mlot-fijalkowski, keller, specialty

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1642 Ex Parte Fodstad et al 11/047,913 PRATS 103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER EXAMINER YU, MISOOK

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1762 Ex Parte Hung et al 10/408,141 FRANKLIN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER NILAND, PATRICK DENNIS

1789 Ex Parte Sandhu 10/903,295 GARRIS 103(a) Wells St. John P.S. EXAMINER GEORGE, PATRICIA ANN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2111 Ex Parte Rhee 11/244,482 POTHIER 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER MISIURA, BRIAN THOMAS

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2444 Ex Parte Curran et al 10/154,009 POTHIER 102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER SHAW, PELING ANDY

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components

2838 Ex Parte Sutardja 10/810,452 RUGGIERO 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. EXAMINER ROSARIO BENITEZ, GUSTAVO A

2893 Ex Parte Otsuka et al 10/350,219 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, DILINH P

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

3643 Ex Parte Modglin 10/919,079 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) Hovey Williams LLP EXAMINER POON, PETER M

3656 Ex Parte Nagle et al 11/561,122 SPAHN 103(a) MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP EXAMINER LUONG, VINH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3742 Ex Parte Vinegar et al 10/693,816 O’NEILL 103(a) DEL CHRISTENSEN SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER CAMPBELL, THOR S

3746 Ex Parte Krisher 11/094,581 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EXAMINER WEINSTEIN, LEONARD J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2172 Ex Parte Parker et al 10/174,619 COURTENAY 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER PILLAI, NAMITHA

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1627 Ex Parte Gershon 10/883,406 GREEN obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1771 Ex Parte Ayoub et al 11/446,853 KRATZ 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2179 Ex Parte Phillips et al 10/656,015 DIXON 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2493 Ex Parte Lazaridis 12/751,263 ZECHER 112(2)/103(a) Leveque Intellectual Property Law, P.C. EXAMINER THIAW, CATHERINE B

Evidence of classification of prior art in different categories by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “is inherently weak . . . because considerations in forming a classification system differ from those relating to a person of ordinary skill seeking solution for a particular problem.” In re Mlot-Fijalkowski, 676 F.2d 666, 670 n.5 (CCPA 1982).

Mlot-Fijalkowski, In re, 676 F.2d 666, 213 USPQ 713 (CCPA 1982) . . . . . . . . . 2141.01(a)

2600 Communications

2612 Ex Parte Tylicki et al 10/890,620 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER WALK, SAMUEL J

“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425.

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f), 2145

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3733 Ex Parte Justis et al 11/341,239 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) Medtronic, Inc. (Spinal) EXAMINER HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA

3761 Ex Parte Rosenberg 10/656,973 McCARTHY 103(a) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R

3768 Ex Parte Doorn et al 11/192,203 SCHEINER 103(a) LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU

See Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“If the invention here would not have been obvious to one of extraordinary skill, it follows that in this case it would not be obvious to one with lesser skills.”).