perfect web

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Carolan et al 14163693 - (D) JENKS 103 ADE & COMPANY INC. STEVENS, MARK V

1644 Ex Parte Ambati 11357288 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(1) CROWELL & MORING LLP WEN, SHARON X

1654 Ex Parte Sirard et al 14185077 - (D) TOWNSEND 103/OTDP W&C IP MARTINEZ, TARA L

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Lorgouilloux et al 14406915 - (D) HOUSEL 103 WHITAKER CHALK SWINDLE & SCHWARTZ PLLC GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F

1773 Ex Parte CARPENTER et al 14096289 - (D) OWENS 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD MCCULLOUGH, ERIC J.

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2488 Ex Parte COULTER 15131076 - (D) COURTENAY 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. DULEY, JANESE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte SATO et al 14193912 - (D) EVANS 103/OTDP OLIFF PLC NGUYEN, KEVIN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Miller 14313969 - (D) BAYAT 103/OTDP THE BLK LAW GROUP KUHFUSS, ZACHARY L

3657 Ex Parte KARPENKO et al 14843008 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(2)/103 JONES ROBB, PLLC (w/Ford Motor Co.) SY, MARIANO ONG

3677 Ex Parte Malia et al 13960009 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 Reising Ethington P.C. MORGAN, EMILY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Gavin 13548791 - (D) BAYAT 103 Polsinelli LLP - SIEA MCCULLOCH JR, WILLIAM H

3752 Ex Parte BORINATO 14162234 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 Dentons US LLP KIM, CHRISTOPHER S

3763 Ex Parte Jassani et al 13700201 - (D) ENGELS 103 PEARNE & GORDON LLP ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R

3771 Ex Parte Scheller et al 12675394 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 Medtronic Vascular - APV Division COLELLO, ERIN L

3771 Ex Parte Walters et al 14569291 - (D) HOELTER 103 OFFIT KURMAN HIGHLAND, RACHEL S

3774 Ex Parte Benson 13083719 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 Merchant & Gould Hologic PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E

3786 Ex Parte Chua 13489811 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC NGUYEN,CAMTUTRAN

3793 Ex Parte MCNAIR 12688593 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (Cerner Corporation) LUONG, PETER

3793 Ex Parte BUELOW et al 14334176 - (D) SONG 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS HOFFA, ANGELA MARIE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2467 Ex Parte KAMDAR et al 14649695 - (D) DEJMEK 102 102 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Nokia Technologies Oy DUONG, DUC T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Bradford et al 14281246 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 103 41.50 103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP PATEL, BRIJESH V

3792 Ex Parte Perschbacher et al 15265674 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 112(2)/112(4) SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC LEVICKY, WILLIAM J

The mere fact that elements can be combined is not, in itself, a reason to combine them. Rather, an obviousness rejection further must explain the reasoning by which those findings support the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. Info USA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-30 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Hence, in this case, we agree with Appellants that "there is no [reasonable] reason to conclude that a random one of Blow's [sensing] vectors would be better than the specific [sensing] vector disclosed by Kim." Reply Brief (dated Mar. 26, 2018) at 3. 

In conclusion, absent hindsight, we fail to see why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have provided Blow's second unipolar sensing vector between Kim's proximal coil electrode 116 and can electrode 209 in the manner claimed. 

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte NILSSON et al 14212503 - (D) PRATS OTDP 41.50 112(1) CLARK & ELBING LLP CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA

1633 Ex Parte Borlongan et al 14489934 - (D) POLLOCK 103 SANBIO, INC. c/o LEVINE BAGADE HAN LLP SCHULTZ, JAMES

1634 Ex Parte Wehkamp et al 13141315 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP SITTON, JEHANNE SOUAY A

1635 Ex Parte Linke et al 14604252 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 Smith & Hopen (private clients) Attn: General Patent Matters SHIN, DANA H

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Loescher et al 14363311 - (D) HOUSEL 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY BLADES, JOHN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Grube et al 13527811 - (D) KRIVAK 103 Garlick & Markison (IBM) JENKINS, BENJAMIN A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte McArdle et al 14211786 - (D) FRAHM 112(1) 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Dropbox (I) SUN, HAI TAO

2628 Ex Parte Katz et al 15090527 - (D) KUMAR 102/103/OTDP FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y

2628 Ex Parte Katz et al 15096674 - (D) KUMAR 103/OTDP FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y

2628 Ex Parte Katz et al 15144209 - (D) KUMAR 102 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y

2643 Ex Parte Sorrentino 14536835 - (D) SHAW 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. SHAHEED, KHALID W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Holt et al 14131778 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 103 CAESAR RIVISE, PC FRANK, RODNEY T

2892 Ex Parte Prechtl et al 14243332 - (D) REN 102/103 MURPHY, BILAK & HOMILLER/INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES HUBER, ROBERT T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Ferguson et al 13030794 - (D) HUGHES 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP/VISA OBAID, FATEH M

