REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Moon et al 10/990,057 GRIMES 103(a) THE SMALL PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU

1645 Ex Parte Degelaen et al 10/170,343 GREEN 103(a) Butzel Long EXAMINER ZEMAN, ROBERT A

“[H]owever, when an applicant demonstrates substantially improved results . . . and states that the results were unexpected, this should suffice to establish unexpected results in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original). Moreover, when an obviousness rejection is based on a combination of the prior art references, the comparison need only be between the closest prior art reference and the claimed invention. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 422 (CCPA 1966). It need not be directed to a comparison between the claimed invention and the invention suggested by the combined teachings of the prior art references. Chapman, 357 F.2d at 422.

Soni, In re, 54 F.3d 746, 34 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145

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

Chapman, In re, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(e)

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Varanasi et al 10/765,256 FRANKLIN 103(a) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER CHEN, BRET P

“[A] reasonable expectation of success, not absolute predictability” supports a conclusion of obviousness. In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 897 (Fed. Cir. 1985). However, to have a reasonable expectation of success, one must be motivated to do more than merely [] vary all parameters or try each of [the] numerous possible choices until one possibly arrive[s] at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted)).

Longi, In re, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804

Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 82 USPQd 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . 2143.01, 2145

1767 Ex Parte Strickler et al 11/285,885 NAGUMO 103(a) MAYER & WILLIAMS PCEXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

1798 Ex Parte Morman et al 10/285,288 FRANKLIN 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Jakubik et al 10/615,438 SAADAT 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Fukui 09/902,711 KRIVAK 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER GOINS, DAVETTA WOODS

2618 Ex Parte Gupta 11/066,956 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER PAN, YUWEN

2618 Ex Parte Everett et al 11/002,044 SAADAT 102(e)/103(a) LARIVIERE, GRUBMAN & PAYNE, LLP EXAMINER AKINYEMI, AJIBOLA A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Lee 11/280,971 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) Robert D. Atkins EXAMINER CHU, CHRIS C

2825 Ex Parte Poirier et al 10/644,625 RUGGIERO 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WHITMORE, STACY

2854 Ex Parte Kron et al 11/269,116 KRIVAK 112(1)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ZIMMERMAN, JOSHUA D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3775 Ex Parte Berger 10/154,923 SCHEINER 102(e)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) John S. Hale c/o Gipple & Hale EXAMINER WOODALL, NICHOLAS W

3752 Ex Parte Chen 10/987,040 McCARTHY 103(a) Charles W. Stewart Shell Oil Company EXAMINER NGUYEN, DINH Q

3761 Ex Parte Kaun et al 11/413,444 McCARTHY 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Mizuta et al 10/424,941 MacDONALD 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER PAN, YUWEN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Glassman et al 10/803,560 TURNER 102(e) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER YOO, JASSON H

3721 Ex Parte Reuteler et al 11/872,409 McCARTHY 103(a) KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte May et al 11/210,986 NAGUMO 103(a) LNG/LSI JOINT CUSTOMER C/O LUEDEKA, NEELY & GRAHAM, P.C. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

1761 Ex Parte Ford 11/599,858 GARRIS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

1798 Ex Parte Veillat et al 10/530,435 KRATZ 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M

2600 Communications
2619 Ex Parte Zuniga et al 10/334,858 MacDONALD 112(1)/103(a) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. EXAMINER SEFCHECK, GREGORY B

2625 Ex Parte McKelvey 10/198,919 SAADAT 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER DULANEY, BENJAMIN O

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte Bhavnagarwa at al 10/643,193 MacDONALD 103(a) F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER WEST, JEFFREY R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Keene 10/329,144 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R .§ 41.50(b) William E. Schiesser IBM Corporation EXAMINER ERB, NATHAN

A field-of-use limitation is insufficient to render an otherwise patent-ineligible process patent eligible. See Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981). Cf. SiFR Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 601 F.2d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010): In order for the addition of machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of the claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Mahl 11/203,783 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) GARVEY SMITH NEHRBASS & NORTH, LLC EXAMINER TYLER, CHERYL JACKSON

3753 Ex Parte Balsdon 10/103,489 PATE III 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C

3766 Ex Parte Rashidi 10/260,242 LEE 103(a) SJM/AFD-WILEY EXAMINER SCHAETZLE, KENNEDY

REISSUE

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2861 Ex Parte Goto et al 10/360,670 5,940,957 MacDONALD 251 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO
EXAMINER FEGGINS, KRISTAL J

The “Orita doctrine” precludes applicants from obtaining by reissue claims which, because of a requirement for restriction in which they had acquiesced, they could not claim in their patent. In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277, 1280 (CCPA 1977).

When applicants acquiesce in the examiner’s requirement for restriction, such action manifestly is not “error” causing patentee to claim “less than he had a right to claim in the patent” in the language of 35 U.S.C. § 251. Id, 550 F.2d at 1280.

The so-called Orita doctrine precludes reissue applicants from obtaining substantially identical claims to those of non-elected groups identified in an examiner's restriction requirement when such claims could not have been prosecuted in the application from which they were restricted. In re Doyle, 293 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

Orita, In re, 550 F.2d 1277, 193 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1412.01, 1457

Doyle, In re, 293 F.3d 1355, 63 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1412.01