REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Li 11/489,054 SMITH 102(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH

1781 Ex Parte Graham et al 11/405,153 FREDMAN 103(a) STITES & HARBISON, PLLC EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

1786 Ex Parte Hamada et al 10/736,368 SMITH 102(b) FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER THOMPSON, CAMIE S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Hessling et al 10/415,700 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M

2179 Ex Parte Scott 10/983,606 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) OGILVY RENAULT LLP EXAMINER SALOMON, PHENUEL S

The function of claims is (1) to point out what the invention is in such a way as to distinguish it from the prior art; and (2) to define the scope of protection afforded by the patent. In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1577 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Vamco Machine and Tool, Inc., In re, 752 F.2d 1564, 224 USPQ 617 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . 716.03(b), 2286, 2686.04

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Kikinis 10/192,198 SAADAT 103(a) CENTRAL COAST PATENT AGENCY, INC EXAMINER DECKER, CASSANDRA L

2437 Ex Parte Frantzen et al 11/178,585 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b) BLANK ROME LLP EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Klee et al 10/302,349 BAUMEISTER 103(a)/112(4)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) NXP, B.V. NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING EXAMINER PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Murphy 11/186,356 KERINS 103(a) JOSEPH E. MUETH, ESQ. JOSEPH E. MUETH LAW CORPORATION EXAMINERS WINEHART, EDWIN L

3671 Ex Parte Gertner 11/142,599 McCARTHY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC EXAMINER MCGOWAN, JAMIE LOUISE

3672 Ex Parte Alliot 10/507,428 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS PC EXAMINER SINGH, SUNIL

3623 Ex Parte Bargnes et al 10/705,359 MOHANTY 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BASF CORPORATION EXAMINER CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N

3657 Ex Parte Niessen 10/733,486 O’NEILL 103(a) DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC EXAMINER RASHID, MAHBUBUR

A change in the method or principle of operation of the primary reference can render a modification nonobvious. For example, in In re Ratti, the modification suggested by the Examiner changed the basic principle of sealing from attaining sealing through a rigid, press-fit, interface between the components, to attaining sealing by providing a resilient interface between the components. 270 F.2d 810, 811-813 (CCPA 1959) (“This suggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as change the basic principles under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the Examiner’s proposed modification in Ratti fundamentally changed the technical basis of how a seal performed its sealing function and how the sealed interface was attained. The facts of the present are analogous to the facts in Ratti.

Ratti, In re, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01

3686 Ex Parte Brown 09/810,334 FETTING 101/102(e) HEALTH HERO NETWORK, INC.
EXAMINER KOPPIKAR, VIVEK D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Ashton et al 10/774,768 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Waelbroeck et al 09/750,768 FETTING 102(e)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER HAMILTON, LALITA M

3686 Ex Parte Wyatt 10/736,373 FETTING 103(a) PATENTS+TMS, P.C. EXAMINER NAJARIAN, LENA

The most pertinent finding here is that association of the information being entered is not a structural limitation. "[E]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 940 (CCPA 1963).

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

Otto, In re, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2115

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 Ex Parte Eisenhut 11/294,331 SILVERBERG dissent BAHR 102(b) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Liversidge et al 11/402,257 PRATS 103(a) ELAN DRUG DELIVERY, INC. C/O FOLEY & LARDNER EXAMINER LEA, CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Bourgeois et al 11/518,669 COLAIANNI 103(a) RISSMAN HENDRICKS & OLIVERIO, LLP EXAMINER USELDING, JOHN E

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Cannon et al 11/008,393 JEFFERY 112(1)/101/103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN

“If rebuttal evidence of adequate weight is produced, the holding of prima facie obviousness . . . is dissipated. Regardless of whether the prima facie case could have been characterized as strong or weak, the examiner must consider all of the evidence anew.” In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Piasecki, In re, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . 716.01(d), 2107.02, 2142, 2145

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Challenger et al 10/034,726 LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP IBM AUSTIN EXAMINER SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R

2445 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/403,561 NAPPI 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHILLIPS, HASSAN A

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Koegler et al 10/661,753 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY

2627 Ex Parte Koegler et al 10/661,722 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Lang et al 11/119,626 SAADAT 103(a) MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A. EXAMINER DOAK, JENNIFER L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Adler 10/091,859 FETTING 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER ERB, NATHAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte de Saint-Aignan et al 10/741,731 SILVERBERG 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER UTAMA, ROBERT J

REHEARING

DENIED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Kothandaraman et al 11/115,752 O’NEILL 103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER MANUEL, GEORGE C