REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Farrar et al SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) FELDMANGALE, P.A.

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Majumdar et al KRATZ 103(a) Paul A. Leipold, Eastman Kodak Company

If the Examiner’s proposed modification runs counter to the intended purpose of the prior art, the Examiner typically has failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144.08

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Conley et al HUGHES 103(a) Goodwin Procter LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Kelley WALSH 102(e)/103(a) CROMPTON, SEAGER & TUFTE, LLC

“To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131.01

Ex Parte Lind et al GRIMES 103(a) THE CULBERTSON GROUP, P.C.

“We must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Wei et al LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.