REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Archibald et al 10/610,306 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC Examiner Name: KRISHNAN, GANAPATHY
Ex Parte Kenar et al 11/584,905 GRIMES 103(a) USDA-ARS-OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NATIONAL CTR FOR AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH Examiner Name: KARPINSKI, LUKE E
“Consistent with the rule that all evidence of nonobviousness must be considered when assessing patentability, the PTO must consider comparative data in the specification in determining whether the claimed invention provides unexpected results. In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[W]hen an applicant demonstrates substantially improved results … and states that the results were unexpected, this should suffice to establish unexpected results in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” Id. at 751.
Soni, In re, 54 F.3d 746, 34 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Cook et al
Ex Parte Kenar et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Hoffmann et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Baltimore et al
Ex Parte Bodsworth et al
Ex Parte Breton et al
Ex Parte Crosby et al
Ex Parte Goff et al
Ex Parte LANG
Ex Parte Lo et al
Ex Parte Matthews et al
Ex Parte Nakas et al
Ex Parte Sheddan et al
Ex Parte Youngpeter et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte BROWN
REMAND
Ex Parte Yao et al
No comments :
Post a Comment