Wednesday December 8, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1635 Ex Parte Bruno et al 11/058,054 FREDMAN ADAMS MILLS 103(a) WINSTEAD PC EXAMINER CHONG, KIMBERLY

Kubin stated that

[t]o differentiate between proper and improper applications of ‘obvious to try,’ this court outlined two classes of situations where ‘obvious to try’ is erroneously equated with obviousness under § 103. In the first class of cases, what would have been ‘obvious to try’ would have been to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful.

In re Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359 (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at 903).

O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Harrison et al 10/774,616 McCARTHY BARRETT PATE III 102(b) WILEY REIN LLP EXAMINER LE, TAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Murray et al 11/383,201 SILVERBERG BARRETT KERINS 102(b)/103(a)
WOLFF LAW OFFICE, PLLC EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

3741 Ex Parte Tiemann et al 10/524,523 PATE III HORNER STAICOVICI 103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER SUNG, GERALD LUTHER

However, the claimed invention “must be viewed not after the blueprint has been drawn by the inventor, but as it would have been perceived in the state of the art that existed at the time the invention was made.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which posed the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Mineral Separation v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 (1916) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.01

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/301,918 SAADAT EASTHOM KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER SURVILLO, OLEG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Nevin 11/318,202 HORNER KERINS MCCARTHY 103(a) EXAMINER ROBINSON, DANIEL LEON EPSTEIN DRANGEL LLP

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1617 Ex parte ALZA CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,142 6,440,457 LEBOVITZ
DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) cc (Patent Owner): RATNERPRESTIA cc (Third Party Requester): WILMERHALE/DC EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L original EXAMINER WEBMAN, EDWARD J

“References relied upon to support a rejection under 35 USC 103 must provide an enabling disclosure, i.e., they must place the claimed invention in the possession of the public.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 314
(CCPA 1979).

Payne, In re, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) . . . 716.02(a), 716.02(e), 2144.09

“Thus, upon careful reconsideration it is our view that if the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a method for making a claimed compound, at the time the invention was made, it may not be legally concluded that the compound itself is in the possession of the public. [footnote omitted].” In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 274 (CCPA 1968).

Hoeksema, In re, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). . . . . . . 2121.01, 2121.02,2144.09, 2145

AFFIRMED

3634 Ex Parte Barkman et al 11/071,813 SILVERBERG EXAMINER JOHNSON, BLAIR M
1633 Ex Parte Gromeier et al 10/304,059 PRATS EXAMINER KELLY, ROBERT M
3732 Ex Parte Kuo 10/894,555 FREDMAN EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE
2839 Ex Parte Lavie 10/644,416 SAADAT EXAMINER TA, THO DAC
3774 Ex Parte Lukic 10/101,378 MILLS EXAMINER STEWART, ALVIN J
3724 Ex Parte Pennell et al 11/524,148 STAICOVICI EXAMINER ALIE, GHASSEM
2872 Ex Parte Piehl et al 11/284,225 MacDONALD EXAMINER PRITCHETT, JOSHUA L
3673 Ex Parte Ricketts 11/343438 SILVERBERG EXAMINER CONLEY, FREDRICK C

REHEARING

DENIED

2445 Ex Parte Gilbert et al 10/635,586 LUCAS EXAMINER BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D