REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Dong et al OWENS 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, LLP
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Gloe JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Schroeder et al HAIRSTON 103(a) AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Watatani COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD
Ex Parte Ludwig JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & WAIMEY
To anticipate under § 102, the prior art reference “must not only disclose all elements within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
“Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Id. at 1371. See also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (“[T]he [prior art] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.”).
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Chamberlain HORNER 103(a) W. ALLEN MARCONTELL
Ex Parte Fukumura HORNER 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Laux et al HAIRSTON 112(1)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Graham et al MARTIN 102(b)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
Appellants concede that drawings can anticipate claims when they clearly show the structure that is claimed (citing MPEP § 2125 and In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069 (CCPA 1972)), but also correctly point out that drawings “cannot be relied upon for precise proportions or particular sizes of objects when the specification is silent on the matter,” citing Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2125
Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2125
Ex Parte Marks et al WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
Mere lawyer's arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re GEISLER, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Geisler, In re, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.05, 2145
De Blauwe, In re, 736 F.2d 699, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . 716.01(c) , 2145
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Skibinski FETTING 112(2)/103(a) Siemens Corporation
