hall, heyna, mcclain, passal, lohr, muchmore

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/193,444 GRIMES 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SHOMER, ISAAC

1618 Ex Parte Knight Castro et al 10/510,454 MILLS 103(a) Tim A Cheatham Mallinckrodt Inc EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN

Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, "public accessibility‟ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a "printed publication‟ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). . . . The proponent of the publication bar must show that prior to the critical date the reference was sufficiently accessible, at least to the public interested in the art, so that such a one by examining the reference could make the claimed invention without further research or experimentation. In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898-899 (Fed. Cir. 1986).Hall, In re, 781 F.2d 897, 228 USPQ 453 (Fed. Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . .2128, 2128.01, 2128.02

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Ye et al 10/689,186 DESHPANDE 102(b)/112(1) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER HILLERY, NATHAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Thompson et al 10/943,221 FREDMAN 102(b) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

3761 Ex Parte Sperl et al 11/026,423 PRATS 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Malitski 11/212,317 KIM 102(b) 102(b) SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER LEVINE, ADAM L
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Classen et al 11/640,514 GUADETTE 102(b)/103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER KO, JASON Y

1766 Ex Parte Henning et al 11/771,496 McKELVEY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER NEGRELLI, KARA B

Applicable precedent requires an applicant attempting to show unexpected results to establish its case with clear and convincing evidence. In re Heyna, 360 F.2d 222, 228 (CCPA 1966) ("It was incumbent upon appellants to submit clear and convincing evidence to support their allegation of unexpected property."). See also McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 429 (1891) (conclusive evidence needed to establish new function); In re Passal, 426 F.2d 409, 412 (CCPA 1970) ("Certainly, at least, that 'clear and convincing evidence' of unexpected properties required by this court in In re Lohr . . . is lacking.") and In re Lohr, 317 F.2d 388, 392 (CCPA 1963)( "When a new compound so closely related to a prior art compound as to be structurally obvious is sought to be patented based on the alleged greater effectiveness of the new compound for the same purpose as the old compound, clear and convincing evidence of substantially greater effectiveness is needed.")

...

In re Muchmore, 433 F.2d 824, 826 (CCPA 1970) (claims which include obvious subject matter and non-obvious subject matter are not patentable under § 103).
1785 Ex Parte Tran et al 11/103,827 PER CURIAM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HIGGINS, GERARD T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Roth et al 10/992,261 SCHEINER 102(e)/103(a) FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP EXAMINER HOFFMAN, MARY C

3737 Ex Parte Camus et al 11/500,536 WALSH 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER SMITH, RUTH S

3774 Ex Parte Ta et al 11/104,862 BAHR 103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER GANESAN, SUBA