REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Herold et al SCHEINER 102(a)/102(e)/103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Alivisatos et al TIMM 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP

see also In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“hindsight” is inferred when the specific understanding or principal within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the modification of the prior art in order to arrive at appellant's claimed invention has not been explained).

Rouffet, In re, 149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . 2143.01

Ex Parte Pires KIMLIN 103(a) Paul F. Wille Cantor Colburn, LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Crain et al BARRETT 103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte BLUMENAU et al BARRETT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC

Descriptive material is not entitled to patentable weight unless there is a functional relationship to the substrate. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential) (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1003, aff’d Fed. Cir. R. 36 June 12, 2006). Here, a data structure is only an arrangement of data that bears no functional relationship to the substrate (computer readable medium) that stores the data and it is not entitled to patentable weight.

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Samper et al PRATS 102(b)/103(a) WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK P.C.

Also, the Examiner cannot establish inherency merely by demonstrating that the asserted limitation is probable or possible. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). “If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.” Id. (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (CCPA 1939)).

Oelrich, In re, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112

1635 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Eljamal et al WALSH 102(e)/103(a) NOVARTIS

“The combination of elements from nonanalogous sources, in a manner that reconstructs the applicant’s invention only with the benefit of hindsight, is insufficient to present a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Oetiker, In re, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .707.07(f), 716.01(d), 1504.01(a), 2106, 2107.02, 2142, 2145, 2164.07