dillon, mayne, payne, hammack,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Bays et al 10/682,289 ADAMS 103(a) WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. EXAMINER DAVIS, RUTH A 

Ex Parte Donde et al 10/916,243 GREEN 103(a) ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R 

In order to make a prima facie case of obviousness based on the structural similarity between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the prior art, not only must the structural similarity exist, but the prior art must also provide reason or motivation to make the claimed compound. See In re Dillon, 919 F. 2d 688, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), In re Mayne, 104 F. 3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313 (CCPA 1979) 

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145 

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09, 2145 

Payne, In re, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) . . . 716.02(a), 716.02(e), 2144.09 

Ex Parte Faecke et al 11/007,015 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER KATAKAM, SUDHAKAR 

Ex Parte Yamashita 10/794,187 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Fayet et al 10/529,533 DELMENDO 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK, LLP EXAMINER CHEN, KEATH T 

Ex Parte Wieners et al 10/257,002 NAGUMO 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) PROPAT, L.L.C. EXAMINER AHMED, SHEEBA 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Dresti et al 10/288,727 BARRY 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Nomura et al 09/969,845 NAPPI 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HUNTSINGER, PETER K 

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

Ex Parte Bates et al 09/848,573 CRAWFORD 102(e) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER ELISCA, PIERRE E 

Ex Parte McClary 11/101,897 KERINS 112(2)/103(a)/102(e) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HONEYWELL/FOGG EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHUONG P 

A principal purpose of the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,

is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance.

In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382 (CCPA 1970). 

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Marlborugh et al 10/497,925 FREDMAN 103(a) HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. EXAMINER CHIN, CHRISTOPHER L 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte McCarty 10/347,095 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER GOLD, AVI M 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Simpson 10/052,617 NAPPI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER THOMAS, ASHISH 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Gluck 11/022,751 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER NEGRON, ISMAEL