st. regis, harza, ochiai, dillon

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Ohki 10/897,016 GARRIS 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

1735 Ex Parte Wilks 11/357,458 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER EXAMINER PATEL, DEVANG R

1793 Ex Parte Hu et al 10/801,424 PAK 103(a) W.R. GRACE & CO.-CONN. EXAMINER BRUNSMAN, DAVID M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Soylemez et al 10/841,941 SIU 102(b)/103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Kleinsteiber et al 10/062,125 SIU 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Brocade-Wong Cabello Lutsch Rutherford EXAMINER HENNING, MATTHEW T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Mahy et al 11/065,369 O’NEILL 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KENNEDY, JOSHUA T

Appellants also contend that the Examiner’s reliance on the case law of St. Regis Paper Company v. Bemis Company, Inc., 549 F.2d 833 (7th Cir. 1977) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960), to duplicate parts so that the proposed modification includes a plurality of arms, does not consider the facts of either St. Regis or Harza and amounts to the use of an improper per se rule of obviousness. ... Nor does the case law of either St. Regis or Harza, relied upon by the Examiner, demonstrate per se obviousness for duplicating the single bendable member taught by Schwarzschild to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (no per se rule of obviousness exists).

Harza, In re, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04

Ochiai, In re, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . 706.02(n), 2116.01
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2871 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. 90/008,146 6,373,537 SIU 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Patent Owner: McKenna Long & Aldridge LLC Third Party Requesters: Bruce K. Lagerman, Lagerman and Associates, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER TON, MINH TOAN T

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2871 Ex parte LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. 90/008,150 6,020,942 SIU 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting PATENT OWNER MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER BRUCE K. LAGERMAN LAGERMAN AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER TON, MINH TOAN T

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Horpel et al 11/578,664 GARRIS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ARCIERO, ADAM A

1767 Ex Parte Neal et al 11/401,510 HASTINGS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER RIOJA, MELISSA A

While we agree that the problem faced by an applicant is a relevant factor, a teaching or suggestion of applicant's problem is not always required for a prima facie case of obviousness. An invention may be obvious for reasons the inventor did not contemplate. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(en banc).

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145
1787 Ex Parte Schaepkens et al 10/779,373 OWENS 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - DC EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Anspach et al 11/135,460 COURTENAY 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KUMAR, ANIL N

2174 Ex Parte Ferrarini et al 10/948,703 SIU 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER KUMAR, ANIL N