gurley, adams

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Taneri et al 11/260,697 FREDMAN 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER GULLEDGE, BRIAN M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Kabalnov 11/581,182 PAK 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Mitchell et al 10/037,043 LUCAS 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Sundell 11/157,038 NAPPI 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER PRITCHETT, JOSHUA L

Our reviewing court has said:

[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant.

In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52 (1966)).

However, a reference that “teaches away” does not per se preclude a prima facie case of obviousness, but rather the “teaching away” of the reference is a factor to be considered in determining unobviousness. Id.

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145

United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 148 USPQ 479 (1966). . . . . . . . . 716.01(b), 716.05, 2143.01, 2145