REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Savio et al 10/529,923 FREDMAN 103(a) HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP Examiner Name: HISSONG, BRUCE D
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Li 10/817,660 BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. Examiner Name: THOMAS, MIA M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Kanflod et al 10/539,148 MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Mark P. Stone Examiner Name: MACARTHUR, VICTOR L
When a structure already known in the prior art is altered by the substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination is obvious when it does no more than yield a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04
REEXAMINATION
3992 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2882
Orient Semiconductor Electronics, Ltd. Requester v. Kingpak Technology Inc. Appellant and Patent Owner 95/000,126 6,441,496 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) cc: PATENT OWNER: SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL, LLP. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTOR: BENJAMIN J. HAUPTMAN LOWE HAUPTMAN & BERNER, LLP Examiner Name: KIELIN, ERIK J
In this regard, “claims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their broadest reasonable interpretation.” In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548 (CCPA 1976); In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Okuzawa, In re, 537 F.2d 545, 190 USPQ 464 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01
Marosi, In re, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . 706.02(m), 2111.01, 2113, 2173.05(b)
3991 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1641
SINTERFIRE, INC. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of DELTA FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,207 6,536,352 DELMENDO 102(a)/102(e)/103(a) cc: For Patent Owner: THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. For Third Party Requester: LOUIS M. TROILO FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP Examiner Name: JOHNSON, JERRY D
For a claim in a later filed application to be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date of a previously filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the previously filed application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1. In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “This requires the disclosure in the earlier application to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors possessed the later-claimed subject matter when they filed the earlier application.” Id. at 1351.
Curtis, In re, 354 F.3d 1347, 69 USPQ2d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . .. . . . . . . .2163, 2163.05
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Gellman et al
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Harris et al
Ex Parte Sansone
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Edwards
Ex Parte Faasse et al
Ex Parte Goodman et al
Ex Parte Hayden
Ex Parte Thurlimann
