1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Haalck et al 10/130,547 ADAMS 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
Examiner Name:
DESAI, RITA J
2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Goldberg et al 11/265,476 KRIVAK 101/103(a) DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
ENG, DAVID Y
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Byun et al 10/851,477 ADAMS 103(a) ALAN J. HOWARTH
Examiner Name:
HELM, CARALYNNE E
A finding of obviousness would not obtain where “what was ‘obvious to try’ wasBayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Labs., Inc., 575 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
to explore a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising
field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to
the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it.” O’Farrell,
853 F.2d at 903. This expresses the same idea as the KSR requirement that the
identified solutions be “predictable.” 550 U.S. at 421, 127 S. Ct. 1727; see
also Procter & Gamble, 566 F.3d at 996-97; Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359-60.
O’Farrell, In re, 853 F.2d 894, 7 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . 2143.01, 2143.02, 2144.08, 2145
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04
Kubin, Ex parte, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2143.01
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Sattler et al 10/952,321 McCARTHY 103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC
Examiner Name:
NASSER, ROBERT L
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Barney et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Audeh et al
Ex Parte Beaudoin et al
Ex Parte Shick et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Siegel et al
