Source: http://www.ptab.us/2009/09/10237500-ex-parte-morthier-10063124-ex.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 13:55:14+00:00

Document:
Ex Parte NOELLE et al LEBOVITZ 103(a) DARBY & DARBY P.C.
bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning. See Graham, 383 U.S., at 36, 86 S.Ct 684 (warning against a "temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue" and instructing courts to " ‘guard against slipping into the use of hindsight’ " (quoting Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn Mfg. & Supply Co., 332 F.2d 406, 412 (C.A.6 1964))). Rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Ex Parte Cooper et al FRANKLIN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Ex Parte Nguyen et al MACDONALD 112(2)/112(1)/102(e) Roger Fulghum Baker Botts L.L.P.
Ex Parte Hillo et al GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
Ex Parte Hancock-Cooke PRATS 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
“[I]f the preamble merely state[s] a purpose or intended use and the remainder of the claim completely defines the invention independent of the preamble,” it does not constitute a limitation. Lipscomb’s Walker on Patents, 3rd Edition, Vol. 3, § 11.11 at p. 361 (citing Marston v. J.C. Penney Co., 353 F.2d 976, 986 (4th Cir. 1965)); see also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (An element initially recited in the preamble is thereafter fully incorporated into the body of the claim so as to breathe life and breath into it by setting forth the complete combination).
“‘The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned, as they are a part of the literature and are relevant for all they contain.’” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983), citing In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 11
 v. 
 v. 
 v.