REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1642 Ex Parte Hussa et al 11/193,789 ADAMS GRIMES WALSH 102(b) CYTYC CORPORATION EXAMINER YAO, LEI
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Bhide et al 10/729,166 BLANKENSHIP COURTENAY III DANG 102(b) Frederick W. Gibb, III McGinn & Gibb, PLLC EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Dunning et al 10/401,940 CRAWFORD FETTING MOHANTY 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP EXAMINER RETTA, YEHDEGA
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Jaunzemis et al 11/319,957 BAHR HORNER SILVERBERG 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PATENT VENTURE GROUP EXAMINER NGUYEN, DUNG V
"[T]he Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974). Once the PTO has made out a prima facie case that the applicant's claimed product and the product of the prior art reasonably appear to be the same, the burden shifts to the applicant to prove otherwise. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113
Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . 706.02(m), 2113
3742 Ex Parte Nordstrom et al 11/418,994 O’NEILL BARRETT KERINS 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) MICHAEL A. NELSON TEKTRONIX, INC. EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H
The limit on what a reference discloses to a person of ordinary skill in the art is what it fairly teaches or discloses. See, e.g., In re Fracalossi and Wajer, 681 F.2d 792 (CCPA 1982) (reference is prior art not only for specifically disclosed embodiments, but also all that it fairly teaches). Moreover, the overly broad interpretation of “socket”, to be satisfied by a spring-biased plunger 100, as the Examiner suggests (see, Ans. 4), would eviscerate the meaning of the term socket because it would mean that any component could satisfy that probe feature. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions which render phrases in claims superfluous).
3711 Ex Parte Voden 10/908,842 O’NEILL KERINS SILVERBERG 112(1)/103(a) MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Seligmann et al 10/891,804 HAHN BAUMEISTER, Concurring HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) Avaya DEMONT & BREYER, LLC EXAMINER ALAM, FAYYAZ
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER'S REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1802 Ex parte COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, Appellants 90/008,305 4,940,658 SPIEGEL ADAMS DELMENDO 103(a) Patent Owner Peter F. Weinberg GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP cc: Third Party Requester Peng Cheng MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER PONNALURI, PADMASHRI original EXAMINER SCHEINER, TONI R
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1617 Ex parte ALZA CORP. Patent Owner and Appellant 90/008,142 6,440,457 LEBOVITZ DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) cc (Patent Owner): RATNERPRESTIA cc (Third Party Requester): WILMERHALE/DC EXAMINER TURNER, SHARON L original EXAMINER WEBMAN, EDWARD J
AFFIRMED
2626 Ex Parte Browning 10/132,052 HAHN EXAMINER SMITS, TALIVALDIS IVARS
2421 Ex Parte Cormack et al 10/703,319 SAADAT EXAMINER PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L
3623 Ex Parte Fliess et al 10/185,739 CRAWFORD EXAMINER CHOI, PETER H
2622 Ex Parte Kehtarnavaz et al 10/325,310 MacDONALD EXAMINER BEMBEN, RICHARD M
3727 Ex Parte Roberts et al 10/991,911 BAHR EXAMINER SPISICH, MARK
1781 Ex Parte Tucker et al 10/741,459 ADAMS EXAMINER STULII, VERA
3625 Ex Parte Westphal et al 11/699,147 CRAWFORD EXAMINER ALLEN, WILLIAM J
