REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Bacher et al McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
Ex Parte Tamai et al SMITH 102(b)/103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.
Ex Parte Riedel et al SMITH 103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP
Ex Parte Bolis SMITH 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Choi HAHN 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Crist O’NEILL 103(a) DAYCO PRODUCTS, LLC
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Matsunaga SCHEINER 102(b) SUGHRUE-265550
Ex Parte Burr et al O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP
To establish anticipation, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In other words, “there must be no difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.” Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Scripps Clinic and Res. Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 18 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . 2165.04, 2411.01
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Godbehere et al BAHR 112(2)/112(1)/102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
In any event, arguments that allegedly anticipatory prior art teaches away from the claimed invention are not germane to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. See Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc. 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Ex Parte Nelson et al FRANKLIN 103(a) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
Evidence must be reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See, e.g., In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983). When determining whether a claim is obvious, an Examiner must make “a searching comparison of the claimed invention – including all its limitations – with the teaching of the prior art.” In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis added).
Kulling, In re, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990). . . . . 2144.05, 2145
Grasselli, Ex parte, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.03, 2173.05(i)
Ochiai, In re, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . .706.02(n), 2116.01, 2144.08, 806.05(f)
Ex Parte Graham et al HANLON 112(1)/102(b) ROCKEY, DEPKE & LYONS, LLC
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Fujiwara et al SAADAT 112(1)/102(b) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Andideh et al HOFF 102(e)/103(a) Trop Pruner & Hu, PC
Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the Examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Young, In re, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01
Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144.08
Ex Parte Zhuang NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) FARJAMI & FARJAMI, L.L.P.
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hanjono et al SCHEINER 102(b) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP
Ex Parte Spear FISCHETTI 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Simon et al SCHEINER 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
Ex Parte Liu et al KERINS 102(b) PATRICK S. YODER FLETCHER YODER
