Friday July 30, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Bennett et al 11/115,776 GREEN 103(a) NOVARTIS
Examiner Name:
HAGHIGHATIAN, MINA

Ex Parte Kincaid 10/184,501 PRATS Opinion dissenting FREDMAN 102(b) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.
Examiner Name:
DEJONG, ERIC S

Ex Parte Taylor 11/184,495 ADAMS 103(a) THE FIRM OF HUESCHEN AND SAGE
Examiner Name:
FORD, VANESSA L

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Veiner et al 10/794,702 COLAIANNI 102(b) BECKMAN COULTER, INC., MITCHELL E. ALTER
Examiner Name:
WRIGHT, PATRICIA KATHRYN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Bakker et al 11/206,728 BAHR 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting UNISYS CORPORATION
Examiner Name:
SANDERS, HOWARD J

Ex Parte Bakker et al 11/206,729 BAHR 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting UNISYS CORPORATION
Examiner Name:
SANDERS, HOWARD J

Ex Parte Lambright 10/612,254 McCARTHY 102(b) BUTZEL LONG
Examiner Name:
ADAMS, GREGORY W

Ex Parte Ligard 10/980,414 BARRETT 102(b) GABLE & GOTWALS
Examiner Name:
HAYES, BRET C

Ex Parte Parsons 11/275,886 BAHR 103(a) TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC
Examiner Name:
KING, ANITA M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Gudmunsson et al 10/487,968 OWENS 112(1) GLAXOSMITHKLINE
Examiner Name:
DESAI, RITA J

Ex Parte Mutter et al 11/655,895 GRIMES 103(a) LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. SANZO, LLC
Examiner Name:
NATARAJAN, MEERA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Zhang et al 10/827,494 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A.
Examiner Name:
HUSON, MONICA ANNE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Swartz et al 10/760,099 HOMERE 102(e) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)
Examiner Name:
ALAM, SHAHID AL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Dang et al 09/995,294 FISCHETTI 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Examiner Name:
GORT, ELAINE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Dinsmoor 10/835,424 BAHR 103(a) Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, LLP
Examiner Name:
TOWA, RENE T

Moreover, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment, and thus could utilize the existing analog structure of Hines when incorporating a memory to store data as suggested in Yokoi. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

...

Regarding 4), it is important to note that in any combination, benefits gained must be balanced with benefits lost. As stated in Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006):

[O]bviousness must be determined in light of all the facts, and there is no rule that a single reference that teaches away will mandate a finding of nonobviousness. Likewise, a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine. See [Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)] ("The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another."). Where the prior art contains "apparently conflicting" teachings (i.e., where some references teach the combination and others teach away from it) each reference must be considered "for its power to suggest solutions to an artisan of ordinary skill.... consider[ing] the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another." In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed.Cir.1991).

Thus, while a benefit of Hines' current configuration is real-time data, this does not preclude anyone from modifying Hines to have non-real-time data. For example, some physiological characteristics may not change every 100-500 ms. See Hines, col. 4, ll. 58-61. The obvious tradeoff is data update frequency, but if the characteristic does not change quickly, or it is not as important to have real-time updates, then the benefit of saving power may outweigh a desire to have several updates a second. Appellant has not demonstrated that the tradeoffs involved with modifying Hines to store data and transmit less often to save battery power would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from considering the combination.

Young, In re, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Chong et al
Ex Parte Donoho

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Breidenbach et al
Ex Parte Dang et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Baxter
Ex Parte Carlson et al
Ex Parte Elkind
Ex Parte Hackler et al
Ex Parte Hagerty et al
Ex Parte Hatalkar
Ex Parte Hofmann et al
Ex Parte Iino et al
Ex Parte Johnson
Ex Parte Looman et al
Ex Parte Love
Ex Parte Pai et al
Ex Parte Da Palma et al
Ex Parte Prochazka et al
Ex Parte Schmitz et al
Ex Parte Vishnupad et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Heiman
Ex Parte Loeb