diamond2, sterling, miller2, gulack, ngai

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Slungaard et al 10/427,271 GRIMES 103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

1641 Ex Parte Chandler et al 11/027,652 WALSH 103(a) DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP EXAMINER DO, PENSEE T
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Saha et al 11/392,381 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER ZAMAN, FAISAL M
REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 MODEC INTERNATIONAL, LLC Requester and Respondent v. Patent of AKER KVAERNER ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY AS Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,414 6,851,894 LEBOVITZ 103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ANDREWS KURTH, LLP EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER SAFAVI, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Latorse et al 10/553,363 WALSH 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) OSTROLENK FABER GERB & SOFFEN EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

See e.g., In re Diamond, 360 F.2d 214, 217 (CCPA 1966) (affirming obviousness where the evidence showed that synergy was expected because combined drugs targeted different cellular mechanisms, and no evidence to the contrary was produced).

1619 Ex Parte Bush 10/759,970 HASTINGS 103(a) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P

1628 Ex Parte Rau 11/263,976 ADAMS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Steven B. Kelber Berenato & White, LLC EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V

1657 Ex Parte Doyle et al 11/701,848 GREEN 102(b) JONES DAY EXAMINER GITOMER, RALPH J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Bergeron 12/003,735 GREEN 102(b) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC EXAMINER JAGOE, DONNA A

1722 Ex Parte Lungu 11/296,902 TIMM 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WALKE, AMANDA C

2184 Ex Parte Baugher et al 11/299,916 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Chrysler Group LLC EXAMINER SNYDER, STEVEN G

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Fiden et al 10/428,516 GREENHUT 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER
RADA, ALEX P

3728 Ex Parte Charng 10/887,911 SPAHN 102(b) BERENATO & WHITE, LLC EXAMINER BUI, LUAN KIM

[P]atentability cannot be predicated on printing alone. In re Sterling, 70 F.2d 910, 912 (CCPA 1934).

Printed matter can patentability distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art when the critical question of whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the claimed printed matter and the claimed substrate is answered in the affirmative. In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396 (CCPA 1969); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983); and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The PTO has the better argument”).

Miller, In re, 418 F.2d 1392, 164 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706.03(a)

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01

NEW

REVERSED

1781 Ex Parte Ammann et al 10/564,452 GREEN 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

1765 Ex Parte Nguyen 11/732,389 TIMM 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER KUGEL, TIMOTHY J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1623 Ex Parte Bostrom et al 10/582,308 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER BLAND, LAYLA D

2628 Ex Parte Han et al 10/957,032 HAHN 102(a)/103(a) LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. EXAMINER RICHER, AARON M

3626 Ex Parte Logue 11/013,927 FISCHETTI 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER
REYES, REGINALD R

AFFIRMED

3627 Ex Parte Ames et al 10/842,758 KIM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD

2492 Ex Parte Brabson et al 10/007,581 ZECHER 103(a) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER PAN, JOSEPH T

3731 Ex Parte Kantor et al 10/827,819 CALVE 102(b)/103(a) MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

2444 Ex Parte Wilding et al 10/401,413 CHEN 102(e) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M