REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Lei et al 11/101,667 COURTENAY 103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER LE, JESSICA N

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Rossbach et al 10/137,974 DANG 102(e) OSTRAGER CHONG FLAHERTY & BROITMAN, P.C. EXAMINER MIRZA, ADNAN M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Chard et al 10/103,433 CRAWFORD 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Hovey Williams LLP EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3628 Ex Parte Elliott 09/770,613 McCARTHY 103(a) SHOEMAKER AND MATTARE, LTD EXAMINER JABR, FADEY S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Engel 11/135,206 PATE III 102(b) THE HILL FIRM, DENNIS A. GROSS EXAMINER CARTAGENA, MELVIN A

3753 Ex Parte Widenmann et al 11/408,581 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER FRISTOE JR, JOHN K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Jordan et al 11/151,906 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) ROBERT M. MCDERMOTT, ESQ. EXAMINER DINH, TIEN QUANG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Carlomagno 11/128,693 PATE III 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER RALIS, STEPHEN J

3742 Ex Parte Prociw et al 11/050,686 BAHR 103(a) OGILVY RENAULT LLP (PWC) EXAMINER RALIS, STEPHEN J

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex parte DENNIS P. DEGREGORIO, JR. 90/010,091 6,978,547 LEE 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER MAYER BROWN LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER WATTS, DOUGLAS D

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3742 Ex parte SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC. 90/009,341 6,392,190 LEE 103(a) OSHA LIANG L.L.P. Third Party Requester: DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte WARING et al 09/341,821 LEBOVITZ 103(a) CONVATEC INC. EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Whether a reference in the prior art is “analogous” is a fact question. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 658.

Wyers et al. v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.08

1644 Ex Parte Lazar et al 10/672,280 GREEN 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP (SF) EXAMINER DAHLE, CHUN WU

Objective evidence of nonobviousness (also called “secondary considerations”) must always be considered in making an obviousness determination, Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983), but it is not necessarily conclusive, Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refrac., Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 306 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A “nexus” is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in the determination of nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A “nexus” is required between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations in order for the evidence to be given substantial weight in an obviousness decision. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Stratoflex, 713 F.2d at 1539. The burden of proving commercial success (and other types of secondary considerations, such as long felt need) during prosecution is on the applicant or patent owner. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“In the ex parte process of examining a patent application … the PTO lacks the means or resources to gather evidence which supports or refutes the applicant's assertion that the sales constitute commercial success.”). The burden of proving a nexus between the commercial success and the merits of the claimed invention during prosecution is also on the applicant or patent owner. Huang, 100 F.3d at 140 (“In sum, Huang simply has not carried his burden to prove that a nexus existed between any commercial success and the novel features claimed in the application.”).

Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . . .716.01(a), 2141, 2141.01(a), 2141.02, 2144.08

Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281,227 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . 716.01(b), 716.01(c), 2145

Demaco Corp. v. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . 716.01(b), 716.01(d), 716.03, 716.03(a), 716.03(b)

GPAC, In re, 57 F.3d 1573, 35 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.03, 2145

Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b), 2145

Appellants cite Takeda v. Alphapharm, 492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007) for the proposition that the closest prior art compound directed the ordinary artisan away from the claimed compound, and thus it would not have been “obvious to try” and modify the prior art compound to arrive at the claimed compound. Id. at 1359.
...

Thus, the instant appeal is distinguishable from Takeda, which dealt with thiazolidine derivatives useful as antidiabetic agents, Takeda, 492 F.3d at 1353, wherein the court found there was no reason to modify the prior art compound to arrive at the compound at issue, id. at 1357.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/720,963 DIXON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW EXAMINER DWIVEDI, MAHESH H

2175 Ex Parte Allen et al 10/959,820 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER DISTEFANO, GREGORY A

2182 Ex Parte Nguyen et al 10/894,208 JEFFERY 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. EXAMINER PHAN, DEAN

2183 Ex Parte Elwood 10/994,179 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER VICARY, KEITH E

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/814,682 MacDONALD 103(a) HITT GAINES, PC EXAMINER MALDONADO, JULIO J

2883 Ex Parte Fernald et al 10/755,708 MacDONALD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER EL SHAMMAA, MARY A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Coulter et al 11/284,866 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SENSENIG, SHAUN D

3688 Ex Parte Zhang 10/684,125 FETTING 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW EXAMINER DAGNEW, SABA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Burkhart et al 11/277,640 CRAWFORD 103(a) INTERNATIONAL CORP (BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER ELISCA, PIERRE E