REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Valianatos et al 12538228 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 E INK CORPORATION POURBOHLOUL, SARIRA CAMILLA
1785 Ex Parte Tong et al 12262068 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY RUMMEL, IAN A
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Van Den Boomen et al 12065541 - (D) THOMAS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS BULLOCK, JOSHUA
2184 Ex Parte Overby et al 11939521 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 101 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/NVIDIA WONG, TITUS
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Sherstad 12204607 - (D) HOELTER 103 103 GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP WILEY, DANIEL J
Additionally, the Examiner finds the disclosure of (a) to be obvious “because it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements requires only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichmann, 168 USPQ 177, 179.”
...
Appellant does not dispute the welding teachings of Strome but instead contends that “the Examiner relies SOLELY on [the] citation to Nerwin v. Erlichman.”
...
MPEP § 2144 provides guidance that “[w]hen considering obviousness, Office personnel are cautioned against treating any line of reasoning as a per se rule.” “So, for example, automating a manual activity, making portable, making separable, reversing or duplicating parts, or purifying an old product may form the basis of a rejection. However, such rationales should not be treated as per se rules, but rather must be explained and shown to apply to the facts at hand” (emphasis added). “Simply stating the principle (e.g., ‘art recognized equivalent,’ ‘structural similarity’) without providing an explanation of its applicability to the facts of the case at hand is generally not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.”
...
Regardless, the Examiner’s stated rationale seems to be predicated upon the use of multiple pins and, regarding claim 7, the Examiner’s sole basis of multiple pins being obvious in light of Zen’s single pin is a reliance on Nerwin, whose use as a per se rule is improper.
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Kilroy 11318915 - (D) SHAW 103 IBM Lotus & Rational SW c/o Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP ADAMS, CHARLES D
2168 Ex Parte Hewitt et al 11410301 - (D) POTHIER 102/103 AOL Inc./Finnegan TRAN, ANHTAI V
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte KRETZ et al 11551312 - (D) KIM 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP ALGIBHAH, HAMZA N
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Seger et al 11855344 - (D) KOHUT 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON GEORGEWILL, OPIRIBO
2644 Ex Parte Fox et al 11180220 - (D) DILLON 103 Workman Nydegger EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Ming et al 12050718 - (D) PAK 103 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) 103 Chen Yoshimura LLP MARINI, MATTHEW G
REEXAMINATION
REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex parte WALKER DIGITAL, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,924,323 B2 et al 90012673 - (D) STRAUSS 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. For Third Party Requester: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner L.L.P. GE, YUZHEN
