REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte El Bakkouri et al GREEN 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP

Thus, the claim requires treatment of a chronic immune disease, and not a symptom of such a disease, for example the symptom of chronic fatigue in CFS. See Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that "‘treatment of sleep apnea[]’" was properly interpreted as limited to the underlying apnea itself; claim term did not include treatment of anxiety that can occur secondary to sleep apnea).

Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 59 USPQ2d 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . 2111.01

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Pircher et al HANLON 103(a) PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Duisenberg BARRETT 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

"[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f) , 2145

Ex Parte Error et al LUCAS 102(e) RAUBVOGEL LAW OFFICE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Banerjee et al STEPHENS 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL)C/O VAN LEEUWEN & VAN LEEUWEN

According to the single source rule, all the claim's limitations must be contained in a single reference, see, e.g., Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and the reference "must describe the patented subject matter with sufficient clarity and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art and that such existence would be recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the field of the invention." Crown Operations Int'l, Ltd. v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).

Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 60 USPQ2d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2131

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Rush et al HAIRSTON 103(a) HOGAN & HARTSON LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gueret LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,GARRETT & DUNNER LLP

“Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).

Best, In re, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . 2112, 2112.01, 2112.02