case, ICON

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Spormann et al 11/218,386 McCOLLUM 103(a) STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY LICENSING BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER MEAH, MOHAMMAD Y 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Harai 10/561,503 HASTINGS 102(b) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES EXAMINER NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L 

Ex Parte Huttlin 10/823,926 GARRIS 112(2)/103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER EDWARDS, LAURA ESTELLE 

Ex Parte Kaye et al 10/877,771 NAGUMO 103(a) BEYER LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER CONLEY, OI K 

The Examiner’s reliance on Supreme Court precedent to establish obviousness is misplaced because, as our reviewing court pointed out, "[p]recedent cannot establish facts." Case v. CPC Int’l, Inc. , 730 F.2d 745, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 

Case v. CPC Int’l Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 221 USPQ 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . 2301.03 

Ex Parte Komatsu et al 10/830,449 KIMLIN 103(a) MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY EXAMINER CHEVALIER, ALICIA ANN 

Ex Parte Manning et al 10/341,375 NAGUMO 103(a) FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Van Den Berg et al 10/571,814 HOMERE 102(b)/103(a) NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Mitra et al 11/251,664 HOMERE 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER WHITMORE, STACY 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Flinner et al 10/989,809 O’NEILL 103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER JIANG, CHEN WEN 

REEXAMINATION 

AFFIRMED 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte RPM SOLUTIONS, INC. Patent US 6,659,375 90/007,333 SONG 102(b)/103(a) cc: CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD. cc Third Party Requester: Edward J. Kondracki MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC EXAMINER KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A 

see also In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“During reexamination, as with original examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.”).