Source: https://www.ptab.us/2009/06/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:35:38+00:00

Document:
Ex Parte Wu PAK 102(e)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.
In re Corr, 347 F.2d 578,580 (CCPA 1965) (Although a patent applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer of patent claim terms, the applicant must provide definitions for such claim terms in the Specification with sufficient clarity to provide a person of ordinary skill in the art with clear and precise notice of the meaning that is to be construed .). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Ghias, "Query for Humming – Musical Information Retrieval in an Audio Database," ACM 1995.
McNab, "Towards the Digital Music Library: Tune Retrieval from Acoustic Input," ACM 1996.
Obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula, and we will consider the facts of a case and the common sense of those skilled in the art. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007). That is, the test for obviousness is rather what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
A reference only teaches away when it suggests the developments flowing from its disclosure are unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant’s invention. Syntex (U.S.A) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. See, e.g., Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
continuous critical period.” Bey v. Kollonitsch, 806 F.2d 1024, 1027 (Fed.
Ex Parte Chapman et al STAICOVICI 102(b) PITNEY BOWES INC.
“It is fundamental that rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must be based on evidence comprehended by the language of that section.” In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Ex Parte Brown GRIMES 102(b) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A.
Ex Parte Hardwick HOFF 101/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
Bilski held that there is no danger of pre-emption of fundamental principles "[s]o long as the claimed process is limited to a practical application of a fundamental principle to transform specific data, and the claim is limited to a visual depiction that represents physical objects or substances." Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963.

References: v. 
 § 103
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 103