warner, dystar, alcon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Burchfield et al 12016280 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. CAMPBELL, SHANNON S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Daniel et al 12572769 - (D) FREDMAN 103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC HUGHES, SAMUEL T

3737 Ex Parte IRIE 13768405 - (D) HOELTER 103 SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC AKAR, SERKAN

All statements premised on the exact location along 11b where the adhesive is applied, and specifically which side of protuberance 26 the adhesive can be found, are merely speculative because Sakamoto is silent in this regard (furthermore, Sakamoto does not illustrate any adhesive in any figure).

In such a situation, we are instructed by the predecessor to our reviewing court that

The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis. To the extent the Patent Office rulings are so supported, there is no basis for resolving doubts against their correctness. Likewise, we may not resolve doubts in favor of the Patent Office determination when there are deficiencies in the record as to the necessary factual bases supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness.

In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (emphasis added).

Warner, In re, 379 F.2d 1011, 154 USPQ 173 (CCPA 1967) 2142

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte Bruce et al 11201410 - (D) DERRICK 103 103 STOUT, UXA, BUYAN & MULLINS, LLP GUPTA, YOGENDRA N

We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive the Examiner erred reversibly because it fails to address the Examiner’s proffered combination of prior art teachings and reasoning, and it is not necessary that the motivation and reasoning be from the prior art. See, e.g., DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating motivation to modify the prior art “may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself”) (cited with approval in Alcon Research LTD. v. Apotex, Inc., 687 F.3d 1362, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Nor is it of import that the motivation differs from that of Appellants. DyStar, 464 F.3d at 1368 (“We have repeatedly held that the motivation to modify a prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention need not be the same motivation that the patentee had.”) As to the argument that disclosure of a single step during which both demolding and delensing occurs leads away from the Examiner’s position, we find it without persuasive merit. See, e.g., Dystar., 464 F.3d at 1364 (“We will not read into a reference a teaching away from a process where no such language exists.”)

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

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Baran 12771855 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(2) Rockwell Automation, Inc./FY WEINHOLD, INGRID M

3681 Ex Parte HAMILTON et al 12189225 - (D) WIEDER 103 102/103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1655 Ex Parte Wehling et al 12170946 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 ALLISON JOHNSON, P.A. HOFFMAN, SUSAN COE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11554926 - (D) THOMAS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY POINT, RUFUS C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Camarillo 12022987 - (D) WOODS 103 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP HOLWERDA, STEPHEN

donaldson, carroll, valmont, johnston1, alcon, KSR

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Karau et al 11583192 - (D) FLOYD 102/103 Jackson Walker LLP MORGAN, EILEEN P

“[T]he ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six.” In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194-95 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). In other words, in order to meet a “means plus function” limitation, the prior art must (1) perform the identical function recited in the means limitation and (2) perform that function using the structure disclosed in the specification or an equivalent structure. Cf. Carroll Touch Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys. Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Valmont Indus. Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182

Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993)  2183,  2184, 2186

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte MALET et al 12147111 - (D) GAUDETTE 103/obviousness-type double patenting THE DIAL CORPORATION DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

This argument is unpersuasive because the "motivation to modify a prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention need not be the same motivation that the [applicant] had. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (stating that it is error to look "only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve");

Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 687 F. 3d 1362, 1368 ((Fed. Cir. 2012)

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, , 2145, 2216,  2242,  2286,  2616,  2642,  2686.04

1767 Ex Parte Mabey et al 11654486 - (D) DELMENDO 103/obviousness-type double patenting CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY STANLEY, JANE L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Bourland et al 11647964 - (D) JEFFERY 102 PITNEY BOWES INC. NGUYEN, KIM T

2193 Ex Parte Weaver 10041743 - (D) KUMAR 112(1)/102/103 NCR Corporation VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2496 Ex Parte van Bemmel et al 10970143 - (D) JEFFERY 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP POLTORAK, PIOTR