custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Damsohn 10592584 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC GAMINO, CARLOS J
First, the predecessor to our reviewing court explained in In re Eynde, 480 F.2d 1364, 1370 (CCPA 1973), that facts constituting the state of the art are normally subject to the possibility of rational disagreement among reasonable people and are not amenable to the taking of official notice. Second, in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970) the court held that assertions of technical fact in areas of esoteric technology must always be supported by citation to some reference work [admitted in evidence] and recognized as standard in the pertinent art. Moreover, the court held, facts officially noticed should not constitute the principal evidence upon which a rejection is based. Thus, mere assertions of fact, unsupported by evidence of record and an explanation, are not persuasive.
Eynde, In re, 480 F.2d 1364, 178 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1973) 2144.03
Ahlert, In re, 424 F.2d 1088, 165 USPQ 418 (CCPA 1970) 2144.03
As the predecessor to our reviewing court has explained, “[w]hether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 59 CCPA 1036, 173 USPQ 685 (1972).”
Brown, In re, 459 F.2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972) 2113, 2183
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Ganesh et al 10866433 - (D) QUINN 102/103 ORACLE HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG REYES, MARIELA D
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Lee et al 11200847 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC LAN, TZU-HSIANG
No comments :
Post a Comment