Friday June 25, 2010

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Riley 10/915,174 BARRETT 101/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER YU, HENRY W

"Because it is for the invention as claimed that enablement must exist, and because the impossible cannot be enabled, a claim containing a limitation impossible to meet may be held invalid under § 112. Moreover, when a claim requires a means for accomplishing an unattainable result, the claimed invention must be considered inoperative as claimed and the claim must be held invalid under either § 101 or § 112 of 35 U.S.C." Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Raytheon v. Roper, 724 F.2d 951, 220 USPQ 592 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . .2107.02, 2164.08

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Nakamura et al 10/357,038 BARRETT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION, T.J. WATSON RESEARCH CENTER EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

"[T]he best defense against the subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness analysis is rigorous application of the requirement for a showing of the teaching or motivation to combine [the] references." In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The motivation, suggestion or teaching may come explicitly from statements in the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases the nature of the problem to be solved. Id.

Dembiczak, In re, 175 F.3d 994, 50USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . .1504.06, 2144.04

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Dorr 10/864,170 O’NEILL 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER STODOLA, DANIEL P

Ex Parte Dyko et al 11/076,314 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) RAY L. WEBER RENNER, KENNER, GRIEVE, BOBAK, TAYLOR & WEBER EXAMINER TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE