REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Lockwood et al FREDMAN 112(1) MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.

Ex Parte Hale FREDMAN 112(1) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

Ex Parte Haverich et al ADAMS 103(a) IP STRATEGIES

Ex Parte Diamond et al SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) GOSZ AND PARTNERS LLP

Ex Parte OBrien et al ADAMS 102(b) ADLER & ASSOCIATES

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Asai BARRY 102(e)/103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Asrar et al MILLS 103(a) NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP

“[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp. , 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)). Thus, as the Supreme Court pointed out in KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398 (2007):

[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does . . . because inventions in most, if not all,
instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed
discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is
already known.

Id. at 418-419 (emphasis added).

CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int ’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 68 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2164

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

Ex Parte England et al STAICOVICI 103(a) CARLSON GASKEY AND OLDS, PC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Kita et al STAICOVICI 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP

Ex Parte Zhao et al KERINS 103(a) SCHUBERT OSTERRIEDER & NICKELSON PLLC

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Elving et al HOFF 103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting MHKKG/SUN

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). Further, our reviewing court has held that "[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l., Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

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

Gurley, In re, 27 F.3d 551, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2123, 2145

Ex Parte Goldschmidt Iki et al HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP