REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte MCCLANAHAN et al 11952558 - (D) FREDMAN 102 Conley Rose, P.C. KIM, CHONG R
2159 Ex Parte Barsness et al 11861343 - (D) ADAMS 103 MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC SINGH, AMRESH
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Schwitzky 11720148 - (D) WARREN 102/103 SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC MARINI, MATTHEW G
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Pechtold et al 11341546 - (D) BAHR 103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION CHAUDRY, ATIF H
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Tran 11745549 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 TRAN & ASSOCIATES LE, MICHAEL
Moreover, Appellant has not demonstrated the Examiner’s proffered combination of references would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Nor has Appellant provided objective evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder
Systems, 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). (See also App. Br. 26, “Evidence Appendix None.”)
To the extent that Appellant advances a “teaching away” argument (“Gomes points away from the invention of locating IP information for the user. Gomes would have eliminated documents to speed up search, which is not the objective of the present invention.” (App. Br. 8)), “[a] finding that two inventions were designed to resolve different problems . . . is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.” Nat'l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fischer Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2114 , 2143.01
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141 , 2145 , 2216 , 2242 , 2286 , 2616 , 2642 , 2686.04
Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2123 , 2141.02 , 2143.01 , 2145
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Gee 10602404 - (D) JENKS 112(2)/103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC WARE, DEBORAH K
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Arndt et al 11759685 - (D) FRAHM 101/103 IBM CORP. (AUS) C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES BAUDINO, PLLC DILLON, SAMUEL A
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Chetuparambil et al 11550092 - (D) BAHR 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG STRANGE, AARON N
2492 Ex Parte Zuckerman et al 12579817 - (D) STAICOVICI 103/obviousness-type double
patenting 112(1)/112(2) BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. CHAO, MICHAEL W
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Kim 11801564 - (D) THOMAS 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Patenaude et al 12165140 - (D) HOSKINS 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. TISSOT, ADAM D
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex parte HOYT A. FLEMING, III Appellant, Patent Owner 90012220 RE39038 10/352,679 KUMAR 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 HOYT A. FLEMING III For Third Party Requester: WOOD HERRON & EVANS, LLP KE, PENG original GREGORY, BERNARR E
