1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1728 Ex Parte Derand et al 10/069,827 OWENS 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER BARTON, JEFFREY THOMAS
1776 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11/084,934 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. EXAMINER TURNER, SONJI LUCAS
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Elzur 10/704,891 DIXON 102(e) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER PATEL, HETUL B
If the citation of a new prior art reference is necessary to support a rejection, it must be included in the statement of rejection, which would be considered to introduce a new ground of rejection. Even if the prior art reference is cited to support the rejection in a minor capacity, it should be positively included in the statement of rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n. 3 (CCPA 1970).
Hoch, In re, 428 F.2d 1341, 166 USPQ 406 (CCPA 1970) . . . . 706.02(j), 1207.03, 2144.08
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Ho et al 10/409,796 GREEN 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Rabinowitz et al 10/437,643 LEBOVITZ 112(1)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting SWANSON & BRATSCHUN, L.L.C. EXAMINER HAGHIGHATIAN, MINA
"[W]hat is needed to support generic claims to biological subject matter depends on a variety of factors, such as the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at issue." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "It is not necessary that every permutation within a generally operable invention be effective in order for an inventor to obtain a generic claim, provided that the effect is sufficiently demonstrated to characterize a generic invention. See In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504 (CCPA 1976)" Id.
Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163
Angstadt, In re, 537 F.2d 498, 190 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1976) . . . 2164.01, 2164.06, 2164.08(b)
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Motoyama et al 10/583,557 GARRIS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER LOEWE, ROBERT S
First, contrary to Appellants' belief, the motivation in the prior art to combine references does not have to be identical to that of an applicant in order to establish obviousness. In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
1773 Ex Parte Segelke et al 11/172,685 HANLON 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC EXAMINER LEVKOVICH, NATALIA A
See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265 (CCPA 1976) (“The burden of showing that the claimed invention is not described in the specification rests on the PTO in the first instance, and it is up to the PTO to give reasons why a description not in ipsis verbis is insufficient.”).
Wertheim, In re, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976) . . .706.03(o),1302.01, 2144.05, 2163, 2163.03, 2163.04, 2163.05
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/824,064 HOMERE 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER HILLERY, NATHAN
REHEARING
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Kuczynski et al 10/131,916 6,361,795 GRIMES 103(a) JOSEPH LUCCI WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER HAGHIGHATIAN, MINA
