Friday July 23, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Johnson et al 09/950,985 SCHEINER 103(a)/obviousness type double patenting GE HEALTHCARE, INC.
Examiner Name:
CHONG, YONG SOO

Optimization of a parameter not recognized as being result-effective is not prima facie obvious. Application of Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977).

Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .2141.02, 2144.05

Ex Parte Lipps et al 10/242,175 WALSH 112(1) JOHN R. CASPERSON
Examiner Name:
AUDET, MAURY A

[A] specification disclosure which contains a teaching of the manner and process of making and using the invention in terms which correspond in scope to those used in describing and defining the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as in compliance with the enabling requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 unless there is reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements contained therein which must be relied on for enabling support. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223 (CCPA 1971).

Marzocchi, In re, 439 F.2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971) . . . 2107.01, 2107.02, 2124, 2163, 2163.04, 2164.03, 2164.04, 2164.08

Ex Parte Siber 10/441,059 WALSH 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
Examiner Name:
STOICA, ELLY GERALD

“[K]nowledge of a problem and motivation to solve it are entirely different from motivation to combine particular references to reach the particular claimed method.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success. . . . [A]ll that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Goldberg et al 11/783,882 TIMM 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
Examiner Name:
NUTTER, NATHAN M

While the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest art, see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991), the evidence need not be commensurate in scope with the prior art, they need only be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. The evidence must show that the unexpected results extend throughout the claimed subject matter but do not extend into the prior art teachings that fall outside of the claimed subject matter, i.e., that the claimed ranges are critical for obtaining the unexpected result. See, e.g., In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Even assuming that the results were unexpected, Harris needed to show results covering the scope of the claimed range. Alternatively Harris needed to narrow the claims."); In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) ("Establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for 'it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.") (quoting In re Tiffen, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971)); and In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 958-59 (CCPA 1960) (To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, and applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range.).

Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . .2131.01, 2145

Harris, In re, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2144.05

Greenfield, In re, 40 F.2d 775, 5 USPQ 474 (CCPA 1930) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1214.01, 2682

Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.03(a)

Hill, In re, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(d)

Ex Parte Golner et al 10/697,950 GARRIS 103(a) BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Examiner Name:
BHAT, NINA NMN

Ex Parte Henry et al 10/495,118 GAUDETTE 103(a) DENNISON, SCHULTZ & MACDONALD
Examiner Name:
YANG, JIE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Silver et al 10/784,383 NAPPI 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) AT&T
Examiner Name:
BLOUNT, ERIC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Carbone 11/054,770 LEE 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) W. THOMAS TIMMONS
Examiner Name:
HEINRICH, SAMUEL M

Ex Parte Stoll et al 11/162,545 LEE 102(b)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
Examiner Name:
ROSS, DANA

Ex Parte Strand et al 10/300,355 TIMM 112(1 )/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C.
Examiner Name:
HYLTON, ROBIN ANNETTE

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) art unit 3746
Ex parte TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION Patent Owner & Appellant 90/008,926 6,793,469 LEBOVITZ 102(a/e)/102(b)/103(a)/101 Counsel for the Patent Owner: QUINTERO LAW OFFICE, PC Counsel for the Third Party Requester: DAVID M. RUDDY, ESQ. FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT, & DUNNER LLP
Examiner Name:
LEWIS, AARON J

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Baek et al
Ex Parte Bodin et al
Ex Parte Joos et al
Ex Parte Yuzawa

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Howell et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Ahluwalia et al
Ex Parte Allen et al
Ex Parte Bodin et al
Ex Parte Eldridge et al
Ex Parte Harris
Ex Parte Pardridge
Ex Parte ROBINSON et al
Ex Parte Spadini et al
Ex Parte Sreenivasan et al
Ex Parte Strand et al

REHEARING

Ex Parte Merchant