Parks, Ex parte, 30 USPQ2d 1234 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) . . . . . . . . . 2173.05(i)

Ex Parte Hoarau OWENS 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Pinkowski et al KIMLIN 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750

Ex Parte Rawlins et al TIMM 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC

Ex Parte van Rossum et al TIMM 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.

Ex Parte Verity ROBERTSON 103(a) Michael F. Petock, Esquire

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Huang et al DIXON 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C.

The issue to consider when determining whether a non-statutory basis exists for a double patenting rejection is whether any claim in the application defines an invention that is merely an obvious variation of an invention claimed in another patent.1 The analysis employed in an obviousness-type double patenting determination parallels the guidelines for an obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 593-94 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Braat, In re, 937 F.2d 589, 19 USPQ2d1289 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

Longi, In re, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

Ex Parte Kim SIU 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP

Ex Parte Butcher et al HUGHES 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) Nixon & Vanderhye, PC

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Willehadson et al HOFF 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Owen et al HAHN 102(e)/103(a) Eric T. Jones Reising Ethington Barnes Kisselle Learman & McCulloch

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Koppenhoehl et al STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP

Ex Parte Scheier et al LORIN 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Kivlighn et al GREEN 103(a) MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY

Ex Parte Mills et al GRIMES 112(1)/102(b) HITT GAINES, PC ALCATEL-LUCENT

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Lessley et al PAK 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) MR. DONALD J. BREH GROUP TECHNOLOGY COUNSEL ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.

Ex Parte Smotkin GAUDETTE 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

Appellant has persuasively argued that the holdings in Ex Parte Simpson 218 USPQ 1020 (BPAI 1982) and Ex Parte Fressola 27 USPQ2d 1608 (BPAI 1993) do not apply to the facts in this appeal.

In Ex Parte Simpson, we held that if a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim scope does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. 218 USPQ at 1022. "Nafion®" is not used in claim 84 to identify or describe a particular material or product. Rather, "Nafion® is simply a label on a depicted graph and the word Nafion® is used simply to refer to the label." (App. Br. 8.)

Simpson, Ex parte, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(d) , 2173.05(u)

In Ex Parte Fressola, we held that "[i]ncorporation into the claims by express reference to the specification and/or drawings is not permitted except in very limited circumstances." 27 USPQ2d at 1609. Claim 84 "does not incorporate by reference a figure or table, it displays the figure and pinpoints the elements of the figure that relate to the limitations of the claim." (App. Br. 9.)

Fressola, Ex parte, 27 USPQ2d 1608 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) . . . .2173.05(r) , 2173.05(s)

Ex Parte Blank et al HASTINGS 103(a) DOUGLAS S. FOOTE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION NCR CORPORATION

Ex Parte Booten et al HANLON 102(b)/103(a) HAYES SOLOWAY P.C.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Choudhary et al HUGHES 101/112(1)/obviousness-type double patenting/102(b)/103(a) Carey, Rodriguez, Greenberg & Paul, LLP Steven M. Greenberg

Claims directed to data structures per se are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Warmerdam, In re, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Chua et al WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) KATHY MANKE AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte ONG CRAWFORD 112(2)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis

Ex Parte Vick et al HORNER 102(b) SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Lowe et al O’NEILL 102(e)/102(b) CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P.

VACATED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lancefield J. Thomas 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.