bush, becton, CAE

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Berenstein et al 10/063,315 SCHEINER 103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

3735 Ex Parte Shuros et al 11/616,073 WALSH 103(a) PAULY, DEVRIES SMITH & DEFFNER, L.L.C. EXAMINER TOTH, KAREN E

3739 Ex Parte Plaza 10/820,480 WALSH 103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F

3761 Ex Parte Hutson et al 10/308,703 SAINDON 103(a) Tessari Patent Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3761 Ex Parte Tabor et al 11/024,954 SAINDON 102(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Kolter et al 11/406,320 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER DICKINSON, PAUL W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Bulleit et al 10/858,366 DESHPANDE 103(a) 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - MB EXAMINER SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

The ordering of references in the rejection is insignificant in the Examiner's obviousness determination. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961) (“[W]e deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”).
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 Ex Parte Eubanks 10/614,255 WALSH 103(a) Mary Wilkes Eubanks EXAMINER ROBINSON, KEITH O NEAL

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Lewis et al 10/299,284 NAPPI 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - Moazzam EXAMINER RAMPURIA, SHARAD K

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Abernathie 11/258,697 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) NEXXT Spine, LLC EXAMINER LUONG, PETER

“Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention”. Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
...
While we appreciate the Examiner’s point, it is disfavored to interpret a single element as satisfying two different limitations in a claim. See CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed.Cir.2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of... different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”).
REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1636 Ex Parte Gellman et al 11/482,638 PRATS 102(b) Intellectual Property Dept./Dewitt Ross & Stevens Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation EXAMINER GROSS, CHRISTOPHER M