REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Bass et al FREDMAN 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.

Ex Parte Canada et al FREDMAN 103(a) LEGAL DEPARTMENT (M-495)

An examiner’s reliance on equivalents as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection is inappropriate without evidence that the equivalency was recognized in the prior art. See In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 599 (CCPA 1958) ("The equivalence must be disclosed in the prior art").

Ruff, In re, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.06

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Plummer NAGUMO 102(e)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF GLENN R. SMITH

Ex Parte Sosa et al KIMLIN 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC

Ex Parte Spandern et al NAGUMO 103(a)/112(1) SIMPSON & SIMPSON, PLLC

Although the term “consisting essentially” opens a claim to “the inclusion of ingredients which would not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of appellant’s compositions as defined in the balance of the claim . . . ” In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 954 (CCPA 1963), no such understanding has developed for the phrase “comprising essentially.” Reading the term broadly, we interpret the term “comprising essentially” as open and equivalent to the term “comprising.”

Janakirama-Rao, In re, 317 F.2d 951, 137 USPQ 893 (CCPA 1963) . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Domenico COURTENAY 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Brusca MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) VERIZON

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Meeusen WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(b) NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Brenner et al HOFF 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY