REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Alzer et al 11/341,253 SCHEINER 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Lo 11/047,057 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER
SHIN, KYUNG H
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Hild et al 10/775,601 O’NEILL 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH
3723 Ex Parte Emami et al 11/063,653 O’NEILL 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER GRANT, ALVIN J
3761 Ex Parte Fields 11/124,337 SPAHN 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER
CHAPMAN, GINGER T
3729 Ex Parte Nishii et al 10/517,445 O’NEILL 103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P. EXAMINER NGUYEN, DONGHAI D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Uhlemann 11/039,392 KOHUT 103(a) 103(a) Eschweiler & Associates (Lantiq) EXAMINER ZHOU, YONG
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Walker et al 09/939,239 McCARTHY 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER DESANTO, MATTHEW F
In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982)(evidence sufficient to establish lack of novelty also establishes a prima facie case of obviousness)
AFFIRMED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Ramberg et al 10/934,064 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER IQBAL, NADEEM
2184 Ex Parte Von Stein et al 10/532,666 JEFFERY 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER MAMO, ELIAS
2188 Ex Parte Bonola 10/980,538 DANG 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE
2829 Ex Parte Krieger et al 11/078,873 MACDONALD 102(b) SPANSION LLC C/O MURABITO , HAO & BARNES LLP EXAMINER TRAN, LONG K
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2895 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/274,961 BROCKETTI 102(a)/103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER WOJCIECHOWICZ, EDWARD JOSEPH
Appellants‟ claim language uses the phrase “substantially aligned”. “When a word of degree is used [it is necessary to] determine whether the… specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” See Seattle Box Co.. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We find that nothing in Appellants‟ Specification, except for Appellants‟ own drawings, for providing some standard for measuring that degree. Therefore, we construe the term “substantially aligned” as “substantially” is often construed in patent claims as “largely but not wholly that which is specified.” See York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .2173.05(b)
York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . .2181
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Masterson et al 10/334,548 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, VU Q
3671 Ex Parte Kroening 11/029,163 O’NEILL 103(a) 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) ROBERT PLATT BELL EXAMINER HARTMANN, GARY S
Printed matter may patentably distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art when the critical question of whether there is a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate is answered in the affirmative. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To show a new and unobvious functional relationship, it has to be shown that the printed matter would not achieve its purpose without the substrate and the substrate without the printed matter would similarly be unable to produce the desired result. Id. at 1339.
Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Wan 11/183,354 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA
REHEARING
GRANTED, 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Ohki 11/118,385 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery LLP EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL
Murakami is not limited to its preferred embodiments. See In re Kohler, 475 F.2d 651, 653 (CCPA 1973); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Instead, all disclosures therein must be evaluated for what they would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966).
DENIED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Aurenz 11/140,398 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HEFFINGTON, JOHN M
