REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kim 11/207,126 PRATS 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER ORWIG, KEVIN S
As stated in TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2001):
The written description requirement and its corollary, the new matter prohibition of 35 U.S.C. § 132, both serve to ensure that the patent applicant was in full possession of the claimed subject matter on the application filing date. When the applicant adds a claim or otherwise amends his specification after the original filing date . . ., the new claims or other added material must find support in the original specification.
...We acknowledge that it is improper to base an obviousness rejection on an unknown inherent property present in the prior art. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“'That which may be inherent is not necessarily known. Obviousness cannot be predicated on what is unknown.' Such a retrospective view of inherency is not a substitute for some teaching or suggestion supporting an obviousness rejection.”) (quoting In re Spormann, 363 F.2d 444, 448 (CCPA 1966)).
Rijckaert, In re, 9 F.3d 1531, 28 USPQ2d 1955 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . .2112, 2141.02, 2144.08
1625 Ex Parte Singh et al 10/931,481 McCOLLUM 112(1) McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP EXAMINER SEAMAN, D MARGARET M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Hutter et al 10/474,022 MORGAN 102(e)/103(a) Joseph S Tripoli Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc EXAMINER PARK, ILWOO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Trampuz et al 11/083,196 GRIMES 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER MACAULEY, SHERIDAN R
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Selwyn et al 11/317,374 WALSH 103(a) COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC EXAMINER HAMMER, KATIE L
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Rummel et al 11/007,634 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER NDUBIZU, CHUKA CLEMENT
See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in infringement context, a single conveyor held to not meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 746 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).
Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)
3743 Ex Parte Rummel et al 11/007,634 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER NDUBIZU, CHUKA CLEMENT
See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in infringement context, a single conveyor held to not meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 746 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).
Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Vargo et al 10/291,279 NAGUMO 103(a) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY EXAMINER KNABLE, GEOFFREY L
1786 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 11/347,406 OWENS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Weissman et al 10/689,903 STEPHENS 101/102(e) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER SHECHTMAN, CHERYL MARIA
2162 Ex Parte Baek et al 10/973,959 DANG 101/103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER KERZHNER, ALEKSANDR
2186 Ex Parte Bellows et al 11/008,768 COURTENAY 103(a) Leslie Payne IBM Corporation EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/281,056 HOMERE 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - HFZ EXAMINER HIGA, BRENDAN Y
No comments :
Post a Comment