Source: https://www.ptab.us/2015/01/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:45:51+00:00

Document:
1786 Ex Parte Chandrasekaran et al 11663938 - (D) GARRIS 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP LOPEZ, RICARDO E.
First, the second prong of the analogous-art test, as applied by the Examiner, is considered in light of the problem, as opposed to the invention—the solution to that problem. “Defining the problem in terms of its solution reveals improper hindsight in the selection of the prior art relevant to obviousness.” Monarch Knitting Machinery Corp. v. Sulzer Morat GmbH, 139 F.3d 877, 881 (Fed. Cir.1998); see Ans. 11. Thus, the Examiner has not established the analogousness of Armstrong.
Appellant’s testimony cannot be corroborated by e-mail evidence which itself requires corroboration by Appellant’s testimony. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d at 1292 (“It would be strange indeed to say that Mr. Campana, who filed the R.131 affidavit that needs corroborating, can by his own testimony provide that corroboration.”).
2165 Ex Parte MacLellan et al 11870713 - (D) HOFF 103 IBM AUS IPLAW (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC YOUNG, KEVIN L.
Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.
Id. at 7 (citing In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (Fed. Cir. 1981). Hence, “the concept of inherency must be limited when applied to obviousness, and is present only when the limitation at issue is the ‘natural result’ of the combination of prior art elements.” Id. (emphasis added).
It has also been established that a prima facie case of obviousness may be established if the particular order of steps does not produce “results differing in any way from those which would be brought about if another order of steps were followed.” In re Hampel, 162 F.2d 483, 485–486 (CCPA 1947); see also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 692 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Finally, we do not agree with the Examiner’s stance that as long as the controller of Imahashi and White is capable of performing the recited function, namely, to create a bypass transport path to transport substrates based upon information that the primary transport path is unavailable, then the controller of Imahashi and White “meets the claim.” Ans. 2–3. Appellant is correct that when functional language is associated with programming or some other structure required to perform the function, that programming or structure must be present in order to meet the claim limitation. See Reply Br. 5–6 (citing See Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). As such, in these circumstances, the “capable of” test requires that the prior art structure be capable of performing the function without further programming. Id. The Examiner has not provided any findings that the controller of Imahashi and White is capable of creating a bypass transport path to transport substrates based upon information that the primary transport path is unavailable, as called for by each of independent claims 1 and 13, without further programming.
The Examiner has the better position here, determining that the word “essentially” modifies the entire phrase including the word “surrounds.” It is well settled that “words of approximation, such as ‘generally’ and ‘substantially,’ are descriptive terms ‘commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.” Playtex Products, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2005) citations omitted.
“Substantially” is often used to mean largely but not wholly what is specified. See, e.g., York Products, Inc., v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996); See also Amhil Enterprises Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d, 1554, 1562, (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Labels: amhil , Playtex , york prod.
See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the mere fact that the prior art could be modified in the manner proposed would not have made the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification).
Although paragraph 438, cited by Appellants, states that “[s]uch voice capture is likely to be suboptimal in many situations, however, for example when there is substantial background noise, and accurate voice recognition is a difficult task at the best of times,” we do not agree this qualifying remark would lead a person of ordinary skill in a divergent direction as would be necessary for teaching away. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.