REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Lang et al 11/401,151 NAGUMO SMITH TIMM 103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER VETERE, ROBERT A
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Konetski et al 09/771,095 JEFFERY LUCAS THOMAS 102(a e)/103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER DALENCOURT, YVES
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Youngil Ha et al 11/199,994 KRIVAK BAUMEISTER MARTIN 102(b)/103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION EXAMINER TRAN, CONGVAN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Yamamoto et al 11/393,870 BAHR MCCARTHY PATE III 102(b)/103(a)/112(2)37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. EXAMINER PILKINGTON, JAMES
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Weitzel 11/398,307 BAHR MCCARTHY STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) SCOTT WEITZEL EXAMINER PARADISO, JOHN ROGER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Hwang 10/847,643 MARTIN HAIRSTON WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) Sonosite, Inc. / Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P. EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Trasporto et al 11/381,684 BAUMEISTER HAHN NAPPI 102(b) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER ANDUJAR, LEONARDO
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Bonds et al 10/267,112 BARRETT KERINS SILVERBERG 112(2)/102(e)/102(b)/103(a) J. Michael Neary EXAMINER A, PHI DIEU TRAN
3612 Ex Parte Lemmons 11/537,392 HORNER O’NEILL STAICOVICI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, KIRAN B
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3617 Ex parte TZONG IN YEH Appellant 90/009,119 6,988,920 SONG DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, PLLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: CLEMENT CHENG LAW OFFICE OF CLEMENT CHENG EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER OLSON, LARS A
"The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). "If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." Id. (citations omitted). Hence, "when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535 (1972).
Where the resultant structure of the claimed invention is asserted to differ from that of the prior art, the burden is on the appellant to establish the distinction because "[a]s a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." Id.; see also In re Fessman, 489 F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974) (a lesser burden of proof for a prima facie case of obviousness in a product-by-process situation because of its peculiar nature, and burden shifts to the appellant to present evidence to establish any difference).
Brown, In re, 459 F.2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113, 2183
Thorpe, In re, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . 706.02(m), 2113
Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2113
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3617 Ex parte TZONG IN YEH Appellant 90/009,130 7,326,094 SONG DELMENDO ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, PLLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: CLEMENT CHENG LAW OFFICE OF CLEMENT CHENG EXAMINER FETSUGA, ROBERT M original EXAMINER OLSON, LARS A
In this regard, we further note that making elements of a device integral or separable is considered to be an obvious design choice and does not render an invention patentable. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965)
Larson, In re, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04
AFFIRMED
3616 Ex Parte Baumann et al 10/217,092 KIMLIN EXAMINER CULBRETH, ERIC D
1776 Ex Parte Kim et al 11/475,316 KIMLIN EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G
3752 Ex Parte Miller et al 10/534,194 HORNER EXAMINER HWU, DAVIS D
