REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Nakai et al WALSH 102(b)/102(a) CERMAK & KENEALY LLP
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Fucsko et al GARRIS 102(b) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
In relying upon the theory of inherency, an Examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1463 (BPAI 1990).
Ex Parte Spyrou et al GARRIS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Munetsugu et al BLAKENSHIP 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
Ex Parte Cantwell et al HOMERE 102(e) HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC
Ex Parte Lovvik et al HOMERE 103(a) SUN MICROSYSTEMS C/O SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Shevenell et al RUGGIERO 103(a) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP
2600 Communications
Ex parte WOODS et al KRIVAK 103(a) Stephen C. Durant Morrison & Foerster, L.L.P.
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Preukschat et al STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP
Ex Parte Inuzuka et al BARRETT 102(a)/103(a) HAUPTMAN KANESAKA & BERNER
Ex Parte O'DOUGHERTY et al SILVERBERG 112(2)/103(a) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY / TECHNOLOGY LAW
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Werner GREEN 103(a) ANSEL M. SCHWARTZ
Ex Parte Cantrell BAHR 102(b)/103(a) R REAMS GOODLOE, JR. & R. REAMS GOODLOE, P.S.
When a word of degree, such as the term “generally,” is used in a claim, we look to the specification to determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. See Seattle Box Company, Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Ex Parte Zsigmond SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) DENNIS F ARMIJO
Ex Parte Waldeck BAHR 102(b) PAUL AND PAUL
Ex Parte Werner GREEN 103(a) ANSEL M. SCHWARTZ
Ex Parte Gerder et al WALSH 103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC
NUIJTEN - 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Chakravarthy et al MACDONALD 102(b)/103(a)/101 INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Brunson GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) KEISLING PIEPER & SCOTT PLC
"The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Where the Examiner establishes a reasonable assertion of inherency and thereby evinces that a claimed process appears to be identical to a process disclosed by the prior art and/or that the products claimed by the applicant and disclosed in the prior art appear to be the same, the burden is properly shifted to the applicant to show that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-56 (CCPA 1977); cf., In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (noting that inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities).
All evidence of nonobviousness, including data in the specification, must be considered when assessing patentability, In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing In re Margolis, 785 F.2d 1029, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Sun et al MACDONALD 102(e)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(B) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Ex Parte Wilensky et al C. THOMAS 102(b) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Pearson et al NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
Ex Parte Chauhan NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) FELLERS, SNIDER, BLANKENSHIP, BAILEY & TIPPENS, P.C.
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Bloom et al MILLS 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) REISING, ETHINGTON, BARNES, KISSELLE, P.C.
"[T]he discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious." Exceptions to this rule include (1) the results of optimizing a variable were unexpectedly good and (2) the parameter optimized was not recognized in the prior art as one which would affect the results. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977).
