REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Camp 11615281 - (D) HORVATH 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L
We take Official Notice that the SNR of signals transmitted in diversity mode is proportional to the total output power of the transmitters that are transmitting those signals. The Board may take Official Notice of “facts beyond the record which . . . are capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute.” In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970). Consequently, we find the invention recited in claim 1 to be obvious in view of Bird.
Ahlert, In re, 424 F.2d 1088, 165 USPQ 418 (CCPA 1970) 2144.03
2671 Ex Parte Yamaguchi et al 10662443 - (D) FREDMAN 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC VO, QUANG N
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Bacik 12354323 - (D) CALVE 102(e)/102/103 Whitley Legal Group, P.C. YIP, WINNIE S
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Harrington 11304857 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 103 Basch & Nickerson LLP MARRERO, ZAIDA
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte THOMAS et al 12169724 - (D) MOORE 102 102/103 Conley Rose, P.C. KATSIKIS, KOSTAS J
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Wright 12057288 - (D) KINDER 101/103 SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP GRANT, MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER
3774 Ex Parte Tan 10889432 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. IWAMAYE, ANDREW MICHAEL
[I]t is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally, where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254–55 (CCPA 1977). “An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Best, In re, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) 2112 , 2112.01 , 2112.02 , 2114
Geisler, In re, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2144.05 , 2145
