Tuesday October 5, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Laufer et al 10/954,895 FREDMAN 112(1) PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER KAM, CHIH MIN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Thompson et al 10/685,785 TIMM 103(a) PRAXAIR, INC. EXAMINER BURKHART, ELIZABETH A

A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In evaluating the prior art references for obviousness, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references, but also any inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, (CCPA 1968).

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

Preda, In re, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.01

Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446 n.3 (CCPA 1971).

Susi, In re, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 2123, 2144.08

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Gray et al 10/798,541 HORNER 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER MICHALSKI, SEAN M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2684
Ex parte Rohm Co., Ltd. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,754 6,535,719 TURNER 103(a) PATENT OWNER: ROHM CO., LTD. C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BENJAMIN E. URCIA BACON & THOMAS PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, MINH T original EXAMINER TRAN, PABLO N

See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350,1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 59 USPQ2d 1795 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . 2141.03