wertheim, kropa, net moneyin, advanced display, seversky, arkley

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte ASAOKA 12/174,973 PAK 102(b)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER LEYSON, JOSEPH S

1747 Ex Parte Jiang et al 12/277,883 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER SHEH, ANTHONY H

1767 Ex Parte Shooshtari et al 11/245,668 COLAIANNI 103(a) JOHNS MANVILLE EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK

1773 Ex Parte Ricci et al 10/581,964 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC EXAMINER SAKELARIS, SALLY A

Based on these facts, we determine that the preamble breathes life and meaning into the claim that provides completeness to the claim and thus must be considered a limitation of the claim. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 269 (CCPA 1976) (citing Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951)).

Wertheim, In re, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976) . . .706.03(o),1302.01, 2144.05, 2163, 2163.03, 2163.04, 2163.05

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2111.02

1783 Ex Parte Conner et al 11/891,433 COLAIANNI 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KHATRI, PRASHANT J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Frieder et al 10/926,548 ZECHER 102(e)/103(a) Roland W. Norris Pauley Petersen & Erickson EXAMINER DANG, THANH HA T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Gauselmann 10/458,429 ASTORINO 103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER HSU, RYAN

3734 Ex Parte Palmer et al 10/867,498 WALSH 103(a) GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D

3737 Ex Parte Fymat et al 11/524,866 GREEN 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) LEON D. ROSEN FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN EXAMINER HUNTLEY, DANIEL CARROLL

3782 Ex Parte Katchko et al 11/107,340 GREENHUT 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER DEMEREE, CHRISTOPHER R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Nickerson et al 11/135,045 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE

In an anticipation rejection, “it is not enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that [an ordinary] artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Rather, the reference must “‘clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.’” Id. (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (brackets in original)). Thus, while “[s]uch picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection, . . . it has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587-88.
REEXAMINATION

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2165 Ex Parte 6192347 et al Ex parte Graff/Ross Holdings LLP, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/009,556 09/134,451 TURNER 101/102(e) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G original EXAMINER ROSEN, NICHOLAS D

To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1283 (Fed.Cir.2000), citing In re Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674 (CCPA 1973). A “mere reference to another application, or patent, or publication is not an incorporation of anything.” Id. at 674 (emphasis in original).
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Chinea et al 11/189,139 McKELVEY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I

1715 Ex Parte Wojtaszek et al 12/050,709 GARRIS 103(a) ARTHUR G. SCHAIER CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

1716 Ex Parte Hughes et al 10/673,376 COLAIANNI 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER GRAMAGLIA, MAUREEN

1731 Ex Parte Shore et al 11/142,580 COLAIANNI 103(a) ENGELHARD CORPORATION EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A

Citing to In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972), Appellants’ arguments seem to take issue with the picking and choosing needed to arrive at the claimed invention (Reply Br. 3). However, this line of argument appears to improperly treat the rejection as an anticipation rejection. The rejection on appeal is under § 103 and is based on whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious at the time the invention was made. The court in Arkley recognized that picking and choosing is entirely proper in an obviousness rejection. Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587-588.

1745 Ex Parte Hansson et al 10/580,219 KRATZ 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1772 Ex Parte DiMagno et al 10/890,588 PER CURIAM 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER KINGAN, TIMOTHY G

1787 Ex Parte Samanta et al 12/549,780 McKELVEY 112(2)/103(a) W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN EXAMINER SHAH, SAMIR

1787 Ex Parte Samanta et al 12/549,810 McKELVEY 112(2)/103(a) W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN EXAMINER HUANG, CHENG YUAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Majumdar et al 11/000,695 POTHIER 103(a) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER ENGLAND, DAVID E

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Zeng et al 10/635,526 JEFFERY 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER WANG, TED M

2617 Ex Parte Chiang et al 10/136,002 Per Curiam 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CAI, WAYNE HUU

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Doucette et al 11/275,747 BARRETT 103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP EXAMINER PATEL, YOGESH P