REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Bondestam et al 10/383,291 PAK 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N
Ex Parte Fuller et al 10/808,679 NAGUMO 103(a) FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER WALKE, AMANDA C
Ex Parte Williamson et al 11/483,878 KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. EXAMINER ANGADI, MAKI A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Reisinger 10/797,838 HORNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SCHIFF HARDIN LLP EXAMINER NELSON, FREDA ANN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Frome 10/480,162 GRIMES 112(2)/103(a) FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC EXAMINER OLSON, ERIC
“Although it is well settled that comparative test data showing an unexpected result will rebut a prima facie case of obviousness, the comparative testing must be between the claimed invention and the closest prior art.” In re Fenn, 639 F.2d 762, 765 (CCPA 1981) (emphasis added).
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Lim et al 10/696,879 KIMLIN 103(a) SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. EXAMINER PHAM, MINH CHAU THI
However, it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . 2144.04
Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04
Dailey, In re, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04
Ex Parte Tokai et al 10/386,715 OWENS 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
ex parte
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,001 6,919,122 LANE 103(a) Jason E. Pauls Foley & Lardner Mark D. Swanson Pauley, Peterson & Erickson EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C
“Not every competing product that arguably falls within the scope of a patent is evidence of copying. Otherwise every infringement suit would automatically confirm the nonobviousness of the patent. Rather, copying requires the replication of a specific product.” Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.05
See Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 317 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding evidence of copying to be insufficient to show nonobviousness because the “copied” product was not the same as the claimed product and the effort by the “copier” to produce a different product was not extensive).
Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . .716.03(b), 716.06, 2141.01(a)
