AFG, xiao, chef america, princeton, dystar

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Liu et al 10/920,915 HUGHES 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOANG, SON T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Kobayashi et al 11/204,038 HORNER 102(b) KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP EXAMINER LE, TAN

3684 Ex Parte Hicks et al 11/159,914 TURNER 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Costea et al 10/346,898 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3761 Ex Parte King 10/704,860 GREEN 112(1)/102(b) Susan Clark King EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

“Consisting of” is a closed transitional phrase that is “understood to exclude any elements, steps, or ingredients not specified in the claim.” AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., Inc., 239 F.3d 1239, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

AFG Industries, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Company, Inc., 239 F.3d 1239, 57 USPQ2d 1776 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . 2111.03

3777 Ex Parte Mathew 10/681,634 ASTORINO 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER RAMIREZ, JOHN FERNANDO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Saito et al 10/315,583 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER STACE, BRENT S

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Nowlin et al 09/991,089 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER PEACHES, RANDY
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Koningstein et al 10/750,451 PETRAVICK 102(e)/103(a) 102(e)/103(a) Straub & Pokotylo EXAMINER BEKERMAN, MICHAEL

In re Xiao, No. 2011-1195, 2011 WL 4821929, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2011) (non-precedential) (non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight)

3654 Ex Parte Duke et al 11/446,005 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) THE GATES CORPORATION EXAMINER REESE, ROBERT T

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Westervelt et al 10/837,787 BEST 103(a) Gesmer Updegrove LLP EXAMINER MENDEZ, ZULMARIAM

1731 Ex Parte Kolodziej et al 11/592,589 GAUDETTE 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER WOOD, JARED M

1771 Ex Parte De Rezende Pinho et al 10/480,966 TIMM 103(a) Albemarle Netherlands B.V. EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Roy et al 12/698,671 SIU 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER TRAN, TUNG Q

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Ugail 11/072,065 SIU 103(a)/101 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP EXAMINER REPKO, JASON MICHAEL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Schaepkens et al 10/817,531 STRAUSS 102(e)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER CHU, CHRIS C

Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning, are construed to mean exactly what they say.)

Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Fransen et al 11/087,631 FREDMAN 112(1)/103(a) HOYNG MONEGIER LLP EXAMINER VALENTI, ANDREA M

3687 Ex Parte Thoren 10/843,304 TURNER 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Solem et al 11/343,382 WALSH 103(a) Edwards Lifesciences LLC EXAMINER MCEVOY, THOMAS M

See Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming obviousness where motivation was found in the knowledge of those skilled in the art at the time, and where the nature of the problem also supplied a motivation). “In other words, the nature of the problem called for exactly the solutions in the prior art.” Id. at 1339. Accord, DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the ‘evidence’ of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied”).

Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144

3733 Ex Parte Myint et al 11/268,786 FREDMAN 102(a)/103(a) STOEL RIVES LLP - SLC EXAMINER CARTER, TARA ROSE E

3767 Ex Parte Peterson et al 11/247,436 LEE 112(2)/103(a) Faegre Baker Daniels LLP EXAMINER HALL, DEANNA K

3774 Ex Parte Hlavka et al 10/622,207 BAUMEISTER 112(1) Leason Ellis LLP EXAMINER MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H

REHEARING
 
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Chandler 11/401,198 SMITH 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER WARDEN, JILL ALICE