Source: https://www.ptab.us/2015/02/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:51:10+00:00

Document:
The Examiner further stated that the claimed invention would have been obvious because “[s]hifting Rosenbaum’s magnets onto his wheels would have not modified the operation of his device.” Id. at 7, 24 (citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950)).
Appellants argue that “the Examiner has failed to show in the references or elsewhere why such modifications and combinations would be made as he has proposed” and that the Examiner is engaging in impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. Br. 14; id. at 12 (arguing the motivation provided by the Examiner to modify Rosenbaum with the teachings of Burrows are “mere conclusory statements that do not comply with [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)]”).
'[T]he use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice," In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (citing In re Fridolph, 309 F.2d 509 (CCPA 1962)), absent evidence that the use of one piece construction shows "insight [that] was contrary to the understanding and expections of the art," (Carl Schenck, A.G. v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)).
The Examiner thus, relies upon Hydex 301® as a prior art rigid polyurethane possessing the claimed properties, and asserts that it would have been obvious to select that material for the dental appliance of Tadros “since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support[s] a prima facie obviousness determination” (id., citing Sinclair & Carroll co. v. International Corp., 325 U.S. 327 (1945)).
Based on the cited teachings of the prior art (FF1–7), we determine that a prima facie case of obviousness has been made.
It has been held that the in vitro screening for compounds that exhibit a pharmacological activity “may establish a practical utility for the compound in question” because “[s]uccessful in vitro testing will marshal resources and direct the expenditure of effort to further in vivo testing of the most potent compounds, thereby providing an immediate benefit to the public, analogous to the benefit provided by the showing of an in vivo utility.” Cross v. Iizuka, 753 F.2d 1040, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also Nelson v. Bowler, 626 F.2d 853, 856 (CCPA 1980) (“[T]ests evidencing pharmacological activity may manifest a practical utility even though they may not establish a specific therapeutic use.”).
2192 Ex Parte Degenhardt et al 11580946 - (D) SHIANG 102/103 CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP CHOWDHURY, ZIAUL A.
Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[W]hen by recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.”).
“Because the amended material is inherently contained in the original application, it cannot constitute new matter.” Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC, 381 F.3d 1142, 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The Examiner and this Board have an independent obligation to determine the meaning of an application’s claims, notwithstanding the views asserted by an applicant. The obligation is analogous to that of district and appeals court judges. See, e.g., Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“the trial judge has an independent obligation to determine the meaning of the claims, notwithstanding the views asserted by the adversary parties.”); see also Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 835 (2015) (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, (1996) (“‘the construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim,’ is not for a jury but ‘exclusively’ for ‘the court’ to determine.”); In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Although, “[i]n contrast to district court proceedings involving an issued patent, claims under examination before the PTO are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,” claim construction remains a legal question, reviewed de novo.).

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