ruff, sensonics, interconnect

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Zhou et al 13188598 - (D) HARDMAN 101 AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP SKIBINSKY, ANNA

1634 Ex Parte ALBITAR 14208850 - (D) JENKS 101/103 Parker Highlander PLLC BAUSCH, SARAE L

1634 Ex Parte Matthiesen 14352815 - (D) SCHNEIDER 103/OTDP Agilent Technologies, Inc. CROW, ROBERT THOMAS

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte CANOVA et al 15029656 - (D) DENNETT 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P

Because the Examiner does not establish that the prior art recognizes the purported equivalency between Lemmer and Reymond - as is required by In re Ruff - the Examiner improperly relied on equivalence as a rationale for supporting an obviousness rejection. See In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 596 (CCPA 1958) (substitution of one equivalent for another is obvious only where equivalency is known in the prior art). Frorn our perspective, the only suggestion for putting the selected disclosures of the references together in the manner proposed by the Examiner lays in the hindsight accorded one who first viewed Appellant's disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection. See Sensonics Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("The 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." ( citing Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). 

Ruff, In re, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) 2144.06

1783 Ex Parte DOLZINSKI et al 13851555 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 Jenkins, Wilson, Taylor & Hunt, P.A. HANDVILLE, BRIAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Beller et al 15152906 - (D) SHIANG 101 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. BLANKENAGEL, BRYANS

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte NELLISSEN et al 14647141 - (D) INGLESE 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SMYTH, ANDREW P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Narayanan et al 13532837 - (D) FINAMORE 103 ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. LAMBERT, WAYNE A

3745 Ex Parte Buhl et al 14221563 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP WIBLIN, MATTHEW

3762 Ex Parte Jonsson 12742189 - (D) BAHR 103 OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP NAMAY, DANIEL ELLIOT

3792 Ex Parte Misener 14201300 - (D) CALVE 103 41.50 103 ED/Rutan & Tucker, LLP LEVICKY, WILLIAM J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Wu et al 14037528 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 41.50 103 ALLERGAN, INC. DICKINSON, PAUL W

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1737 Ex Parte Neubauer et al 14362954 - (D) McGEE 103 103 ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY c/o The Dow Chemical Company HUFF, MARK F

1791 Ex Parte Barrett et al 13624073 - (D) GARRIS 103 103 Diederiks & Whitelaw, PLC LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2488 Ex Parte Wang 14461520 - (D) DIRBA 102 112(1)/102/103 GoogleLLC c/o Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane, P.C. XU, XIAOLAN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3792 Ex Parte Gatzemeyer et al 14709140 - (D) ADAMS 101 103 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY JIAN, SHIRLEY XUEYING

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Thanoo et al 12328136 - (D) GRIMES 112(2) 103/OTDP BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP ORWIG, KEVIN S

1616 Ex Parte McInnes et al 12677236 - (D) WORTH 103 41.50 103 Foley & Lardner LLP CHUI, MEI PING

1619 Ex Parte Lodhi et al 11490414 - (D) WISZ 102/103 SurModics/Kagan Binder, PLLC ALAWADI, SARAH

1623 Ex Parte HOSAKA et al 15323928 - (D) ADAMS 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP WHITE, EVERETT

1655 Ex Parte REID et al 13840921 - (D) PRATS 103 Bayer CropScience LP CLARK, AMYL YNN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Shukla et al 15465004 - (D) FRAHM 103 MITEL NETWORKS CORP. c/o MICHELLE WHITTINGTON PERRY+ CURRIER INC. (FOR MITEL) ALRIYASHI, ABDULKADER MOHAMED

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Hunt et al 14595435 - (D) RAEVSKY 103 TUCKER ELLIS LLP EDWARDS, MARK

2658 Ex Parte Buck et al 13990176 - (D) BRANCH 101 103 Nuance c/o Daly, Crowley, Mofford and Durkee, LLP OPSASNICK, MICHAEL N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Scheibe et al 12198252 - (D) PYONIN 101 103 VLP Law Group LLP SITTNER, MICHAEL J

3624 Ex Parte Banner 13989786 - (D) JEFFERY 101 HP Inc. DICKERSON, TIPHANY B

3634 Ex Parte Roy et al 14224227 - (D) GREENHUT 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC KELLY, CATHERINE A

