REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Bush et al PRATS 103(a) ELI LILLY & COMPANY
In the context of preparing alternative forms of prior art compounds, however, the court in In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664 (CCPA 1966), reversed an obviousness rejection where the Examiner had concluded that the claims were merely directed to a crystalline form of an old compound. See id. at 666.
Cofer, In re, 354 F.2d 664, 148 USPQ 268(CCPA 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04
As Appellants point out, the court in In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d at 274 similarly held that "the absence of a known or obvious process for making the claimed compounds overcomes a presumption that the compounds are obvious, based on close relationships between their structures and those of prior art compounds."
Hoeksema, In re, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). . . . . . . 2121.01, 2121.02, 2144.09, 2145
Ex Parte Herweijer et al GRIMES 102(b) ROCHE MADISON INC.
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Fredriksson et al OWENS 103(a) CAPITOL CITY TECHLAW, PLLC
Ex Parte Jimbo et al GARRIS 103(a) WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
Ex Parte Morita et al FRANKLIN 112(2)/103(a) MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
Ex Parte Sridharan et al KRATZ 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Akiwumi-Assani et al BLANKENSHIP 102(e) NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING
Ex Parte Rosenpflanzer et al SIU 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
Enablement
It is relatively simple for an inventor to comply with the written description requirement. Moore, 439 F.2d at 1236. This requirement will ordinarily demand minimal concern. Id. “What is of maximum concern . . . is whether [the] disclosure contains sufficient teaching[s] regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and to use the claimed invention.” Id. “The relevant inquiry may be summed up as being whether the scope of enablement provided to one of ordinary skill in the art by the disclosure is such as to be commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims.” Id.
Moore, In re, 439 F.2d 1232, 169 USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . .1504.04, 2164.08, 2172
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Crump HOMERE 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Pan et al HOFF 103(a) VERIZON
Ex Parte Van Haver HAIRSTON 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Sahota et al TURNER 102(e)/103(a) Quarles & Brady LLP
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hammond et al O’NEILL 103(a) PARFOMAK, ANDREW N. NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS PA
Ex Parte Opris HORNER 102(b)/103(a) CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Pan et al NAGUMO 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
We therefore accept the Examiner’s findings as true for the purposes of this appeal. Cf. In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964) (a finding not shown by the Appellant to be erroneous may be accepted as fact.)
Ex Parte Pau et al HASTINGS 103(a) HITT GAINES, PC ALCATEL-LUCENT
