custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Ariyapadi et al 12782346 - (D) GARRIS 103 KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT LLC MERKLING, MATTHEW J
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Argenbright et al 10240479 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP PORTER, RACHEL L
3664 Ex Parte Krause et al 11273659 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 Dierker & Associates, P.C. SAMPLE, JONATHAN L
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Kim et al 11656460 - (D) VANOPHEM 102/103 KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL
3761 Ex Parte Allen et al 11414032 - (D) ASTORINO 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. TREYGER, ILYA Y
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Adams et al 10785227 - (D) MacDONALD 103 101/102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC BELANI, KISHIN G
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because:
Appellants respectfully disagree and point out that the Examiner's position is based entirely upon taking of words out-of-context of its intended meaning in the specification, clearly directed to media used to store computer instructions, when interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art, who is willing to be free of the bias of attempting to interpret every reference to "transmission media" as somehow referring to a "signal", which is reasonably considered non-statutory under the holding of Nuijten, and that every reference to "transmission media" converts any claim remotely related to this reference as equivalent to a "signal."
That is, "energy" per se is not used to store computer instructions. Nor is this claim directed to a "signal" per se, as were the facts of Nuijten. Moreover, to one having any genuine skill in the art, signals per se are not used to store instructions, and, contrary to the confusion running rampant within the USPTO in the aftermath of the Nuijten holding, the terminology "transmission media" is not equivalent to "signal." Indeed, if taken outside any other context, the terminology "transmission media" would clearly mean the media through which a transmission occurs and would not even refer to a signal per se. Therefore, someone at the USPTO is clearly very confused about underlying technology.
(App. Br. 9)(Emphasis omitted).
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Constantz et al 11189555 - (D) MILLS 103/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provisional double patenting rejection EPA - Bozicevic Field & Francis LLP ARNOLD, ERNST V
“Because nonstatutory double patenting compares earlier and later claims, an earlier patent’s disclosure is not available to show nonstatutory double patenting. See Gen. Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1281-82 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 804
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Mosseveld et al 10551109 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. REDDY, KARUNA P
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2413 Ex Parte Christenson et al 11279667 - (D) WINSOR 103 IBM CORPORATION COSTIN, JEREMY M
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Reid 10864866 - (D) MCKONE 102/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. ALAM, FAYYAZ
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Slatter 11258352 - (D) FETTING 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHUMPITAZ, BOB R
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte McKiernan et al 11145353 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY CRAIG, PAULA L
When an obviousness rejection is based on a combination of components in the prior art reference as in the instant situation, the comparison to show unexpected results need only be between the closest prior art reference and the claimed invention. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 422 (CCPA 1966). It need not be between the claimed invention and the invention suggested by the combined teachings in the prior art reference or references. Chapman, 357 F.2d at 422. To do so would require Appellants to compare the claimed invention against itself.
Chapman, In re, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) 716.02(e)
Baxter Travenol Labs., In re, 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01, 2145
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Boffa 11435698 - (R) OBERMANN 103 M. CARMEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC VASISTH, VISHAL V
In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179-80 (CCPA 1979) (the claimed subject matter must be compared with the closest prior art in a manner which addresses the thrust of the rejection).
Burckel, In re, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(e)
“Establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for ‘it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’” In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971))...
Greenfield, In re, 571 F.2d 1185, 197 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1978) 2145
Tiffin, In re, 448 F.2d 791, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971) 716.03(a)
Cf. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (CCPA 1979) (acknowledging that in some cases several data points may enable an ordinary artisan “to ascertain a trend in the exemplified data which would allow him to reasonably extend the probative value thereof”)
Kollman, In re, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) 716.02(d)
