REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Griffith et al 11/810,639 WARREN 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER WALTERS JR, ROBERT S
1723 Ex Parte Gui et al 11/058,850 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER GARDNER, SHANNON M
1731 Ex Parte Lo et al 10/511,865 HASTINGS 103(a) KF ROSS PC EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E
Additionally, the Examiner repeatedly relies upon In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980) (Ans. 4, 5, 7), to combine the three applied references, because “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two or three
compositions, each taught for the same purpose to yield a third composition for that very purpose.” See, e.g., Examiner's Answer, page 4, citing In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980).
In Kerkhoven, however, the claims required “no more than the mixing together of two conventional spray-dried detergents.” Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d at 850. In contrast, in the present rejection, the Examiner is making at least two substitutions to the Reynolds invention in order to arrive at the current claimed invention...
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Kitchin 10/208,995 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Ross et al 11/198,699 GONSALVES 103(a) Hovey Williams LLP EXAMINER
TSIDULKO, MARK
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Dubbert et al 10/826,782 HORNER 103(a) Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C. EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte Haering et al 11/169,773 SCHEINER 102(b) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER PRICE, ELVIS O
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Tuttle 11/214,339 FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
(motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
1761 Ex Parte Frankenbach et al 11/405,729 WARREN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HARDEE, JOHN R
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Schwartz 09/912,636 MANTIS MERCADER 101/102(e) HEIMLICH LAW EXAMINER VU, THONG H
