REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Matson 11/323,844 McCOLLUM 112(1) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP (SF) EXAMINER KIM, YOUNG J

1621 Ex Parte Genger et al 10/525,468 SMITH 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER KEYS, ROSALYND ANN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Pfeiler 11/258,857 SMITH 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER PATEL, DEVANG R

1722 Ex Parte Meagley et al 10/956,284 COLAIANNI 112(1) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER WALKE, AMANDA C

1792 Ex Parte Cassidy et al 11/235,397 WARREN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER FLETCHER III, WILLIAM P

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Brodhun et al 10/965,186 DANG 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD N

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Herbeck et al 10/365,298 KRIVAK 102(e) Grant A. Johnson IBM Corporation EXAMINER OSMAN, RAMY M

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Tamura et al 10/553,424 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER NEWMAN, MICHAEL A

2629 Ex Parte May 10/620,811 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) Novak Druce DeLuca + Quigg LLP (CSR) EXAMINER SHERMAN, STEPHEN G

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Class-Dieter et al 10/439,769 MacDONALD 103(a) King & Spaulding LLP EXAMINER RUDE, TIMOTHY L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Brusso et al 10/358,644 CRAWFORD 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER KHATTAR, RAJESH

3664 Ex Parte Gildenberg 12/259,456 BAHR 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER TRAN, KHOI H

3686 Ex Parte Wahlbin et al 09/969,020 CRAWFORD 101/112(2)/103(a) ERIC B. MEYERTONS CONLEY, ROSE & TAYON, P.C. EXAMINER KOPPIKAR, VIVEK D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Jasperson et al 10/809,157 BAHR 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER GILBERT, ANDREW M

3723 Ex Parte Swisher et al 11/466,641 BAHR 103(a) Deborah M. Altman PPG Industries, Inc. EXAMINER NGUYEN, DUNG V

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Chickering et al 11/257,473 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) LEE & HAYES, PLLC EXAMINER ROBINSON BOYCE, AKIBA K

REEXAMINATION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3652 Ex parte VICTOR G. CAPONEY Appellant 90/008,963 6,616,400 ROBERTSON 305/112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: Joseph T. Guy, Ph.D. Nexsen Pruet Jacobs & Pollard, LLC FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Thomas E. Epting Leatherwood Walker Todd & Mann PC EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER FOX, CHARLES A

35 U.S.C. § 305 reads, in relevant part: “No proposed amended or new claim enlarging the scope of a claim of the patent will be permitted in a reexamination proceeding under this chapter.”

A claim under reexamination is broader in scope than the original patent claims “if it contains within its scope any conceivable apparatus or process which would not have infringed the original patent . . . A claim that is broader in any respect is considered to be broader than the original claims even though it may be narrower in other respects.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (applying test for enlargement in reissue applications under 35 U.S.C. § 251 of Tillotston Ltd. V. Walbro Corp, 831 F.2d 1033, 1037 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1987), to § 305).

Freeman, In re, 30 F.3d 1459, 31 USPQ2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . 706.03(w), 2250, 2666.01

Tillotson Ltd. v. Walbro Corp., 831 F.2d 1033, 4 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . .1412.03

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1614 Ex Parte Witzig et al 10/979,284 WALSH 103(a) HOWSON & HOWSON LLP EXAMINER ANDERSON, JAMES D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Froseth et al 09/780,273 SMITH 103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A

1761 Ex Parte Braeckman et al 10/851,713 WALSH 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1776 Ex Parte McCrea et al 11/616,398 HASTINGS 103(a) VENABLE, CAMPILLO, LOGAN & MEANEY, P.C. EXAMINER STELLING, LUCAS A

1761 Ex Parte Miller et al 10/468,882 SMITH 102(b) THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP. EXAMINER KOPEC, MARK T

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Guido et al 10/814,551 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/IBM EXAMINER ORR, HENRY W

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Baker et al 10/523,940 MacDONALD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER ELPENORD, CANDAL