3682 Ex Parte WU et al 12483358 - (D) BISK 101 Potomac Law Group, PLLC (Oracle International) BROWN, LUIS A

3692 Ex Parte SAMUELS et al 14095225 - (D) MEDLOCK 102 101 TINKLER, MURIEL S TINKLER, MURIEL S

3693 Ex Parte Cataline et al 11717057 - (D) LORIN 101 41.50 101 Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP/JPMorgan Chase KHATTAR, RAJESH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte PAGAN et al 13350336 - (D) CALVE 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY ANDERSON, DON M

3763 Ex Parte Sangiovanni 13982112 - (D) FINAMORE 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier ZEC, FILIP

sensonics, interconnect

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Lee et al 13637235 - (D) SQUIRE 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. TALBOT, BRIAN K

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2863 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 14440271 - (D) KRIVAK 101 ABB - Whitmyer IP Group LLC SUN, XIUQIN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Singer et al 13465558 - (D) MURPHY 103 GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP PATEL, TARLA R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Hosoya et al 10821323 - (D) DENNETT 103 103 Sheridan Ross P.C. EGGERDING, ALIX ECHET .MEYER

However, because Johnson does not teach Li4Ti5O12, the skilled artisan would not have been motivated to employ the other teachings of Johnson and also would have no motivation to look to the disclosure of Spider, absent impermissible hindsight. “The 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)).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Calder et al 12479195 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC) SYED, FARHAN M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Chan et al 12621156 - (D) BARRY concurring MOORE 103 112(2)/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm MONIKANG, GEORGE C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Brown 14555549 - (D) CAPP 102/103 112(2) Devlin Law Firm LLC CARTER, CAMERON A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Verkoeijen et al 12812772 - (D) FRANKLIN concurring NAGUMO 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC WARDEN, JILL ALICE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Apthorp 13816149 - (D) HUGHES 103 International IP Law Group PARK, GRACE A

2161 Ex Parte Brooks et al 13855572 - (D) DANG 103 Fabian Vancott IBM CORPORATION DAYE, CHELCIE L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Chen et al 13793587 - (D) HUGHES 103 Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P. Qualcomm MIAN, OMER S

2468 Ex Parte Li et al 14000684 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT PATEL, PARTHKUMAR

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Green 12645662 - (D) HUTCHINGS 112(1)/103 101 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 DAGNEW, SABA

3682 Ex Parte MacNeille et al 13671987 - (D) HUTCHINGS 103 101/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL JOHNSON, ROBERT C

3688 Ex Parte Banerjee et al 12770947 - (D) HUGHES 101 Moore and Van Allen, PLLC CAO, VINCENT M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte WIIK et al 13531651 - (D) LANEY 112(1) 112(2) Charles E. Leahy STINSON, CHELSEA E.

3763 Ex Parte Nie 13784721 - (D) KORNICZKY 103 Dickinson Wright - BD CARPENTER, WILLIAM R

3788 Ex Parte de Thé et al 14078052 - (D) LANEY 103 OTDP CANTOR COLBURN LLP PERREAULT, ANDREW D

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte PARK et al 14065475 - (R) CASHION 103 HONEYWELL/WICK PHILLIPS MAI, THIEN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Jones et al 10676297 - (R) BAYAT 101 Docket Clerk-GOLD VYAS, ABHISHEK

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex parte INFINITY HEADWEAR & APPAREL, LLC Ex Parte 8864544 et al 13096466 90013508 - (R) MARTIN 102 KIRTON MCCONKIE ENGLE, PATRICIA LYNN original NICONOVICH, ALEXANDER R

sensonics, interconnect

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3647 Ex Parte Baron 12917886 - (D) SCHOPPER 103 VanOphem IP Law PLC EVANS, EBONY E

3665 Ex Parte Rao et al 11278043 - (D) REIMERS 103 ANGELA M, BRUNETTI, PLLC KING, RODNEY P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Hsiao 13687375 - (D) KHAN 112(1)/103 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES LEE, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Brown 11528737 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(2) 102 Robert Bosch LLC PAULS, JOHN A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Stroud et al 12777508 - (D) CALVE 103 103 TRASKBRITT, P.C./ ORBITAL ATK, INC. GOYAL, ARUN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Molenda et al 13062017 - (D) MAJORS 103 NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA ALLEY, GENEVIEVE S

1619 Ex Parte Halter et al 13130939 - (D) JENKS 102 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS THAKOR, DEV ANG K

