REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Berg et al 10/716,349 MILLS 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER SKOWRONEK, KARLHEINZ R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Liang 10/670,949 MacDONALD 103(a) GERALD W. MALISZEWSKI EXAMINER LUONG, ALAN H

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Conlon 11/188,098 PATE III 112(2) Quinn Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER KNIGHT, DEREK DOUGLAS

3685 Ex Parte Heiden 10/890,081 FETTING 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER NILFOROUSH, MOHAMMAD A

3676 Ex Parte Werz et al 10/116,317 HORNER 103(a) Alix, Yale & Ristas, LLP EXAMINER PATEL, VISHAL A

See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1969) (determining that “‘interbonded one to another by interfusion between the surfaces of the perlite particles’ is as capable of being construed as a structural limitation as ‘intermixed,’ ‘ground in place,’ ‘press fitted,’ ‘etched,’ and ‘welded.’”), cited with approval in Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Garnero, In re, 412 F.2d 276, 162 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Bowman 10/976,111 HORNER 102(b) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER WOO, JULIAN W

3761 Ex Parte Ehrnsperger et al 11/251,312 HORNER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3717 Ex Parte Kislevitz et al 10/770,344 HORNER 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP EXAMINER BUMGARNER, MELBA N

3727 Ex Parte Kodaverdian et al 10/638,096 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) EXAMINER SHAKERI, HADI KLAAS, LAW, O'MEARA & MALKIN, P.C.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Testa et al 10/933,455 FREDMAN 103(a) WYETH LLC EXAMINER JAGOE, DONNA A

In Gleave, the Federal Circuit expressly addressed the issue of lists of large numbers of compounds, where the “list includes more than 1400 sequences.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Court, found that “Wraight expressly lists every possible fifteen-base-long oligodeoxynucleotide sequence in IGFBP-2, and under our precedent, this list anticipates Gleave’s claims.” Id. at 1338.

...

Appellants have the burden of showing that the claimed invention imparts not just any improvement, but an unexpected improvement. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972); see also In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 948 (CCPA 1975) (Expected results are evidence of obviousness just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness).

See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.”).

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

See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Unexpected results must also be “commensurate in scope with the degree of protection sought by the claimed subject matter.”)

Harris, In re, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2144.05

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3736 Ex parte Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/007,910 6,175,752 ROBERTSON 305/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: PENG CHEN MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original EXAMINER ASTORINO, MICHAEL C

Section 305 does not require the patent owner to include an express statement that the new claims distinguish the prior art or remarks indicating how the new claims distinguish the prior art references. If the claims fail to distinguish the prior art, the claims will be rejected on the appropriate grounds; for that reason, it may frequently be in the patent owner's interest to include such remarks, but they are not necessary to satisfy section 305. For purposes of assessing validity under section 305, the MPEP directs the examiner to determine only whether any added claims impermissibly “enlarge the scope of the original claims.” 37 C.F.R. §1.552(b). Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 511 F.3d 1157, 1185 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3736 Ex parte Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/007,903 6,565,509 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) FOR PATENT OWNER: HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: PENG CHEN AND RICHARD KIM MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original EXAMINER NATNITHITHADHA, NAVIN

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1614 Ex Parte Mehlhorn 10/759,222 WALSH nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER WEDDINGTON, KEVIN E

“Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice. In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972).

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

Lindner, In re, 457 F.2d 506, 173 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1972) . . . . . 716.01(c), 716.02(d), 2145

1616 Ex Parte Freedman et al 10/483,410 FREDMAN 103(a) MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. EXAMINER BROOKS, KRISTIE LATRICE

1634 Ex Parte Albitar et al 11/165,445 GRIMES 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER SHAW, AMANDA MARIE

1616 Ex Parte Bandyopadhyay et al 11/895,218 McCOLLUM 103(a) UNILEVER PATENT GROUP EXAMINER KARPINSKI, LUKE E

1645 Ex Parte Breton et al 10/504,906 McCOLLUM 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER TONGUE, LAKIA J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Kelly et al 10/481,151 MacDONALD 103(a) US PHILIPS CORPORATION EXAMINER ANDRAMUNO, FRANKLIN S

2482 Ex Parte Kuroda et al 11/155,483 SAADAT 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER WONG, ALLEN C

2437 Ex Parte Medvinsky 10/086,302 HUGHES 103(a) Motorola, Inc. EXAMINER GELAGAY, SHEWAYE

2600 Communications
2622 Ex Parte Silverstein et al 10/459,080 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BEMBEN, RICHARD M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Rozenfeld et al 11/188,023 LEE 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES, INC. EXAMINER SANDERS, HOWARD J

3689 Ex Parte Brine 10/939,527 FETTING 103(a) JENIFER E. HAECKL, ESQ. MIRICK, O'CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN D

The Examiner also cited In re Lindberg, 194 F2d. 732 (CCPA 1952) for the legal finding that merely making something moveable was obvious.

Lindberg, In re, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte Zoller et al 10/817,439 6,365,354 HASTINGS 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER CHANG, VICTOR S

DENIED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Butler et al 10/106,461 CRAWFORD 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BADII, BEHRANG

DENIED

3632 Ex Parte GOUGH 07/683,484 BAHR 102(e)/103(a) STEPHEN JOHN GOUGH EXAMINER KING, ANITA M

“[I]t is elementary that small changes in a crowded art may constitute invention.” In re Baum, 51 USPQ 470, 472 (CCPA 1941) (emphasis added).