REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Kaeppeler 11/284,987 GAUDETTE 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER CHEN, KEATH T
1729 Ex Parte Otis et al 10/833,974 OWENS 103(a) MICHAEL C. POPHAL EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY INC EXAMINER ECHELMEYER, ALIX ELIZABETH
1761 Ex Parte Bitler 11/199,049 OWENS 103(a) Axiom Global Inc. EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A
1777 Ex Parte Tonkovich et al 11/089,440 GAUDETTE 103(a) FRANK ROSENBERG EXAMINER XU, XIAOYUN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte PATERA et al 11/834,776 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER STELLING, LUCAS A
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Poo et al 09/898,365 WINSOR 102(e)/103(a) 103(a) WHITE & CASE LLP EXAMINER GELAGAY, SHEWAYE
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Volle et al 11/630,498 GUEST 102(b)/103(a) Huntsman Advanced Materials Americas Inc EXAMINER SELLERS, ROBERT E
After all, we note that lack of novelty is the ultimate or epitome of obviousness. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982) (“Though the composition might have been obvious, though not anticipated, it cannot have been anticipated and not have been obvious. Thus evidence establishing lack of all novelty in the claimed invention necessarily evidences obviousness.”).
1775 Ex Parte Tamaoki et al 11/114,242 GAUDETTE 102(e)/103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW
