REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Kronick et al 11/008,384 ADAMS 103(a) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IN CARE OF: CPA GLOBAL EXAMINER JUNG, UNSU

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Ito et al 11/100,521 HORNER 103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

Ex Parte James et al 12/378,967 MacDONALD 251 HAYES, SOLOWAY P.C. EXAMINER RADA, RINALDI I

If the patentee surrendered by argument, he must clearly and unmistakably argue that his invention does not cover certain subject matter to overcome an examiner’s rejection based onprior art. Medtronic[, Inc. v. Guidant Corp.], 465 F.3d [1360,]1376 [(Fed. Cir. 2006)] (holding that a patent attorney’s argument did not “clearly and unmistakably surrender” the subject matter); Hester [Indus., Inc. v. Stein, Inc.], 142 F.3d[1472,] 1482 [(Fed. Cir. 1998)] (explaining that “unmistakable assertions made to the Patent Office in support of patentability”“can give rise to a surrender for purposes of the recapture rule”). MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 602 F.3d 1306, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641(Fed. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1412.02

Ex Parte Pickup et al 10/791,974 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Arvanitidou et al 11/025,577 EXAMINER MCCORMICK, MELENIE LEE
Ex Parte Ham et al 10/477,764 EXAMINER WYSZYNSKI, AUBREY H
Ex Parte Reasoner et al 11/259,215 EXAMINER SHIH, HAOSHIAN
Ex Parte Symons et al 10/005,066 EXAMINER TRAN, NGHI V

REHEARING DENIED

Ex Parte Bansal et al 10/955,201 EXAMINER RUTZ, JARED IAN