fritch, mayo

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Shimizu et al 11/119,890 BISK 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ENGLAND, SARA M

2176 Ex Parte Dejean et al 11/116,100 EVANS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER HUTTON JR, WILLIAM D

“'[L]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas' are not patentable.” (Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1290 (2012) (citation omitted).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Kreitzer et al 11/284,751 JEFFERY 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER MAUNG, ZARNI

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Kim et al 10/898,565 JEFFERY 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER SHENG, TOM V

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Waddell et al 10/630,897 ASTORINO 103(a) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC EXAMINER JOHNSON, STEPHEN

3643 Ex Parte Lang et al 11/893,331 GRIMES 103(a) PRAXAIR, INC. EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Johnson et al 11/506,356 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3761 Ex Parte Mortensen et al 11/211,115 PRATS 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R

As the court explained in In re Fritch, rather than relying on reasoning grounded in hindsight, the Examiner must advance an evidence-based explanation to support a conclusion that it would be obvious to modify an apparatus in a particular manner. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.”). Thus, “[i]t is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or „template‟ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” Id.

3761 Ex Parte Roe et al 11/098,362 SCHEINER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

3776 Ex Parte Scommegna et al 11/007,818 FREDMAN 103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC EXAMINER PATEL, YOGESH P

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Armstead et al 11/173,286 DIXON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER VU, TRISHA U

2113 Ex Parte Poletto et al 10/701,154 ZECHER 102(e) Riverbed Technology Inc. - PVF c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP EXAMINER MEHRMANESH, ELMIRA

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Akins 10/383,130 DESHPANDE 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY EXAMINER LANIER, BENJAMIN E

2443 Ex Parte Frank et al 10/728,374 JEFFERY 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER SIKRI, ANISH

2443 Ex Parte Plewnia 11/799,909 C. THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) SHARP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC. C/O LAW OFFICE OF GERALD MALISZEWSKI EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHUOC H

2451 Ex Parte Kreitzer et al 11/284,750 JEFFERY 102(e)/obviousness-type double patenting MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER MAUNG, ZARNI

2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Vaananen 10/504,418 BISK 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER LI, SHI K

2625 Ex Parte Aidinejad 10/286,135 GONSALVES 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HANG, VU B

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Ringermacher et al 10/627,206 DANG 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER VERBITSKY, GAIL KAPLAN

2861 Ex Parte Hickey et al 11/264,830 McNAMARA 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LEGESSE, HENOK D
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
 
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Jennings et al 11/040,265 PER CURIAM 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER LE, CANH