modine, rinehart, syntex, gurley, fulton,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Ware et al 11/142,651 GRIMES 112(2)/102(b)/102(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER CHEN, SHIN LIN 

“Such broadening usages as ‘about’ must be given reasonable scope; they must be viewed by the decisionmaker as they would be understood by persons experienced in the field of the invention. Although it is rarely feasible to attach a precise limit to ‘about,’ the usage can usually be understood in light of the technology embodied in the invention.” Modine Manufacturing Co. v. U.S. ITC, 75 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Kawabata et al 10/472,753 NAGUMO 103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER OLSEN, KAJ K 

Ex Parte Lawrence et al 10/399,797 TIMM 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNENHULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Day et al 10/606,582 SIU 112(1)/103(a)/101 IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER UNELUS, ERNEST 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Kelly 10/820,484 BAUMEISTER 103(a) Avago Technologies Limited EXAMINER ANDUJAR, LEONARDO 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Wilbanks 10/445,584 SILVERBERG 103(a) MICHAEL J. COLITZ, JR. EXAMINER ELLIS, CHRISTOPHER P 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Kocher et al 10/204,374 BAHR 103(a) Striker Striker & Stenby EXAMINER PRONE, JASON D 

Ex Parte Veith 10/693,555 HORNER 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Peart et al 10/759,280 ADAMS obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY 

Obviousness does not require absolute predictability; however, at least some degree of predictability is required. Evidence showing there was no reasonable expectation of success can support a conclusion of non-obviousness. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1053-54 (CCPA 1976). 

Rinehart, In re, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2107.02, 2142, 2143.02, 2144.04 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

Ex Parte McElroy 10/368,425 LANE 103(a)/102(e) Foley and Lardner, LLP EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D 

When a reference teaches away

it suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant's invention. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A statement that a particular combination is not a preferred embodiment does not teach away absent clear discouragement of that combination.In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1199-1200.

Syntex LLC v. Apotex, Inc. 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145 

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . 2123, 2141.02, 2143.01, 2145