REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 UNO & COMPANY, LTD., JINNY BEAUTY SUPPLY CO., INC and JBS HAIR, INC. Requesters and Cross-Appellants v. KANEKA CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,759,430 B2 et al 11/345,952 95001653 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP Third Party Requester FENWICK & WEST LLP KUNZ, GARY L oroginal DOLLINGER, MICHAEL M
“[A] reference is reasonably pertinent if… it is one which because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). However, not “all systems and methods within the common knowledge [can be transformed] into analogous prior art simply by stating that anyone would have known of such a system or method.” CircuitCheck Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The court in Circuit Check stated: “The question is not whether simple concepts such as rock carvings, engraved signage, or Prussian Blue dye are within the knowledge of lay people or even within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Rather, the question is whether an inventor would look to this particular art to solve the particular problem at hand.” Id.
Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 2144.08
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP. and RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD. Requesters v. INNOVATIVE SONIC LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte RE40077 et al 11/247,003 95002157 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C. Third Party: OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP CORSARO, NICK original LY, ANH VU H
