dillon

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1624 Ex Parte Feenstra et al 11/294,603 SCHEINER 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER BERNHARDT, EMILY B

[I]t is not necessary in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness that both a structural similarity between a claimed and prior art compound . . . be shown and that there be a suggestion in or expectation from the prior art that the claimed compound . . . will have the same or a similar utility as one newly discovered by applicant.

In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “A prima facie case has been established” where “[t]he art provide[s] the motivation to make the claimed compositions in the expectation that they would have similar properties.” Id. “[T]he burden (and opportunity) then falls on applicant to rebut that prima facie case.” Id. at 692.

Such rebuttal or argument can consist of a comparison of test data showing that the claimed compositions possess unexpectedly improved properties or properties that the prior art does not have. . . . There is no question that all evidence of the properties of the claimed composition and the prior art must be considered in determining the ultimate question of patentability, but it is also clear that the discovery that a claimed compound or composition possesses a property not disclosed for the prior art subject matter, does not by itself defeat a prima facie case.

Id. at 692-693 (internal citations omitted).

Dillon, In re, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141, 2144, 2144.09, 2145
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Saigusa et al 11/620,334 WARREN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

1733 Ex Parte Hiraiwa et al 10/661,638 TIMM 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L

1763 Ex Parte Huynh 10/797,826 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) Avery Dennison Corporation EXAMINER CANO, MILTON I

1787 Ex Parte Roth et al 10/509,319 NAGUMO 103(a) PROSKAUER ROSE LLP EXAMINER KRUER, KEVIN R

1798 Ex Parte Giron et al 10/564,501 KIMLIN 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER NELSON, MICHAEL B

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Sylthe et al 11/251,551 CHEN 103(a) Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC EXAMINER ALAM, SHAHID AL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Kramer 10/104,863 LUCAS 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER BLAIR, DOUGLAS B
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Gierhart et al 10/356,134 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) NIXON PEABODY, LLP EXAMINER VU, JAKE MINH

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Droux et al 10/541,121 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER HALPERN, MARK

1763 Ex Parte Loth et al 12/119,138 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER LACLAIR, DARCY D

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Hughes et al 10/517,957 MILLS 103(a) Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. EXAMINER SZNAIDMAN, MARCOS L

1634 Ex Parte Tanaami et al 11/446,225 PRATS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER CROW, ROBERT THOMAS

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Wieser 11/341,292 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER RYAN, PATRICK J

1747 Ex Parte McCormick et al 10/853,750 WARREN 103(a) Cynthia L. Foulke NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY EXAMINER MCNALLY, DANIEL

1763 Ex Parte Brobeil et al 11/523,532 GREEN 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER LEONARD, MICHAEL L

1788 Ex Parte Li et al 11/314,113 KRATZ 103(a) Legal Department (M-495) EXAMINER CHANG, VICTOR S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Kolar et al 10/432,316 CHEN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER IBRAHIM, MOHAMED

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Johannsen et al 10/349,921 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Abadeer et al 11/340,340 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER TAYLOR, EARL N

2857 Ex Parte McClanahan et al 11/185,371 HAHN 103(a) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC BASF CORPORATION EXAMINER TEIXEIRA MOFFAT, JONATHAN CHARLES

2861 Ex Parte Sampath et al 11/170,845 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER EXAMINER LEGESSE, HENOK D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Starkey et al 09/930,668 DESHPANDE 101/103(a) SEYFARTH SHAW LLP EXAMINER PORTER, RACHEL L

The preamble recites a “computer-implemented method,” the steps of the method fail to explicitly require any of the steps to be performed on a computer. As such, this recitation in the preamble is a mere nominal recitation of structure. At most, a “computer-implemented method” ties the process to any general-purpose computer. We find no evidence that the claims require the method steps to be hosted on a computer.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3768 Ex Parte Lazar 10/098,851 McCOLLUM 103(a) MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU
REHEARING

DENIED

2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Madden et al 11/166,975 WHITEHEAD, JR. USEFUL ARTS IP MICHAEL J. URE EXAMINER HARRISON, CHANTE E