REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Gilkerson 10/779,808 BARRY 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Menard 11/021,470 HORNER 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER BEAUCHAINE, MARK J
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Nykoluk et al 10/688,447 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) PATRICK W. RASCHE ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER MAI, TRI M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Snead 10/178,123 LUCAS 102(e) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER COLIN, CARL G
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Stockstill 10/664,039 McCARTHY 103(a) VEDDER PRICE, PC EXAMINER WILSON, JOHN J
“Common sense has long been recognized to inform the analysis of obviousness if explained with sufficient reasoning.” Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Our reviewing court has explained that “the use of common sense does not require a ‘specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference,’ only a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory generalizations.” Id. at 1329 (quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART and REVERSED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
Ex parte MICHAEL C. RYAN 90/007,920 5,913,180 DELMENDO 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: DAVIS, BROWN, KOEHN, SHORS & ROBERTS, P.C. EXAMINER LEWIS, AARON J
