REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Geisler et al 11/031,557 TIMM 103(a) Charles N.J. Ruggiero, Esq. Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P. EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ERIK
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Tan et al 09/873,061 MORGAN dissenting SMITH 102(e) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER/ORACLE EXAMINER BLACK, LINH
2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Kroon et al 10/274,470 RUGGIERO 103(a) Xerox Corporation EXAMINER VO, QUANG N
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Nye et al 11/223,238 GREENHUT 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Bell & Manning, LLC EXAMINER MONDT, JOHANNES P
In Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, 339 F. 3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the Court distinguished cases dealing with “accidental, unwitting, and unappreciated” anticipation, Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923) and Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707 (1880), where the record did not conclusively establish that the prior art produced the claimed subject matter, from cases in which the record established that the claimed subject matter necessarily and inevitably was a consequence of practicing a prior art process under the normal, as opposed to hypothetical or unusual, conditions disclosed.
Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Brown 10/940,994 SPAHN 103(a) LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD. EXAMINER SUERETH, SARAH ELIZABETH
See the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2111.04 citing Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (When a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.”).
Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Green et al 11/114,485 WALSH 103(a) John A. O'Toole EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1656 Ex Parte Mao et al 11/218,642 McCOLLUM 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER DESAI, ANAND U
1657 Ex Parte Gurewich et al 11/447,455 GRIMES 103(a) MEDLEN & CARROLL, LLP EXAMINER KOSSON, ROSANNE
The analysis required by § 103 has been characterized as “casting the mind back to the time of invention, to consider the thinking of one of ordinary skill in the art, guided only by the prior art references and the then-accepted wisdom in the field.” In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). For this reason, obviousness has been likened to “the creature of an imagination projected upon the future out of materials of the past.” Schaefer, Inc. v. Mohawk Cabinet Co., 276 F.2d 204, 207 (2d Cir. 1960)(Learned Hand, J.). A determination of obviousness is based only on knowledge available at the time the claimed invention was made.
Dembiczak, In re, 175 F.3d 994, 50 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . .1504.06, 2144.04
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Takahashi et al 10/369,596 TIMM 103(a) KUBOVCIK & KUBOVCIK EXAMINER APICELLA, KARIE O
Such a recitation of an act that may occur in the future does not positively recite a structural relationship between the battery and the substrate. See In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 1005 (CCPA 1968).
Collier, In re, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQm 266 (CCPA 1968) . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05, 2172.01, 2173.05(k)
1781 Ex Parte DuBois et al 09/838,809 HANLON 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A
