dance, perfect web, vaidyanathan, KSR

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1776 Ex Parte Carson et al 10/510,865 GAUDETTE 103(a) General Electric Company EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O

Evidence of obviousness must come from the prior art, not the applicant’s own disclosure. In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[T]o invoke ‘common sense’ or any other basis for extrapolating from prior art to a conclusion of obviousness,” the fact finder “must articulate [his or her] reasoning with sufficient clarity for review.” Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); see also, In re Vaidyanathan, 381 Fed.Appx. 985, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (non-precedential) (“KSR did not free the PTO’s examination process from explaining its reasoning. In making an obviousness rejection, the examiner should not rely on conclusory statements that a particular feature of the invention would have been obvious or was well known. Instead, the examiner should elaborate, discussing the evidence or reasoning that leads the examiner to such a conclusion.”).

Dance, In re, 160 F.3d 1339, 48 USPQ2d 1635 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Davis et al 11/132,658 DESHPANDE 103(a) IBM Corporation EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11/444,004 FREDMAN 102(b) Covidien EXAMINER TRUONG, KEVIN THAO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Melzak et al 10/914,468 ROBERTSON 103(a) 103(a) DEMONT & BREYER, LLC EXAMINER PHAM, LONG
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Huang et al 11/556,322 GREEN 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER PURDY, KYLE A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1728 Ex Parte Trabold et al 12/016,014 OWENS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER CHAN, HENG M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Chauvel et al 10/830,917 DANG 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E

2185 Ex Parte Loafman 11/778,054 JEFFERY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting IBM CORP. (AUS) C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES BAUDINO, PLLC EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Kataoka 11/291,129 WINSOR 103(a) IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. EXAMINER BEHARRY, NOEL R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Tolbert 10/998,213 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER WILLIAMS, STEPHANIE ELAINE

3762 Ex Parte Haller et al 11/221,095 FREDMAN 103(a) Wong, Cabello, Lutsch, Rutherford & Brucculeri LLP (Boston Scientific) EXAMINER MANUEL, GEORGE C