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Morikawa 10/521,166 MARTIN 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER REINIER, BARBARA DIANE

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 Ex Parte Pekny et al 10/683,075 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) LEFFERT JAY & POLGLAZE, P.A. EXAMINER NGUYEN, VAN THU T

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Distefano 10/418,470 LUCAS 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL LLP ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ. EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1626 Ex Parte Elnagar et al 11/251,640 GRIMES 103(a) MR. EDGAR E. SPIELMAN, JR. ALBEMARLE CORPORATION EXAMINER STOCKTON, LAURA LYNNE

In re Tatincloux, 228 F.2d 238 (CCPA 1955), does not support the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed concurrent process would have been an obvious modification of the prior art sequential processes. As the court later clarified, in Tatincloux’s method, “the process steps involved were entirely physical in nature,” In re Freed, 425 F.2d 785, 787 (CCPA 1970), and the holding in Tatincloux did not support a conclusion that “the performance of [a] reaction in one step, as claimed, was made obvious by the prior performance of the same reaction in two steps.” Id. at 786. The Freed court thus held that the rule of law relied on by the Examiner in the present appeal did not apply to Freed’s modification of a chemical reaction, previously performed in two steps, to be performed in a single step. Put another way, a conclusion of obviousness is based on the facts in each case, rather than a per se rule. See id. (“In this, as in any case, a determination of
obviousness must be based on facts and not on unsupported generalities.”).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1774 Ex Parte Lane et al 10/521,884 TIMM 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER ORLANDO, AMBER ROSE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Cherkasova 10/429,797 STEPHENS 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TODD, GREGORY G

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Prentice 11/000,783 LEE 112(2)/102(b) CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP EXAMINER LOWE, MICHAEL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Von Gunten 10/454,341 SONG 103(a) Mark Manley Central Missouri State University EXAMINER WILSON, GREGORY A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2100 Ex Parte Bates et al 10/821,146 STEPHENS 101/112(1)/112(2) GRANT A. JOHNSON IBM CORPORATION, DEPT. 917 EXAMINER KISS, ERIC B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Field 10/196,151 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER MENDOZA, MICHAEL G

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2153 Ex parte INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 61 LLC 90/009,031 6,343,314 EASTHOM 103(a) Reed Smith LLP Third Party Requester: Shook Hardy and Bacon LLP EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER DINH, DUNG C

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2643 Ex parte INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 61 LLC 90/009,015 6,437,818 EASTHOM 103(a) Reed Smith, LLP Shook, Hardy& Bacon, LLP EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR

See Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that references in a patent specification to prior art padlocks and broad scope of locking device claims indicated that padlocks were analogous art to trailer hitch lock devices, reasoning inter alia that KSR requires “us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly”) (citing and quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 402).

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

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2757 Ex parte INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 61 LLC 90/009,008 6,212,547 EASTHOM 103(a) Reed Smith LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER Tawni L. Wilhelm SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER DINH, DUNG C

The material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit an apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) (“[E]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”).

Thibault, Ex parte, 164 USPQ 666 (Bd. App. 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2643 Ex parte INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 61 LLC 90/009,079 6,972,786 EASTHOM 103(a) Reed Smith, LLP Third Party Requester: Tawni L. Wilhelm EXAMINER STEELMAN, MARY J original EXAMINER ENG, GEORGE

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3635 Ex parte JORGEN J. MOLLER, JR., Appellant 90/009,124 7,299,592 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: HOLLAND & HART FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: THORPE, NORTH & WESTERN, LLP EXAMINER LEWIS, AARON J original EXAMINER KWIECINSKI, RYAN D

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3744 Ex parte Mustang Engineering, L.P., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/009,379 7,318,319 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: GILBRETH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: TODD T. TUMEY EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER EARLY, MICHAEL JACOBY

In addition, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . 2123, 2141.02, 2143.01, 2145

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3744 Ex parte Mustang Engineering, L.P., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/009,380 7,360,367 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: GILBRETH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: TODD T. TUMEY EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER EARLY, MICHAEL JACOBY

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3751 PENTEL CO., LTD. AND PENTEL OF AMERICA, LTD. Requestor and Respondent v. BENJAMIN J. KWITEK Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,399 6,447,190 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) cc Patent Owner: LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. cc Third Party Requester: Adams and Wilks EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER PRUNNER, KATHLEEN J

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2153 Ex parte PRAGMATUS AV LLC 90/009,021 7,152,093 EASTHOM 103(a) Reed Smith LLP Third Party Requester: Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER REILLY, SEAN M

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2876 Ex parte TRANSACTION HOLDINGS LTD. LLC, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,323 6,945,457 TURNER Concurring EASTHOM 102(e)/103(a) cc: PATENT OWNER: TROUTMAN SANDERS LP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Douglas S. Foote NCR Corporation EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original EXAMINER LE, THIEN MINH

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2684 Ex parte TracFone Wireless, Inc. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,063 6,480,710 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) cc: PATENT OWNER: GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP (LA) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFERY L. CAMERON BROOKS & CAMERON PLLC EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUAN T

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2684 Ex parte TracFone Wireless, Inc. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,065 6,625,439 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP (LA) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFERY L. CAMERON BROOKS & CAMERON PLLC EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUAN T

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Lotze et al 10/688,845 GRIMES 102(b) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER JUEDES, AMY E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Teutsch et al 10/399,547 HASTINGS 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN EXAMINER MOORE, KARLA A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Knitter 10/635,815 HAHN 112(1)/112(2) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Moore et al 10/404,541 MacDONALD 103(a) VERIZON PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP EXAMINER PATEL, HEMANT SHANTILAL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte May et al 10/567,718 McCARTHY 102(b) ROBERT D. SHEDD, PATENT OPERATIONS THOMSON LICENSING LLC EXAMINER WUJCIAK, ALFRED J

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Banatwala et al 10/744,302 STEPHENS 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER LO, WEILUN

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Sullivan 10/950,793 NAGUMO 102(b)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) LATIMER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, LLP EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R

An enabling specification must teach one of ordinary skill in the art how "to make and use the full scope of the cliamed invention without undue experimentation." Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S, 108 F. 3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (internal quote and citation omitted; emphasis added). Reports in sufficiently reputable scientific journals of the first successful practice of claimed subject matter, published after the filing of an application for patent, can suggest strongly that the earlier filed descriptions in a patent specification are not enabled. Enzo Biochem, In.c v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F3d 1362, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1999). As our reviewing court has explained, "[t]ossing out the mere germ of an idea does not constitute enabling disclosure." Genentech, 108 F.3d at 1366. When "the claimed invention is the application of an unpredictable technology in the early stages of development, an enabling description in the specification must provide those skilled in the art with a specific and useful teaching." Id. at 1367-68.

The Nature journals, including Nature Nanotechnology, are peer-reviewed journals that seek to publish papers that "represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field. There should be a discernible reason why the work deserves the visibility of publication in a Nature journal rather than the best of the specialized journals."15 Similarly, the journal Science seeks to publish "those papers that are most influential in their fields and that will significantly advance scientific understanding."16 Both journals are extremely selective and highly regarded.

15 See, e.g., Peer-Review Policy, http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/peer_review.html (last visited 30 December 2010).

16 See, e.g., Science: General Information for Authors, http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/gen_info.xhtml (last visited 30 December 2010).

