REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Camelot et al NAGUMO 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER, LLP
encapsulated particles comprising crystalline lactic acid and a wetting agent
Frank H.Y. Chung and Sylvie Marie-Pierre Lavault, EP 0 699 392 a2 (1996)
Wen-Hsin Wu et al., U.S. 6,153,236 (2000)
Phillip J. Percel and Douglas W. Perkins, U.S. 4,537,784 (1985)
Ex Parte Laney et al OWENS 102(b)/103(a) PAUL A. LEIPOLD EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
method for making a permeable microvoided polylactic acid-based monolayer film
Morita 5,405,887 Apr. 11, 1995
Matsumoto 5,443,780 Aug. 22, 1995
Laney 6,379,780 B1 Apr. 30, 2002
In Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the court stated that a temperature range of 100 to 500°C which entirely encompassed a range of 330 to 450°C did not anticipate that narrower range because
"[g]iven the considerable difference between the claimed range and the range in the prior art, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the prior art describes the claimed range with sufficient specificity to anticipate this limitation of the claim."
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Striemer HOMERE 103(a) IBM CORPORATION
method and system for automatically detecting users of portable devices that are compatible
Baker US 2001/0048449 A1 Dec. 6, 2001
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Bricker et al GAUDETTE 103(a) TYCO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
A cable comprising: a core comprising at least one twisted pair of insulated wires; and a jacket surrounding said core
Despard (US 6,310,295, issued Oct. 30, 2001)
Wentworth (GB 725,624, issued Mar. 9, 1955)
"Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
