REVERSED
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Chen et al BAUMEISTER 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.

Any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on
hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which
was within the level of ordinary skill in the art 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).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Wenning et al PATE III 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION

The prior art may anticipate a claimed invention, and thereby render it non-novel, either expressly or inherently. In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Express anticipation occurs when the prior art expressly discloses each limitation (i.e., each element) of a claim. Id. In addition, “[i]t is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless inherent in it.” Id.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Han et al LEE 112(1)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP

One shows “possession” of the invention by describing the invention using such description means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Circ. 1997). It is not necessary that the exact terms that appear in the claim also appear in the description. Id.

Ex Parte Van Deursen KERINS 103(a) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP

Ex Parte Masumura et al HORNER 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC