danly, haas, desilva, young2, sneed

REVERSED

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Smith et al 10/891,883 SAADAT 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER THIER, MICHAEL
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Sperry et al 10/979,583 STAICOVICI 103(a) Sealed Air Corporation EXAMINER PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Piepgras et al 11/419,660 SAADAT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Philips Intellectual Property and Standards EXAMINER PAYNE, SHARON E
The Examiner, citing MPEP § 2114, found that the phrase “to provide the at least one control signal to the at least one lighting unit” is functional language not entitled to patentable weight as it merely describes an intended use of the apparatus (Ans. 5, 23-24). Appellants contend that “a conductor ‘provid[ing] the at least one control signal’ claims what a conductor is, not what a conductor does” (Reply Br. 13 (brackets in original); see also App. Br. 14). ... We find that this distinction between the conductors for the power and the control signal is a structural distinction that must be given patentable weight, see In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847 (CCPA 1959).

Danly, In re, 263 F.2d 844, 120 USPQ 528 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2114

AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Hakiel et al 10/667,581 DANG 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BELANI, KISHIN G
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Nordstrand 10/302,564 BARRETT 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S
3684 Ex Parte Campbell et al 10/237,424 LORIN 102(b) TIMOTHY P. O'HAGAN EXAMINER VIZVARY, GERALD C
Cf. Ernst Haas Studio, Inc. v. Palm Press, Inc., 164 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Appellant's Brief is at best an invitation to the court to scour the record, research any legal theory that comes to mind, and serve generally as an advocate for appellant. We decline the invitation."); DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[An appeal] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Gauthier et al 11/415,333 COCKS 103(a) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER ESHETE, ZELALEM

The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable, without change, to render obvious the invention under review. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Sneed, In re, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1445, 2145

Young, In re, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01
3751 Ex Parte Adelman 11/650,711 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D