klein, dann, stepan

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Kemper et al 10/732,162 BAHR 103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP EXAMINER REDDING, DAVID A

3732 Ex Parte Shirasuka 11/582,111 FRANKLIN 103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

3734 Ex Parte Quijano et al 11/263,302 FRANKLIN 102(b) Paul T. Parker PERKINS COIE LLP EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D

3764 Ex Parte Stenberg 09/879,151 BONILLA 102(e)/103(a) Ronald L. Grudziecki BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3732 Ex Parte Ruddle et al 11/227,934 PRATS 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C. EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (A reference is analogous prior art when it is “from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed . . . .”) (emphasis added).

AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Colin et al 10/675,363 BISK 103(a) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION EXAMINER AHMED, SALMAN

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2852 Ex Parte Hoffman 11/196,139 PER CURIAM 102(e) FLETCHER YODER P.C. EXAMINER FULLER, RODNEY EVAN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Nazginov 10/964,436 HOELTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL

3687 Ex Parte Love et al 11/416,946 FISCHETTI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KING & SPALDING EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does not establish nonobviousness. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976). The issue is “whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in question ‘is a differen[ce] sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art.’” Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (citation omitted)

Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) . . . . . . 716.01(a), 2141, 2141.03

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1711 Ex Parte 6359022 et al Ex parte STEPAN COMPANY Appellant 90/006,824 and 90/007,619 09/289,043 PER CURIAM 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(a)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER GORR, RACHEL F

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s Decision in the above-identified ex parte reexamination proceedings, and remanded the proceedings with instructions to designate the Decision as including a new ground of rejection. In re Stepan Co., 660 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011).