kerkhoven, yates, fessmann

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Helfman et al 11/037,977 McCOLLUM 103(a) RENNER KENNER GREIVE BOBAK TAYLOR & WEBER EXAMINER BARHAM, BETHANY P

1621 Ex Parte Karvinen et al 11/908,780 WALSH 103(a) Novak Druce + Quigg LLP EXAMINER WITHERSPOON, SIKARL A

Although Reinius did not describe using a catalyst complex based on a ligand mixture, the Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to combine the individual ligands taught by Reinius et al in an[] effort to obtain a new ligand mixture that would be effective in increasing the selectivity to branched aldehyde products. In re Ker[k]hoven, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA, 1980).”
...

Finally, Appellants contend that factual differences make Kerkhoven inappposite, and “the legal conclusion as to patentability of the claimed process is more properly guided according to the circumstances outlined in In re Yates, 211 USPQ 1149, 1151 [663 F.2d 1054] (CCPA 1981) than Ker[k]hoven.”
...

The rejection also relies on the general rule of the Kerkhoven case, “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980). Appellants argue that Kerkhoven is inapposite, and “[h]ere, there is no combination of two compositions, but rather the creation of a catalytic complex from individual reactants (i.e., a rhodium complexed with two (or more) ligand reactants).” (App. Br. 5.)
...

Under these circumstances, we agree with Appellants that the Yates case provides useful guidance. In Yates, claims to a catalytic process had been rejected for obviousness based on idea that controlling the degree of conversion to optimize an acid-aldehyde ratio would have been obvious. In re Yates, 663 F.2d 1054, 1056 (CCPA 1981). The court agreed that the rejection had “the appearance of being founded on both logic and sound scientific principle.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Notwithstanding that appearance, the court explained that “obviousness cannot be established without considering the record as a whole,” and reversed after considering Yates’ data that controlling the degree of conversion was not recognized to be a result-effective variable. Id.
Kerkhoven, In re, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980). . . . . . . . . . 2144.06

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Nishino et al 11/473,334 TIMM 103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER LEE, CYNTHIA K

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Serban 10/553,657 HOMERE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER STONE, ROBERT M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte ROYYURU 11/874,584 PETRAVICK 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Keller 11/401,986 BAHR 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Wood et al 10/674,174 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER SANDY, ROBERT JOHN

The burden of proof on the PTO in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims is less than when a product is claimed in the more conventional fashion. In re Fessman, 489 F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974).

Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Ullestad et al 10/836,589 WALSH 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER EISENBERG, REBECCA E
REEXAMINATION

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3991 Ex Parte 6607695 et al Ex parte Veltek Associates, Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/009,290 ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: BLANK ROME LLP EXAMINER JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Hovey et al 11/093,149 GRIMES 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2115 Ex Parte Neuman et al 10/326,863 SMITH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CONNOLLY, MARK A

2179 Ex Parte Craig et al 11/489,337 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HASSAN, RASHEDUL

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Martin et al 12/011,276 POTHIER 103(a) James Ray & Associates Intellectual Property, LLC EXAMINER DOAN, KIET M

2622 Ex Parte Pilu 10/877,676 MacDONALD 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MISLEH, JUSTIN P

2624 Ex Parte Paxton et al 10/933,002 DILLON 103(a) Stephen B. Salai, Esq. Harter Secrest & Emery LLP EXAMINER ENTEZARI, MICHELLE M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Kobetsky et al 11/067,965 SPAHN 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3764 Ex Parte Hasse et al 10/902,820 WALSH concurring and dissenting FREDMAN 102(e)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

3765 Ex Parte CHO 11/614,685 PER CURIAM 103(a) FELLERS SNIDER BLANKENSHIP BAILEY & TIPPENS EXAMINER CLINE, SALLY COLSON
REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Casion 11/304,026 DANG 102(b) HODGSON RUSS LLP EXAMINER RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD N