hedges, klosak, aoyama

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Mao et al 11/693,454 GREEN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER LACLAIR, DARCY D

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Condon 11/060,332 DESHPANDE 103(a) AT & T Legal Department - BK EXAMINER HOMAYOUNMEHR, FARID

2443 Ex Parte Rodman et al 10/032,766 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER ENGLAND, DAVID E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Nikodym 10/376,185 HORNER 103(a) THOMPSON HINE LLP EXAMINER
ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

The Examiner appears to have impermissibly picked the disclosure of antimony from Kimoto without consideration of what the totality of the disclosure in Kimoto would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” (citations omitted)).

Hedges, In re, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ 685 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145

3764 Ex Parte Datta et al 10/430,655 O’NEILL Concurring BARRETT 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Radnedge et al 11/075,059 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory EXAMINER POHNERT, STEVEN C

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Rettig et al 10/588,678 DANG 102(b)/103(a) STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY EXAMINER ASSOUAD, PATRICK J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Reuteler et al 10/532,528 McCARTHY 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Cavazza et al 12/320,430 WALSH 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R

1628 Ex Parte Cavazza et al 12/320,422 WALSH 103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER STONE, CHRISTOPHER R

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Muldermans et al 10/518,985 WARREN 103(a) KRATON POLYMERS U.S. LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON, CONNIE P

1771 Ex Parte Wen et al 11/887,684 McKELVEY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1,2,4)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WEISS, PAMELA HL

An inventor must show that the results the inventor says the inventor gets with the invention are actually obtained with the invention. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).

1781 Ex Parte Schneider et al 10/944,929 HANLON 103(a) FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER
DEES, NIKKI H

1782 Ex Parte Plourde et al 11/127,879 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) Dennis M. Flaherty, Esq.
Ostrager Chong Flaherty & Broitman P.C. EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ERIK

We agree with Appellants that the interpretation of claims 1, 4, and 20, a matter of law, is the first step in determining whether these claims are anticipated as a matter of fact. See, e.g., In re Aoyama, No. 2010-1552, 2011 WL 3796243, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2011) and cases cited therein.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Bixby et al 10/945,653 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) RICHARD AUCHTERLONIE NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M

2171 Ex Parte Farn 11/121,654 DANG 102(e)/103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Grilliot et al 10/619,161 DANG 102(e) HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS EXAMINER LIPMAN, JACOB

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Virolainen et al 10/465,909 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER BRINEY III, WALTER