schering, omeprazole, continental can

REVERSED

2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Frohlich et al 10/426,039 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHEN, WENPENG

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

2873 Ex parte Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. 90/008,993 6,560,047 LEE 103(a) Patent Owner: STAAS & HALSEY LLP Third Party Requester: Lindsay S. Adams DAY PITTNEY, LLPEXAMINER NGUYEN, MINH T original EXAMINER CHOI, WILLIAM C

AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2431 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/208,718 NAPPI 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHERKAT, AREZOO

REHEARING

DENIED

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 EXAMINER HANDY, DWAYNE K

See Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Continental Can does not stand for the proposition that an inherent feature of a prior art reference must be perceived as such by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the critical date.”); In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., v. Andrx Pharms, Inc., 483 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (recognition in the prior art is not necessary when the claimed characteristic or function is inherently present in the prior art).

Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112

Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131.01