3634 Ex Parte Gaines 12161127 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 112(2) CARGILL & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. BRADFORD, CANDACE L

3692 Ex Parte Weber 14193296 - (D) FISCHETTI 102/103 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP/VISA TINKLER, MURIEL S

3696 Ex Parte Nuzzi et al 14063786 - (D) SILVERMAN 101 Haynes & Boone, LLP (70481) CHANG, EDWARD

3696 Ex Parte Lamour et al 14341078 - (D) FETTING 101 IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US) CHANG, EDWARD

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Mackay 13455581 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. DIOP, ROKHAYA

3774 Ex Parte Stanfield et al 13708616 - (D) WARNER 102/103 112(2) Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

3791 Ex Parte Averbuch 13286977 - (D) POLLOCK 103 Covidien LP TRAN, THO Q

3794 Ex Parte ARENA et al 13332133 - (D) GUIJT 103 NEW RIVER VALLEY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, PC FOWLER, DANIEL WAYNE

perfect web

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Weber 12720223 - (D) MILLS 103 Fish & Richardson PC BECKHARDT, LYNDSEY MARIE

REEXAMINATION

GRANTED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3713 NINTENDO OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, INC., AND MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Requester, v. ADC TECHNOLOGY, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 6,702,585 et al 95001236 10/307,886 90009522 - (D) SIU 103 DAVIS & BUJOLD, P.L.L.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER Erise IP, PA WOOD, WILLIAM H original CHENG, JOE H

See Perfect Web [Tech., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009)] (“[W]hile an analysis of obviousness always depends on evidence that supports the required Graham factual findings, it also may include recourse to logic, judgement, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.”).

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 ARTERIS, INC., Requester, v. SONICS, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7,191,273 et al 10/963,271 95000663 - (R) SIU 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PATENT GROUP C/O DLA PIPER US LLP KE, PENG original AUVE, GLENN ALLEN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 ARTERIS, INC. and QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, Requester, v. SONICS, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 6816814 et al 10/293,734 95000667 - (R) SIU 102/103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: PATENT GROUP C/O DLA PIPER US LLP KE, PENG original DESTA, ELIAS

bozek, mintz, perfect web, paperless

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Maguire et al 11876965 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL MOHADDES, LADAN

1734 Ex Parte Eckhardt et al 10257760 - (D) HASTINGS 112(2)/103 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. FELTON, AILEEN BAKER

AFFIRMED IN PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Akimoto et al 11276662 - (D) OBERMANN 103 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. KOCH, GEORGE R

1773 Ex Parte May et al 11838384 - (D) OBERMANN 103 102/103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP LUDLOW, JAN M

An examiner’s reasoning “may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill,” which does “not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.” See Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) (examiner may rely on “common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference”). However, “the mere recitation of the words ‘common sense’ without any support adds nothing to the obviousness equation.” Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Giniger 11355500 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Berenbaum Weinshienk PC SUTTON, DARRYL C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Cruickshank et al 09995056 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 ARRIS PATEL, DHAIRYA A

2488 Ex Parte Battles 10859029 - (D) FRAHM 101/102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PERUNGAVOOR, SATHYANARAYA V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2665 Ex Parte Jeon et al 11907460 - (D) FRAHM 112(1)/112(2)/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. AHMED, SAMIR ANWAR

2665 Ex Parte Tu et al 11003229 - (D) EVANS 102/103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. JOHNS, ANDREW W

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Russell et al 11581620 - (D) OSINSKI 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. LEACH, ERIN MARIE BOYD

3651 Ex Parte Hart et al 12115729 - (D) DANIELS 102 BERENATO & WHITE, LLC HESS, DOUGLAS A  

REHEARING  
DENIED Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Zhao-Wilson et al 11378032 - (D) PRATS 102 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN MARTINELL, JAMES

See 35 U.S.C. § 6 (Board’s duty is to review adverse decisions of examiners); see also, Paperless Accounting, Inc. v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 663 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (rejection in final rejection not commented on in examiner’s answer not an adverse decision considered by Board).

Paperless Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 231 USPQ 649 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2133.01

dance, perfect web, vaidyanathan, KSR

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1776 Ex Parte Carson et al 10/510,865 GAUDETTE 103(a) General Electric Company EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O

Evidence of obviousness must come from the prior art, not the applicant’s own disclosure. In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[T]o invoke ‘common sense’ or any other basis for extrapolating from prior art to a conclusion of obviousness,” the fact finder “must articulate [his or her] reasoning with sufficient clarity for review.” Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); see also, In re Vaidyanathan, 381 Fed.Appx. 985, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (non-precedential) (“KSR did not free the PTO’s examination process from explaining its reasoning. In making an obviousness rejection, the examiner should not rely on conclusory statements that a particular feature of the invention would have been obvious or was well known. Instead, the examiner should elaborate, discussing the evidence or reasoning that leads the examiner to such a conclusion.”).

