giacomini, kubin, o'farrell, rolls-royce

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Batke et al 09/967,742 MacDONALD 103(a) ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC./BF EXAMINER SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Vayssiere 11/024,094 COURTENAY 102(e) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP EXAMINER LY, ANH

“[A]n applicant is not entitled to a patent if another’s patent discloses the same invention, which was carried forward from an earlier U.S. provisional application or U.S. non-provisional application. . . . An important limitation is that the provisional application must provide written description support for the claimed invention.” In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

The 35 U.S.C. 102(e) critical reference date of a U.S. patent or U.S. application publications and certain international application publications entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is the filing date of the provisional application with certain exceptions if the provisional application(s) properly supports the subject matter relied upon to make the rejection in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.

MPEP § 2136.03 (III.)(bold in original).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Benz et al 10/791,432 KAUFFMAN 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER LE, DAVID D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Song 10/638,920 GRIMES 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MAYER & WILLIAMS PC EXAMINER VU, JAKE MINH

1633 Ex Parte Blanche et al 11/582,427 FREDMAN 103(a) WILEY REIN LLP EXAMINER KAUSHAL, SUMESH

We are not persuaded. Kubin stated that “[r]esponding to concerns about uncertainty in the prior art influencing the purported success of the claimed combination, this court [in O’Farrell] stated: ‘[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success … all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”’ In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-904 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1776 Ex Parte Louis Schupp 11/145,205 NAGUMO 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER ORLANDO, AMBER ROSE

1781 Ex Parte Chaudhry et al 11/127,714 GAUDETTE 112(1)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER BADR, HAMID R

Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Technologies Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“If a person of ordinary skill, before the time of invention and without knowledge of that invention, would have found the invention merely an easily predictable and achievable variation or combination of the prior art, then the invention likely would have been obvious.”).

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/191,469 DANG 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOI, YUK TING

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Wee et al 10/245,892 GONSALVES 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D

NEW

AFFIRMED

06/01/2011 1767 Ex Parte Gong et al 10/518,127 GAUDETTE 103(a) EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

06/01/2011 1764 Ex Parte Guenther et al 12/008,740 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER HUHN, RICHARD A