REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Langaee et al 13703990 - (D) TOWNSEND 102/103 THOMAS I HORSTEMEYER, LLP KAPUSHOC, STEPHEN THOMAS
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Wardle et al 12833852 - (D) CALVE 103 SHAY GLENN LLP DANG, ANH TIEU
3747 Ex Parte Brusslar et al 12077378 - (D) HORNER 103 US EPA, NVFEL BACON, ANTHONY L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Greeb 13489832 - (D) BROWNE 103/double patenting 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. MCCALISTER, WILLIAM M
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte FURUSAWA et al 12562590 - (D) DENNETT 103 NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP WANG, EUGENIA
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2145 Ex Parte Bovett et al 13051926 - (D) DIXON 103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation BELOUSOV, ANDREY
2197 Ex Parte Ji et al 13415897 - (D) PYONIN 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION CHEN, SEN THONG
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2483 Ex Parte Wengrovitz 12896656 - (D) PYONIN 103 LOZA & LOZA, LLP/Alcatel-Lucent USTARIS, JOSEPH G
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Mohammed et al 13707230 - (D) HAGY 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED CHEN, JUNPENG
2683 Ex Parte Apte et al 13551546 - (D) MacDONALD 103/double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY KHAN,OMERS
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Dirksen et al 14126787 - (D) HOELTER 112(1) Baker Botts L.L.P. ANDREWS, DAVID L
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Blomquist et al 13242116 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A. VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG
Appellants contend that “the Examiner utilized hindsight afforded by the present invention by taking the reasoned rationale for making the combination directly out of Appellants’ own specification rather than basing the rationale on facts gleaned from the prior art.” (App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2–3.)
This argument is unpersuasive.
[E]vidence of a motivation to combine need not be found in the prior art references themselves, but rather may be found in “the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved.” . . . When not from the prior art references, the “evidence” of motive will likely consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or problem-solving strategy to be applied.
Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even commonsensical— . . . there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.
(Id. at 1368.)
Dystar textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 80 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2143.01 , 2144
Dembiczak, In re, 175 F.3d 994, 50 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 1504.06 , 2144.04
3768 Ex Parte Vaillant et al 13191313 - (D) HORNER 103 FLETCHER YODER, PC GE HEALTHCARE PENG, BO JOSEPH
