REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Mudge 10/849,509 REISSUE 5,599,804 MILLS SPIEGEL GREEN 103(a) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

"By its terms, a 'synergistically effective amount' is a functional limitation." Geneva Pharms., Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Geneva Pharms. Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 68 USPQ2d 1865(Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804.01, 814

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Mehus et al 10/602,384 OWENS SMITH HASTINGS 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. EXAMINER SIEFKE, SAMUEL P

The Examiner’s argument that it is predictable that Nomura’s computer memory could store the Appellants’ plurality of predetermined algorithms is not well taken because, as stated by the Court of Custom and Patent Appeals in In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1403 n.29 (CCPA 1969):

In one sense, a general-purpose digital computer may be regarded as but a storeroom of parts and/or electrical components. But once a program has been introduced, the general-purpose digital computer becomes a special-purpose digital computer (i.e., a specific electrical circuit with or without electro-mechanical components) which, along with the process by which it operates, may be patented subject, of course, to the requirements of novelty, utility, and non-obviousness.

Thus, the question is not whether Nomura’s memory could store the Appellants’ plurality of predetermined algorithms but, rather, is whether Nomura would have rendered prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, the Appellants’ memory which stores the Appellants’ plurality of predetermined algorithms and the Appellants’ controller which is programmed to calculate the concentration of a product based in part upon the one of the plurality of predetermined algorithms. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (In making an obviousness determination one "can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ"). The Examiner has not provided evidence or reasoning which shows that Nomura would have rendered such a memory and controller prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.

Prater, In re, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) . . .2106, 2111, 2172, 2173.05(a), 2173.05(q), 2411.01

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Azadet 10/610,335 MacDONALD HOFF HAHN 102(b)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER GHEBRETINSAE, TEMESGHEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Friedrich 11/726,566 BAHR McCARTHY BARRETT 103(a) Bay Area Technology Law Group PC EXAMINER SWINEHART, EDWIN L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Luddy et al 10/947,620 SCHAFER LANE MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER KOSANOVIC, HELENA

It is well settled that multiple references may be used in the context of an anticipation rejection, to show how one skilled in the art would understand words and phrases used in the anticipating reference. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Extrinsic evidence may be used to explain, but not expand, the meaning of terms and phrases in an anticipatory reference.); In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562-63 (CCPA 1978) (“[T]he key issue before us is whether the PTO, in making a rejection under 35 USC 102(b) on a single prior art reference that discloses every material element of the claimed subject matter, can properly rely on additional references for such purpose. We hold in the affirmative.”).

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

Samour, In re, 571 F.2d 559, 197 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131.01

AFFIRMED

1700
Ex Parte Stern et al 09/558,329 REISSUE EXAMINER JUSKA, CHERYL ANN

2100
Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/803,603 EXAMINER COLAN, GIOVANNA B

2100
Ex Parte Zakrzewski 10/803,872 EXAMINER COUGHLAN, PETER D

2400
Ex Parte Cook et al 10/397,064 EXAMINER TRAN, ELLEN C

3600
Ex Parte Forrer 11/561,930 EXAMINER SINGH, SUNIL

3700
Ex Parte Hardwicke et al 10/682,227 EXAMINER KIM, TAE JUN

3700
Ex Parte Voegele 11/377,655 EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M

REHEARING

DENIED

3700
Ex Parte Roche et al 10/917,012 EXAMINER LAURITZEN, AMANDA L