hoffer, gartside, princeton biochemicals, dystar, merck2, gechter, champagne

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1615 Ex Parte Ahlgren et al 11/057,480 MILLS 103(a) Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. EXAMINER SASAN, ARADHANA

07/25/2011 1624 Ex Parte Pathi et al 11/574,642 WALSH Concurring FREDMAN 103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER WILLIS, DOUGLAS M

07/25/2011 1628 Ex Parte Bieringer et al 10/198,580 MILLS 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER QAZI, SABIHA NAIM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2161 Ex Parte Rath et al 11/388,012 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

See Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.”).

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04

07/25/2011 2168 Ex Parte Idicula et al 11/014,442 DIXON 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER MOBIN, HASANUL

07/25/2011 2179 Ex Parte Uotila et al 11/124,651 GONSALVES 102(b)/103(a) HARRINGTON & SMITH EXAMINER TRAN, TUYETLIEN T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3624 Ex Parte Fama et al 11/478,714 PETRAVICK 103(a) SETTER ROCHE LLP EXAMINER WALKER III, GEORGE H

07/25/2011 3634 Ex Parte Rieder et al 11/288,682 HORNER 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/25/2011 3767 Ex Parte Torris et al 10/419,934 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO EXAMINER GRAY, PHILLIP A
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/25/2011 1626 Ex Parte Almirante et al 10/566,292 WALSH 103(a) ARENT FOX LLP EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R

“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references. . . is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Motivation to apply prior art teachings may be found when “the nature of the problem called for exactly the solutions in the prior art.” Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming obviousness). Accord, DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied”). The prior art’s disclosure of a multitude of combinations does not necessarily render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Gartside, In re, 203 F.3d 1305, 53 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .1216.01, 2144.03

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989).. .716.02(a), 2123, 2144.05, 2144.08

07/25/2011 1637 Ex Parte Park et al 11/965,687 ADAMS 103(a) MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. EXAMINER TUNG, JOYCE

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/25/2011 1763 Ex Parte Gestermann et al 11/709,411 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

07/25/2011 1787 Ex Parte NOWAK et al 09/178,329 KRATZ 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia EXAMINER JACKSON, MONIQUE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2166 Ex Parte Kreulen et al 10/851,754 DANG 103(a) John L. Rogitz Rogitz & Associates EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2436 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos et al 10/810,025 DROESCH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, DANIEL L

07/25/2011 2464 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 10/354,991 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) EXAMINER HAN, CLEMENCE S

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Smith 10/658,896 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J

07/25/2011 2492 Ex Parte Nakhjiri et al 11/169,406 DANG 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

2600 Communications
07/26/2011 2617 Ex Parte Heaven et al 11/239,346 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP EXAMINER SANTIAGO CORDERO, MARIVELISSE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/25/2011 3621 Ex Parte Goodwin III 12/128,694 KIM 103(a) PAUL W. MARTIN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E
REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/25/2011 2187 Ex Parte Lake 10/960,184 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/25/2011 2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES 101/102/103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N

Our reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has had occasion to analyze the word “review” as it is used in its jurisdictional statutes – 35 U.S.C. § 144.3 See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1458, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (discussing the scope of review, and vacating a Board decision that omits several crucial findings); accord Champagne Louis Roederer, S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir 1998) (J. Michel concurring) (citing Gechter). We find the Federal Circuit’s discussion of the term “review,” in the context of the Federal Circuit’s review of Board decisions, to be particularly helpful in determining the meaning of the word “review” in the context of our statutory duty to review adverse decisions of examiners.