Dance, In re, 160 F.3d 1339, 48 USPQ2d 1635 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01

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

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Davis et al 11/132,658 DESHPANDE 103(a) IBM Corporation EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11/444,004 FREDMAN 102(b) Covidien EXAMINER TRUONG, KEVIN THAO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Melzak et al 10/914,468 ROBERTSON 103(a) 103(a) DEMONT & BREYER, LLC EXAMINER PHAM, LONG
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Huang et al 11/556,322 GREEN 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER PURDY, KYLE A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1728 Ex Parte Trabold et al 12/016,014 OWENS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER CHAN, HENG M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Chauvel et al 10/830,917 DANG 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E

2185 Ex Parte Loafman 11/778,054 JEFFERY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting IBM CORP. (AUS) C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES BAUDINO, PLLC EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Kataoka 11/291,129 WINSOR 103(a) IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. EXAMINER BEHARRY, NOEL R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Tolbert 10/998,213 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER WILLIAMS, STEPHANIE ELAINE

3762 Ex Parte Haller et al 11/221,095 FREDMAN 103(a) Wong, Cabello, Lutsch, Rutherford & Brucculeri LLP (Boston Scientific) EXAMINER MANUEL, GEORGE C

vaidyanathan, perfect web

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Evans 10/629,642 GAUDETTE 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP HARTFORD EXAMINER OGDEN JR, NECHOLUS

See In re Vaidyanathan, 381 Fed.Appx. 985, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (non-precedential) (“KSR did not free the PTO’s examination process from explaining its reasoning. In making an obviousness rejection, the examiner should not rely on conclusory statements that a particular feature of the invention would have been obvious or was well known. Instead, the examiner should elaborate, discussing the evidence or reasoning that leads the examiner to such a conclusion.”); Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[T]o invoke ‘common sense’ or any other basis for extrapolating from prior art to a conclusion of obviousness, a district court must articulate its reasoning with sufficient clarity for review.”).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Ichikawa et al 10/102,344 FETTING 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER CASLER, TRACI
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte DeCenzo 11/147,137 HAHN 103(a) 103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, P.C. EXAMINER LO, KENNETH M
REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2831 Ex Parte 5,763,831 et al Ex parte TayMac Corporation 90/008,823 08/450,559 COCKS 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: BOOTH UDALL, PLC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: WILLIAM F. PENDERGAST BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original EXAMINER PATEL, DHIRUBHAI R
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1646 Ex Parte Dowling et al 11/016,106 McCOLLUM 101/112(1) MERCK EXAMINER LI, RUIXIANG

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Hashimoto et al 10/671,905 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER LAZARO, DAVID R

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Katz et al 10/451,845 FETTING 112(2)/102(E)/103(a) NEIFELD IP LAW, PC EXAMINER RETTA, YEHDEGA

perfect web

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/22/2011 2164 Ex Parte Dudley et al 10/914,692 COURTENAY 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

2600 Communications
07/22/2011 2624 Ex Parte Baer et al 10/392,758 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b)/103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER PERUNGAVOOR, SATHYANARAYA V
REEXAMINATION REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
07/22/2011 2824 Ex parte Seed Layers Technology, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,846 6,136,707 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: FORTKORT & HOUSTON P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: WITHROW & TERRANOVA P.L.L.C. EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER PYONIN, ADAM

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/22/2011 1723 Ex Parte Koll 11/157,993 GUEST 103(a) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER MOWLA, GOLAM

07/22/2011 1731 Ex Parte Mirchandani et al 10/848,437 GARRIS 102(a)/103(a) TraskBritt/BHI-ATI EXAMINER CHRISTIE, ROSS J

07/22/2011 1781 Ex Parte Kwitek 11/249,466 MILLS 103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER WATTS, JENNA A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
07/25/2011 3764 Ex Parte Geibel et al 11/041,860 KAUFFMAN 103(a) BLYNN L. SHIDELER THE BLK LAW GROUP EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

See Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“while an analysis of obviousness always depends on evidence … it also may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference”).

perfect web,KSR,

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Keck et al 10/950,881 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER CHEVALIER, ALICIA ANN 

Ex Parte Ott et al 11/142,786 TIMM 103(a) MCNEES, WALLACE & NURICK LLC EXAMINER ZHU, WEIPING 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Raczuk 10/752,110 BAHR 102(b) KRIEG DEVAULT LLP EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Gross 11/369,660 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) LAW OFFICE OF J. NICHOLAS GROSS EXAMINER RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM 

DENIED 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Ramberg et al 10/131,881 GAUDETTE 103(a) HONEYWELL/FOGG EXAMINER PRITCHETT, JOSHUA L 

In KSR, the Court indicated that there is "no necessary inconsistency between the idea underlying the TSM test and the Graham analysis" provided that the test is not applied as a "rigid and mandatory" formula. Id. at 419. The TSM test is applied in an overly rigid and formalistic manner when the "obviousness analysis" is confined "by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents." Id. 

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

"Common sense has long been recognized to inform the analysis of obviousness if explained with sufficient reasoning and where there is a factual foundation from which the analysis flows." Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009).