1656 Ex Parte Smith et al 12999185 - (D) TOWNSEND 103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC STEADMAN, DAVID J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte MILLER 13483596 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Merchant & Gould - Chevron MAYES, MELVIN C

1736 Ex Parte Bruggendick et al 12384159 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 K&L Gates LLP-Charlotte WALCK, BRIAND

1772 Ex Parte Digne et al 13060457 - (D) BEST 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. LOUIE, PHILIP Y

1781 Ex Parte Busch et al 12295131 - (D) ROSS 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) FERGUSON, LAWRENCE D

Moreover, we find no evidence that the Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight reasoning as the Examiner's articulated reasons for combining the teachings of Narita, Sawai, and Tokiwa are supported by the prior art disclosures themselves. See, e.g., 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 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.").

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Liesche et al 11865754 - (D) GALLIGAN 101/103 DELIZIO LAW, PLLC BM AUSTIN IPLA W (DL) FIBBI, CHRISTOPHER J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte AHN 13219114 - (D) HUME 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C OWENS, TSION B

2488 Ex Parte GunasekaranBabu et al 12642944 - (D) HORVATH 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH PE, GEEPY

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Gerber et al 13019282 - (D) NAPPI 102/103 Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE

2669 Ex Parte Holland et al 12256962 - (D) HOMERE 101/103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP BITAR, NANCY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte King et al 11742890 - (D) CAPP 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P,CJFG1L VANAMAN, FRANK BENNETT

3686 Ex Parte Jung et al 11824529 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC REYES, REGINALD R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte McMahan et al 12719674 - (D) WOODS 103 Fletcher Yoder PC GE Power & Water LEGENDRE, CHRISTOPHER RY AN

3777 Ex Parte Chernov et al 13108129 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 41.50 103 Covidien LP KINNARD, LISA M

sensonics, myers, jacoby, gorman

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Poikselka 10880982 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. VOSTAL, ONDREJ C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Epstien et al 10429230 - (D) FETTING 103 Edell Shapiro & Finnan LLC PATS, JUSTIN

3638 Ex Parte Behrens et al 12083167 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Cozen O'Connor BUCKLE JR, JAMES J

Thus, on the record before us, it appears that the Examiner drew upon hindsight knowledge of
the claimed invention, and “use[d] the invention as a template for its own reconstruction—an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(citations omitted). Accordingly, we must reverse the Examiner’s rejections.

REMANDED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Karpf et al 11645067 - (D) PER CURIAM 102(e) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP KUDDUS, DANIEL A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Simmons et al 11522395 - (D) GREENHUT 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC RISIC, ABIGAIL ANNE

Patent specifications are written for those skilled in the art and, therefore, need not teach or point out in detail that which is wellknown in the art. In re Myers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969). In fact, the omission of that which is well-known is preferred. MPEP § 2164.08. Our inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) takes into account the fact that that which is old, well-known, or obvious is often left unstated. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962) (an artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references disclose). For these reasons, it has been held that reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Gorman, In re, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 707.07(f) , 2145

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Dieffenderfer 11627705 - (D) HOMERE 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED BERNARD, DANIEL J

2184 Ex Parte Roy 12031412 - (D) KOHUT 102/103 Oblon, Spivak/Broadcom Corporation MAMO, ELIAS

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Bhakta et al 11613214 - (D) BUI 103 IBM CORPORATION SHAHEED, KHALID W

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Dassanayake et al 13172435 - (D) HASTINGS 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. NEILS, PEGGY A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Edgett et al 10843790 - (D) WORTH 102(e)/103 IPASS INC. (DeLizio Gilliam) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC HAYES, JOHN W

3682 Ex Parte Nicholas et al 11134116 - (D) FETTING 101/103 CARDINAL LAW GROUP DURAN, ARTHUR D

miles labs, sensonics, gore, interconnect, energizer holdings

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1791 Ex Parte Obermann 10492787 - (D) HASTINGS 112(2)/103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP DICUS, TAMRA

“The test for definiteness is whether one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification. If the claims read in light of the specification reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention, § 112 demands no more.” Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon, Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

Miles Labs. Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 27 USPQ2d 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.01(a)

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Basir et al 11046523 - (D) KILE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. MAWARI, REDHWAN K

To draw on knowledge of Appellants’ own invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction. Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The 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. Id. (citing with approval Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983) 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Castleberry 11258920 - (D) HOFFMANN 112(2)/102 102(2)/103 GIPPLE & HALE HAYES, KRISTEN C

