REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Dettinger et al HOMERE 103(a) IBM CORPORATION
Ex Parte Strong et al THOMAS 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) VEDDER PRICE P.C.
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Bhatti et al THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Hembree et al BAUMEISTER 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) TRASKBRITT, PC
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Robbins SILVERBERG 102(e) BRUCE D. RITER
Ex Parte Wohflahrt et al SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousnesstype double patenting/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte King et al SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) NIELDS, LEMACK & FRAME, LLC
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Beckman et al HOFF 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
In an appeal from a rejection for anticipation, Appellants must explain which limitations are not found in the reference. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[W]e expect that the Board’s anticipation analysis be conducted on a limitation by limitation basis, with specific fact findings for each contested limitation and satisfactory explanations for such findings.” (emphasis added)); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Kahn, In re, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Schroeder et al LORIN 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Ex Parte SzelesLORIN 103(a) MACROVISION CORPORATION
Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).
Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01
Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01
