hafner, rasmusson, beattie, gershon, kubin

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Maurer et al 11/629,751 SMITH 103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER ANDERSON, DENISE R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Johnston et al 10/877,903 COURTENAY 102(b) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HICKS, MICHAEL J

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Poyhonen et al 10/898,726 DIXON 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUONG

2486 Ex Parte Banerji et al 10/074,765 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. EXAMINER VO, TUNG T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Cogar et al 11/152,884 PETRAVICK 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP EXAMINER DENISSE ORTIZ ROMAN

3632 Ex Parte Wagner et al 10/532,370 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER DUCKWORTH, BRADLEY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Wallace et al 10/744,853 BAHR 103(a) VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP/BSC - NEUROMODULATION EXAMINER BERTRAM, ERIC D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Morsa 09/832,440 CRAWFORD 102(b)/103(a) Steve Morsa EXAMINER OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P

Initially, we note that the standard for what constitutes proper enablement of a prior art reference for purposes of anticipation under section 102 differs from the enablement standard under section 112. In In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403, 1405 (CCPA 1969). A disclosure lacking a teaching of how to use a fully disclosed invention for a specific, substantial utility is, under the present state of the law, entirely adequate to anticipate a claim. See Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Hafner, In re, 410 F.2d 1403, 161 USPQ 783 (CCPA 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201.11

Rasmussen, In re, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . 706.03(o), 1504.04, 2163, 2163.01, 2163.04, 2163.05, 2163.06
3695 Ex Parte Nalbandian et al 10/206,894 LORIN 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BAIRD, EDWARD J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Lauterjung 10/832,159 STAICOVICI 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Warmerdam et al 10/516,663 PAK 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

See also In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“As long as some [reason,] motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”)

Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985) (“The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.”); In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539 (CCPA 1967) (“We think it is sufficient that the prior art clearly suggests doing what appellants have done, although an underlying explanation of exactly why this should be done, other than to obtain the expected superior beneficial results, is not taught or suggested in the cited references.”); In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Even if no prior art of record explicitly discusses the [limitation], [applicant’s] application itself instructs that [the limitation] is not an additional requirement imposed by the claims on the [claimed invention], but rather a property necessarily present in [the claimed invention]”).

Beattie, In re, 974 F.2d 1309, 24 USPQ2d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . 716.01(c), 2145

Obiaya, Ex parte, 227 USPQ 58 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) 707.07(f), 2145, 2258

Gershon, In re, 372 F.2d 535, 152 USPQ 602 (CCPA 1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . .716.02(c), 716.04

(appealed) Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Monnerie et al 11/285,454 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER PIZIALI, ANDREW T

NEW

REVERSED

1712 Ex Parte Blonigan et al 11/425,679 OWENS 102(e)/103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER MILLER, MICHAEL G

2437 Ex Parte Carroll 10/710,491 HAHN 102(e)/112(2)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Patent Venture Group EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2457 Ex Parte Krawetz 10/159,093 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DALENCOURT, YVES

AFFIRMED

3627 Ex Parte Buckman et al 09/875,639 CRAWFORD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

1776 Ex Parte DE BUSSY et al 11/959,734 SMITH 102(b) American Air Liquide, Inc. EXAMINER JONES, CHRISTOPHER P

1736 Ex Parte Hilgendorff et al 11/564,494 GARRIS 103(a) BASF CATALYSTS LLC EXAMINER ZIMMER, ANTHONY J

REHEARING

DENIED

1627 Ex Parte Smith 10/294,509 WALSH HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP EXAMINER FAY, ZOHREH A