If the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that “anode gel” provided by implication the antecedent basis for “zinc anode”);

Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2173.05(e)

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1763 Ex Parte Takagi et al 11887435 - (D) McKELVEY 103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. FINK, BRIEANN R

1764 Ex Parte Li et al 12165051 - (D) McKELVEY 103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC BOYLE, ROBERT C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Lamoureux 11256327 - (D) ANDERSON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BATURAY, ALICIA

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3628 2761 VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. v. SAP AMERICA, INC. 12-1029 6,553,350 09/253,427 5,878,400 08/664,837 RADER '350 permanent injunction infringement/damages '400 non-infringement McKool Smith, P.C., Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP POINVIL, FRANTZY HUGHET, WILLIAM N

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1614 1614 ALLERGAN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANDOZ INC., ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., ALCON RESEARCH, LTD., ALCON, INC., AND FALCON PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., Defendants-Appellants, AND APOTEX INC. AND APOTEX CORP., Defendants-Appellants, AND WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. 11-1619 7,323,463 10/357,622 7,030,149 10/126,790 PROST concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part DYK '149 103 '463 103 Fish & Richardson P.C. Morrison & Foerster, LLP ALLERGAN, INC. ALLERGAN, INC. KWON, YONG SOK KWON, YONG SOK

gray, davis, norian, sensonics

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Alicherry et al 10/426,501 DROESCH 102(b) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R

2163 Ex Parte Meiresonne 09/938,163 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, MERILYN P

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Kregel 12/099,930 DROESCH 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER CUMMING, WILLIAM D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Alam et al 11/767,574 KIM 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER JABR, FADEY S

Appellant is their own lexicographer, and by using the transitional phrase “consist of,” Appellant has made a conscious choice to exclude systems that gather information from resources other than those listed. See In re Gray, 53 F.2d 520, 521 (CCPA 1931). While there are two exceptions to such exclusions, neither are applicable here. See Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (impurities are not excluded); Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 1331-32 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (items unrelated to the group are not excluded).

Gray, In re, 53 F.2d 520, 11 USPQ 255 (CCPA 1931). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

Davis, Ex parte, 80 USPQ 448 (Bd. App. 1948).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 70 USPQ2d 1508 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . 2111.03

3643 Ex Parte Grimaldi 11/175,769 ASTORINO 103(a) Mitchell D. Bittman EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Rathsack et al 10/409,285 GREENHUT 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER HSU, RYAN

To use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction is “an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).

3784 Ex Parte Choi 10/683,600 SPAHN 103(a) ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE, LLP EXAMINER JIANG, CHEN WEN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Graham et al 10/278,763 COURTENAY 103(a) 103(a) SOMMER BARNARD PC EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 Ex Parte Shumarayev et al 11/006,420 STEPHENS 103(a) 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICES OF MAXIMILIAN R. PETERSON EXAMINER WHITE, DYLAN C

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Martin et al 11/453,689 SAINDON Dissenting McCARTHY 103(a)/102(b) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER RESTIFO, JEFFREY J

3684 Ex Parte Martignoni 11/789,331 KIM 102(b)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Scott P. Zimmerman, PLLC - Others EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Strauser 11/672,784 GREENHUT 103(a) 103(a) LARSON AND LARSON EXAMINER YIP, JACK
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte McClung 11/056,773 GARRIS 103(a) Matheson Keys Garsson & Kordzik PLLC EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Pilu et al 10/868,368 EASTHOM 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D

2173 Ex Parte Cowan et al 11/313,903 DANG 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER RIEGLER, PATRICK F

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Bandholz et al 11/008,811 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER RICHARDSON, THOMAS W

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Nakao 11/143,576 DILLON 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER FISCHER, MARK L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex Parte Bawendi et al 10/958,659 ROBERTSON 102(e)/103(a) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP EXAMINER PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D

2829 Ex Parte Lim et al 10/664,982 HAHN 103(a) CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, HA T

2893 Ex Parte Farlow et al 11/409,298 STEPHENS 103(a) FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, DILINH P

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Nagao 10/965,846 CRAWFORD 112(2)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER COPPOLA, JACOB C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3784 Ex Parte Najewicz 11/437,003 KOHUT 103(a) General Electric Company EXAMINER BAUER, CASSEY D

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