REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Keating et al MILLS 102(b)/103(a) MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. ATTN: PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Ex Parte Sampson et al PRATS 102(e) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.
Ex Parte Srinivasan et al WALSH, Concurring Opinion filed by FREDMAN 103(a) JIVAN BIOLOGICSC/O SUBHA SRINIVASAN
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ward WARREN 103(a) THE LAW OFFICES OF CALVIN B. WARD
Ex Parte Kim et al KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
Ex Parte Dierberger TIMM 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
Ex Parte Morita et al GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lowrance et al HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Ex Parte Olien et al DIXON 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Burstein JEFFERY 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Matsumoto HAIRSTON 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP
Ex Parte Pandey et al MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Lee et al BOALICK 102(e)/103(a) VOLENTINE & WHITT, PLLC
Ex Parte Wu et al SMITH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Muller BARRETT 103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Casanova STAICOVICI 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC
Ex Parte Gass et al PATE III 103(a) SD3, LLC
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Pater Shannon et al MILLS 103(a) PAUL M. DENK
When evaluating claims for obviousness, “the prior art as a whole must be considered. The teachings are to be viewed as they would have been viewed by one of ordinary skill.” In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, “‘[i]t is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Id. (quoting In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965)).
Hedges, In re, 783 F.2d 1038, 228 USPQ 685 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2145
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Disalvo et al COLAIANNI 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSONJOHNSON & JOHNSON
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Carlson et al COURTENAY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Ex Parte Gopisetty et al JEFFERY 103(a) MARK C. MCCABE IBM CORPORATION
Ex Parte Ho COURTENAY 101/103(a) Oracle International CorporationC/O Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Hill NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
Ex Parte Kim et al HOFF 103(a) H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC
Ex Parte Wu et al MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Kim et al WHITEHEAD, JR. 101/102(b) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hendricks et al PATE III 103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Briggs HORNER 103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.
See In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“One way for a patent applicant to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness is to make a showing of “unexpected results,” i.e., to show that the claimed invention exhibits some superior property or advantage that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have found surprising or unexpected.).
Soni, In re, 54 F.3d 746, 34 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . 707.07(f) , 2145