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc.,188 F.3d 1362, 52 USPQ2d 1129(Fed. Cir. 1999).. . . . . . . . . 2164.06(b)

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Pilu 10/426,038 MacDONALD 102(a)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SELBY, GEVELL V

2617 Ex Parte Seisenberger et al 10/496,886 MacDONALD 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE

2625 Ex Parte Patton et al 10/454,112 EASTHOM 102(e)/103(a) Gerald W. Maliszewski EXAMINER KASSA, HILINA S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Pfeiffer et al 11/700,001 O’NEILL 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE & QUIGG LLP EXAMINER FOX, CHARLES A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Luukkainen 11/004,867 BARRETT 103(a) JAMES C. LYDON EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAMTU TRAN

3742 Ex Parte Okada 10/696,532 SCHAFER 103(a) FRISHAUF, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK, PC EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Reineck 11/085,643 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER DICKSON, PAUL N

An anticipation rejection cannot be predicated on an ambiguous reference. Rather, disclosures in a reference relied on to prove anticipation must be so clear and explicit that those skilled in the art will have no difficulty in ascertaining their meaning. In re Turlay, 304 F.2d 893, 899 (CCPA 1962).

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Coronado et al 11/335,297 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) John H. Lee, Assistant Laboratory Counsel Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory/Zilka-Kotab EXAMINER ZEMEL, IRINA SOPJIA

1796 Ex Parte Goepfert et al 10/354,536 BAHR 101/112(1)/103(a) HONEYWELL/FOGG

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Hiller et al 10/334,090 MacDONALD 103(a) Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC EXAMINER SAMS, MATTHEW C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3676 Ex Parte Albrecht 10/885,980 HORNER 112(1)/112(2)/103(a)/132(a) MUSKIN & CUSICK LLC EXAMINER PICKARD, ALISON K

See Go Medical Industries Pty., Ltd. v. Inmed Corp., 471 F.3d 1264, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that a drawing submitted with an application was insufficient to allow others to practice the best mode for a catheter where the distance from the stop member to the distal end of a sheath was 1.5 cm, because there was no indication that the figure was drawn to any particular scale). “[P]atent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group. Int'l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (in which the patent owner’s argument hinged on an inference drawn from certain figures about the quantitative relationship between the respective widths of the groove and fins); see also In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977) (“Absent any written description in the specification of quantitative values, arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value.”).

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . 2125

Wright, In re, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2125, 2145

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Ahluwalia et al 10/766,654 WARREN 103(a) FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

See, e.g., In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52 (CCPA 1976) (“[I]t is necessary and proper to determine whether [the] specification reasonably supports a construction” that would exclude or include particular ingredients.); In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74 (CCPA 1964); see also PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354-57 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Patentees “could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention. The question for our decision is whether PPG did so.”).

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . . .2111.03, 2163

1729 Ex Parte Ahluwalia et al 10/766,652 WARREN 103(a) FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

1736 Ex Parte Harutyunyan 10/727,699 NAGUMO 103(a) HONDA/FENWICK EXAMINER JOHNSON, EDWARD M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Ronstrom 10/471,822 SIU MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP (Oracle formerly d/b/a Sun Microsystems) EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L

2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Mendenhall 10/371,490 RUGGIERO 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION EXAMINER LEUNG, WAI LUN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lamstein et al 11/895,437 O’NEILL 103(a) BAY AREA TECHNOLOGY LAW GROUP PC EXAMINER VALENTI, ANDREA M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Benjamin et al 11/001,219 BAHR 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP

When relying on the theory of inherency, the examiner has the initial burden of providing a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic reasonably flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

King, In re, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir.1986) . . . . . . .1206, 2112.02, 2131.01

3727 Ex Parte Chang et al 11/688,457 BAHR 102 DITTHAVONG MORI & STEINER, P.C. EXAMINER ROSE, ROBERT A

3738 Ex Parte Eidenschink 10/914,569 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD

3748 Ex Parte Nigrin 10/789,469 O’NEILL 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER TRIEU, THERESA

In Leshin, the container-dispenser at issue was of a type made of plastics prior to the invention. Thus, the selection of a known plastic to replace the plastic of a prior art container-dispenser was considered to be obvious since it is well within the skill of an ordinary skilled artisan to replace one plastic with another plastic depending upon the application. See id. at 199. However, the present case is distinguishable from Leshin because here the Examiner has not established that it is known to make rotors of plastics so that the Examiner would be merely replacing the plastics of a known plastic rotor with another known plastic suitable for a particular application.

Leshin, In re, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.07

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Riblier et al 11/137,373 GARRIS 103(a) MANELII DENISON & SELTER, PLLC EXAMINER YAGER, JAMES C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Kang 11/229,684 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC EXAMINER VON BUHR, MARIA N

2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Yanof et al 10/510,861 HAHN 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDSEXAMINERBROOME, SAID A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Ackermann et al 11/009,146 MacDONALD 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER LE, DANG D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Lewis 10/047,220 BAHR 103(a) FRANCIS C. KOWALIK WALGREEN CO. LAW DEPARTMENT EXAMINER SHAPIRO, JEFFERY A

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Rau et al 10/431,131 ADAMS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) John S. Munday EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Zurcher 10/337,092 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) DAVID W. HIGHET, VP & CHIEF IP COUNSEL BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY (HOFFMAN & BARON)EXAMINER HANDY, DWAYNE K

1722 Ex Parte Mori et al 11/224,086 GARRIS 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER JOHNSON, CONNIE P

This is because one of ordinary skill in the art need not see an applicant's identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings. Cross Med. Prods., Inc., v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 76 USPQ2d 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2144

1764 Ex Parte Peerlings et al 11/986,821 FREDMAN 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Amrutur et al 11/714,332 LUCAS 103(a) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IN CARE OF: CPA GLOBAL EXAMINER TORRES, JOSEPH D

2173 Ex Parte Barbieri et al 10/129,693 SIU 102(b)/103(a) HEAD, JOHNSON & KACHIGIAN EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Harper 10/729,293 LUCAS 103(a) AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT – TKHR EXAMINER ALMEIDA, DEVIN E

2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Kii 10/797,743 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP EXAMINER REPKO, JASON MICHAEL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Green et al 11/404,714 MacDONALD 103(a) INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (FS) EXAMINER YEUNG LOPEZ, FEIFEI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Prasad et al 10/754,390 O’NEILL 103(a) STEVEN WESEMAN ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, I.P. CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER MULLER, BRYAN R

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Ohira 11/318,536 KRATZ 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER MAZUMDAR, SONYA

1786 Ex Parte Reichmann et al 10/734,006 KRATZ 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER MATZEK, MATTHEW D

1784 Ex Parte Dobesberger et al 11/589,728 GAUDETTE 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER ZIMMERMAN, JOHN J

1795 Ex Parte Ahluwalia 11/018,724 WARREN 103(a) Baker Botts L.L.P. EXAMINER RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA

See, e.g., In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("hindsight" is inferred when the specific understanding or principal within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the modification of the prior art in order to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention has not been explained);

Rouffet, In re, 149 F.3d 1350, 47 USPQ2d 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . 1216.01

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Chen 10/612,456 LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) DUKE W. YEE, YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER KE, PENG

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Levy et al 10/410,941 HOMERE 103(a) SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.EXAMINER TANG, KAREN C

2453 Ex Parte Izdepski et al 11/086,224 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Nishimura 10/959,165 MacDONALD 102(b)/103(a) POSZ LAW GROUP, PLC EXAMINER HAN, JASON

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Fitch 10/252,478 STAICOVICI 103(a) SNELL & WILMER LLP (OC) EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Weber 10/487,194 McCARTHY 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER ALIE, GHASSEM

REXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2664 Ex parte ENTERASYS NETWORKS, INC., Appellant 90/008,552 6,560,236 SIU 112(1)/305/102(e)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: TRACY W. DRUCE NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER PATEL, AJIT

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2664 Ex parte ENTERASYS NETWORKS, INC., Appellant 90/008,558 6,539,022 SIU 305/102(b)/102(e) PATENT OWNER: HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: FOUNDRY NETWORKS, INC. EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER YAO, KWANG BIN

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2173 Ex parte MICROSOFT CORPORATION 90/009,078 6,466,238 SIU 102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT) THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: JAMES V. COSTIGAN HEDMAN & COSTIGAN PC EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original EXAMINER HUYNH, BA

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Lewandowski et al 10/172,471 PRATS 112(1)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER SAMALA, JAGADISHWAR RAO

“The written description requirement . . . ensures that when a patent claims a genus by its function or result, the specification recites sufficient materials to accomplish that function-a problem that is particularly acute in the biological arts.” Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Thus, a “sufficient description of a genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Id. at 1350 (quoting Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
119 F.3d 1559, 1568-69 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

The Federal Circuit has “set forth a number of factors for evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure [supporting generic claims], including ‘the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at issue.’” Id. at 1351 (quoting Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

Thus, “the written description requirement does not demand either examples or an actual reduction to practice; a constructive reduction to practice that in a definite way identifies the claimed invention can satisfy the written description requirement.” Id. at 1352 (citing Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2106, 2111.03, 2163, 2163.02, 2163.03

Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163

1613 Ex Parte Mantelle et al 11/812,198 GRIMES 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER ARNOLD, ERNST V

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Kung 10/834,755 MacDONALD 103(a) COHEN, PONTANI, LIEBERMAN & PAVANE, L.L.P. EXAMINER SAYADIAN, HRAYR

2832 Ex Parte Killion et al 10/901,581 MacDONALD 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER PHILLIPS, FORREST M

2894 Ex Parte Backlund 10/509,981 MacDONALD 102(e) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER GRAYBILL, DAVID E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 10/623,528 MacDONALD 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER WILSON, JOHN J

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Rolland et al 10/969,505 ADAMS 102(a)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Bornhoevd et al 11/284,195 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a)/112(2) Brake Hughes PLC c/o PortfolioIP EXAMINER BURKE, JEFF A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Friedman 10/364,273 LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) AT&T Legal Department - TKHR EXAMINER HOANG, HIEU T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Fernandez 10/264,075 KERINS 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO EXAMINER SMITH, KIMBERLY S

3629 Ex Parte Habichler et al 10/109,972 FETTING 103(a) CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP EXAMINER OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Shimizu 10/763,159 TIERNEY 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HALL, ARTHUR O

REEXAMINATION

2600 Communications
2601 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING L.P. Appellant 90/010,047 4,792,968 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: REENA KUYPER, ESQ. BYARD NILSSON, ESQ. FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: NOVAK DRUCE + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER MENEFEE, JAMES A original EXAMINER LEV, ROBERT
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Davis 11/159,799 FREDMAN 103(a) MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP EXAMINER KAPUSHOC, STEPHEN THOMAS

1612 Ex Parte Hughes et al 11/811,188 ADAMS 102(b)/103(a) MUELLER AND SMITH, LPA
EXAMINER GULLEDGE, BRIAN M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Pinhas et al 10/703,849 LUCAS 103(a) SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC EXAMINER POLLACK, MELVIN H

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Qin et al 11/302,031 TIERNEY 103(a) Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1728 Ex Parte Derand et al 10/069,827 OWENS 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER BARTON, JEFFREY THOMAS

1776 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11/084,934 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. EXAMINER TURNER, SONJI LUCAS

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Elzur 10/704,891 DIXON 102(e) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER PATEL, HETUL B

If the citation of a new prior art reference is necessary to support a rejection, it must be included in the statement of rejection, which would be considered to introduce a new ground of rejection. Even if the prior art reference is cited to support the rejection in a minor capacity, it should be positively included in the statement of rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n. 3 (CCPA 1970).

Hoch, In re, 428 F.2d 1341, 166 USPQ 406 (CCPA 1970) . . . . 706.02(j), 1207.03, 2144.08

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Ho et al 10/409,796 GREEN 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Rabinowitz et al 10/437,643 LEBOVITZ 112(1)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting SWANSON & BRATSCHUN, L.L.C. EXAMINER HAGHIGHATIAN, MINA

"[W]hat is needed to support generic claims to biological subject matter depends on a variety of factors, such as the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at issue." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "It is not necessary that every permutation within a generally operable invention be effective in order for an inventor to obtain a generic claim, provided that the effect is sufficiently demonstrated to characterize a generic invention. See In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976)" Id.

Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163

Angstadt, In re, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976) . . . 2164.01, 2164.06, 2164.08(b)

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Motoyama et al 10/583,557 GARRIS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LOEWE, ROBERT S

First, contrary to Appellants' belief, the motivation in the prior art to combine references does not have to be identical to that of an applicant in order to establish obviousness. In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

1773 Ex Parte Segelke et al 11/172,685 HANLON 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC EXAMINER LEVKOVICH, NATALIA A

See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265 (CCPA 1976) (“The burden of showing that the claimed invention is not described in the specification rests on the PTO in the first instance, and it is up to the PTO to give reasons why a description not in ipsis verbis is insufficient.”).

Wertheim, In re, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976) . . .706.03(o),1302.01, 2144.05, 2163, 2163.03, 2163.04, 2163.05

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/824,064 HOMERE 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER HILLERY, NATHAN

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Kuczynski et al 10/131,916 6,361,795 GRIMES 103(a) JOSEPH LUCCI WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER HAGHIGHATIAN, MINA

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Moore et al 10/713,833 SMITH 103(a) MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC EXAMINER LEWIS, BEN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Albritton 11/197,521 COURTENAY III 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Sypeck et al 10/479,833 McCARTHY 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Maschke 11/093,451 MILLS 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER ANDERSON, GREGORY A

3761 Ex Parte Tani 10/673,258 McCARTHY 103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte STATEN 11/160,047 OWENS 103(a)/112(1) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

1798 Ex Parte Lester et al 11/178,906 ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) HAMMER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, JENNA LEIGH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Koskinen et al 11/531,325 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) WRB-IP LLP EXAMINER FRIDIE JR, WILLMON

3723 Ex Parte Kurata 10/565,599 LEE 102(b)/103(a) KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP EXAMINER KARLS, SHAY LYNN

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Albritton 11/059,807 GREEN 103(a) MUELLER AND SMITH, LPA EXAMINER
BEKKER, KELLY JO

1733 Ex Parte Mihoya 10/386,230 SMITH 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L

1796 Ex Parte Temple et al 11/072,834 TIMM 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/102(e)/103(a)/nonstatutuory obviousness-type double patenting PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. EXAMINER GILLESPIE, BENJAMIN

The question is the same when the claims call for the exclusion of an element. See Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393, 394 (BPAI 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“[T]he express exclusion of certain elements implies the permissible inclusion of all other elements not so expressly excluded”) (citing Anderson, 471 F.2d at 1241). However, not all negative limitations introduce new concepts such that there is no written descriptive support. See Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (BPAI 1993) (Board determining that “appellants had possession of the concept of conducting” a decomposition step “in the absence of a catalyst” citing examples where no catalyst is used, despite the fact that “the discussion . . . would seem to cry out for a catalyst if one were used” and declaratory evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the reaction was conducted without a catalyst).

Grasselli, Ex parte, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.03, 2173.05(i)

Anderson, In re, 471 F.2d 1237, 176 USPQ 331 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . 2163.07, 2181

Parks, Ex parte, 30 USPQ2d 1234 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) . . . . . . . . . 2173.05(i)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Hyland et al 10/720,404 BARRY 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HILLERY, NATHAN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Jung et al 11/019,315 HOFF 112(1)/102(a, b, or e)/103(a) SHERR & VAUGHN, PLLC EXAMINER CHEN, JACK S J

"One shows that one is 'in possession' of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis in original).

Although "the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in the art, all the limitations must appear in the specification." Id. The specification need not describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims, but it must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. Id.

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . 2133.03(a), 2163, 2163.02

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Gold 10/755,038 PRATS 103(a) THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

3729 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/215,407 LEE 103(a) INTEL CORPORATION c/o CPA Global EXAMINER TUGBANG, ANTHONY D

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Kinney et al 10/776,311 GRIMES 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER FOX, DAVID T