AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte O’KEEFE 11/555,607 STAICOVICI 101/112(1)/103(a) GODO CONSULTING EXAMINER WENDELL, MARK R

The Examiner has the initial burden of setting forth a reason to doubt Appellant’s presumptively correct assertion of utility. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The PTO may establish a reason to doubt an invention's asserted utility when the written description ‘suggest[s] an inherently unbelievable undertaking or involve[s] implausible scientific principles.’” In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1995)) (alterations in original). The burden of coming forward with evidence of utility shifts to Appellant “[i]f the [Examiner] provides evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably doubt the asserted utility[.]” Id.

Swartz, In re, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . 2106, 2107.01, 2164.07

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999). . . . . 2111, 2164.04

Brana, In re, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . .2106, 2107.01,2107.03, 2164.01(c), 2107.02, 2164.02, 2164.04, 2164.07

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Zechlin et al 11/448,265 LEBOVITZ 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER VALENROD, YEVGENY

1642 Ex Parte Chang et al 10/913,509 LANE 102(e) Immunomedics, Inc. EXAMINER YAO, LEI

“[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a prior-art embodiment (that is itself sufficiently described and enabled) is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was unknown at the time of the prior invention.” Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 53 USPQ2d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . 804, 2106, 2111.01

1626 Ex Parte Jungkamp et al 10/586,452 McCOLLUM 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Ni et al 09/821,753 TIMM Concurring-In-Part and Dissenting-In-Part KRATZ 112(1)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN GILMAN & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ALEJANDRO MULERO, LUZ L

1761 Ex Parte Taylor 11/505,445 SMITH 112(2)/102(a,b,e)/103(a) LAWNIE TAYLOR/LHTAYLOR ASSOCIATES INC. EXAMINER BOYER, CHARLES I

The Appellant bears the procedural burden of showing harmful error in the Examiner’s rejections. See, e.g., Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S.Ct. 1696, 1706 (2009) (citations omitted) (“Lower court cases make clear that courts have correlated review of ordinary administrative proceedings to appellate review of civil cases in this respect. . . . [T]he party seeking reversal normally must explain why the erroneous ruling caused harm.”) See also, In re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (discussing the role of harmless error in appeals from decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”)).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Vishnubhotla 11/175,061 LUCAS 102(b)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GREG GOSHORN, P.C. EXAMINER VO, TRUONG V

We note that Appellant discloses the claimed “memory” “can be any means that … propagates … data.” (Spec. 6, ¶ [0020]). We find Appellant’s disclosure significant, in that only signal waves are propagated in the context of the programming product of claim 15. In accordance with Nuijten’s teaching that a signal cannot be patentable subject matter, we reject claim 15 as outside the scope of 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Chheda et al 10/171,371 LUCAS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TOLENTINO, RODERICK

The “intended use” of a machine is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580 (CCPA 1967). Statements of intended use are not entitled to substantial weight in the patentability analysis. See generally Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 155-59 (CCPA 1951) and the authority cited therein, and cases compiled in 3 Chisum on Patents § 8.06[1][d] (2007).

Casey, In re, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2115

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02

2483 Ex Parte Vitito 10/920,430 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER CZEKAJ, DAVID J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2871 Ex Parte Lee et al 10/259,640 HAHN 103(a) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP EXAMINER RUDE, TIMOTHY L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte King et al 11/836,398 HORNER 103(a) Chrysler Group LLC EXAMINER CHENEVERT, PAUL A

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Dawson et al 10/401,861 SMITH 103(a) BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N