1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Ahluwalia et al 10/766,654 WARREN 103(a) FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA
See, e.g., In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52 (CCPA 1976) (“[I]t is necessary and proper to determine whether [the] specification reasonably supports a construction” that would exclude or include particular ingredients.); In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74 (CCPA 1964); see also PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354-57 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Patentees “could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention. The question for our decision is whether PPG did so.”).
De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163
PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . . .2111.03, 2163
1729 Ex Parte Ahluwalia et al 10/766,652 WARREN 103(a) FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER RUDDOCK, ULA CORINNA1736 Ex Parte Harutyunyan 10/727,699 NAGUMO 103(a) HONDA/FENWICK EXAMINER JOHNSON, EDWARD M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Ronstrom 10/471,822 SIU MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP (Oracle formerly d/b/a Sun Microsystems) EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L
2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Mendenhall 10/371,490 RUGGIERO 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION EXAMINER LEUNG, WAI LUN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Lamstein et al 11/895,437 O’NEILL 103(a) BAY AREA TECHNOLOGY LAW GROUP PC EXAMINER VALENTI, ANDREA M
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Benjamin et al 11/001,219 BAHR 103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP
When relying on the theory of inherency, the examiner has the initial burden of providing a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic reasonably flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
King, In re, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir.1986) . . . . . . .1206, 2112.02, 2131.01
3727 Ex Parte Chang et al 11/688,457 BAHR 102 DITTHAVONG MORI & STEINER, P.C. EXAMINER ROSE, ROBERT A
3738 Ex Parte Eidenschink 10/914,569 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD
3748 Ex Parte Nigrin 10/789,469 O’NEILL 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER TRIEU, THERESA
In Leshin, the container-dispenser at issue was of a type made of plastics prior to the invention. Thus, the selection of a known plastic to replace the plastic of a prior art container-dispenser was considered to be obvious since it is well within the skill of an ordinary skilled artisan to replace one plastic with another plastic depending upon the application. See id. at 199. However, the present case is distinguishable from Leshin because here the Examiner has not established that it is known to make rotors of plastics so that the Examiner would be merely replacing the plastics of a known plastic rotor with another known plastic suitable for a particular application.
Leshin, In re, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.07
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Riblier et al 11/137,373 GARRIS 103(a) MANELII DENISON & SELTER, PLLC EXAMINER YAGER, JAMES C
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Kang 11/229,684 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC EXAMINER VON BUHR, MARIA N
2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Yanof et al 10/510,861 HAHN 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDSEXAMINERBROOME, SAID A
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Ackermann et al 11/009,146 MacDONALD 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER LE, DANG D
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Lewis 10/047,220 BAHR 103(a) FRANCIS C. KOWALIK WALGREEN CO. LAW DEPARTMENT EXAMINER SHAPIRO, JEFFERY A
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Rau et al 10/431,131 ADAMS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) John S. Munday EXAMINER GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Zurcher 10/337,092 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) DAVID W. HIGHET, VP & CHIEF IP COUNSEL BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY (HOFFMAN & BARON)EXAMINER HANDY, DWAYNE K
1722 Ex Parte Mori et al 11/224,086 GARRIS 103(a) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER JOHNSON, CONNIE P
This is because one of ordinary skill in the art need not see an applicant's identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings. Cross Med. Prods., Inc., v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 76 USPQ2d 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2144
1764 Ex Parte Peerlings et al 11/986,821 FREDMAN 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Amrutur et al 11/714,332 LUCAS 103(a) AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IN CARE OF: CPA GLOBAL EXAMINER TORRES, JOSEPH D
2173 Ex Parte Barbieri et al 10/129,693 SIU 102(b)/103(a) HEAD, JOHNSON & KACHIGIAN EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Harper 10/729,293 LUCAS 103(a) AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT – TKHR EXAMINER ALMEIDA, DEVIN E
2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Kii 10/797,743 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP EXAMINER REPKO, JASON MICHAEL
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Green et al 11/404,714 MacDONALD 103(a) INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (FS) EXAMINER YEUNG LOPEZ, FEIFEI
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Prasad et al 10/754,390 O’NEILL 103(a) STEVEN WESEMAN ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, I.P. CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER MULLER, BRYAN R
