REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Bretler GRIMES 103(a) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
Ex Parte HSU et al CRAWFORD 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Jones WARREN 103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
The Examiner has not addressed the evidence in Specification Example 1 in considering Appellant’s position. See generally Ans. Thus, the Examiner has not based the conclusion of unpatentability set forth in the Answer on the totality of the record. See, e.g., In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument.”) (citing, inter alia, In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707 n.3 [sic - n.4] (Fed. Cir. 1990)); see also, e.g., In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and cases cited therein (applicant’s rebuttal evidence must be considered). Indeed, the Examiner’s failure to consider the evidence in Specification Example 1, properly relied on by Appellant, is clear error. See, e.g., Sullivan, 498 F.3d at 1355.
Oetiker, In re, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .707.07(f) , 716.01(d) , 1504.01(a) , 2106, 2107.02, 2142, 2145, 2164.07
Spada, In re, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112.01
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Karaoguz et al DIXON 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Roh HORNER 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DALE B. HALLING
Ex Parte Gooding et al CRAWFORD 102(e) KING & SPALDING
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Scheifele McCARTHY 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Komatsu et al WARREN 103(a) PAULY, DEVRIES, SMITH & DEFFNER, L.L.C.
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Deeds DIXON 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hand SONG 103(a) Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone P.L.C.
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Stinson BOALICK 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP
“By using the term ‘consisting essentially of,’ the drafter signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention.” PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp. , 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998). To construe the phrase “consisting essentially of,” it is “necessary and proper to determine” the interpretation that the Specification reasonably supports. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, Appellant has the burden of showing that unclaimed limitations in a prior art reference would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 874 (CCPA 1964).
PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163
Herz, In re, 537 F.2d 549, 190 USPQ 461(CCPA 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03
De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163
Ex Parte Walzak et al BAHR 103(a) SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Evidence related solely to the number of units sold, without any indication as to whether this represents a substantial quantity in the market, provides a very weak showing of commercial success, if any. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Even assuming an applicant has sufficiently demonstrated commercial success, that success is relevant in the obviousness context only if it is established that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention (i.e., a nexus between the sales and the merits of the claimed invention), as opposed to other economic and commercial factors unrelated to the quality of the claimed subject matter. Id. See also Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp. , 776 F.2d 309, 315-16 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (commercial success may have been attributable to extensive advertising and position as a market leader before the introduction of the patented product).
Huang, In re, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 716.03, 716.03(b) , 2145
Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp. , 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . .716.03(b) , 716.06, 2141.01(a)
