Source: https://www.ptab.us/2010/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:01:43+00:00

Document:
See Bruckelmyer v. Gound Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ ‘upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further research or experimentation.’” (quoting I.C.E. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 250 F.Supp. 738, 743 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)).
The “fact that a patent asserts that an invention achieves several objectives does not require that each of the claims be construed as limited to structures that are capable of achieving all of the objectives.” Leibel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
See Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2003)( holding that “remote” includes the same room pursuant to the disclosure, claims, and file history).
Although a computer may be patent eligible if it “is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software,” In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994), here, there is no hardware that executes the claimed code.
3748 Ex Parte Roozenboom 11/342,630 SONG DELMENDO BOALICK 102(b) EXAMINER TRAN, BINH Q CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P.
The Examiner's speculative reasoning therefore does not serve as a rational underpinning supporting the Examiner's proposed combination. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("The Patent Office … may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis").
See In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 711, 713 (CCPA 1943) (if an applicant does not seasonably traverse the taking of official notice, then the object of the official notice is taken to be admitted prior art); Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091 (where an applicant for a patent has failed to challenge a fact officially noticed by the Examiner, and it is clear that the applicant has been amply apprised of such finding so as to have the opportunity to make such challenge, the Examiner’s finding shall be considered conclusive).
See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function or give unexpected results) (citations omitted).
A limitation “materially narrows” the reissue claims if the narrowing limitation is directed to one or more “overlooked aspects” of the invention. Hester Indus., Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 1482-83 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
See In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970) (setting out the standard for when the taking of Official Notice is appropriate).
Section 102(a) establishes that a person can not patent what was already known to others. If the invention was known to or used by others in this country before the date of the patentee’s invention, the later inventor has not contributed to the store of knowledge, and has no entitlement to a patent. Accordingly, in order to invalidate a patent based on prior knowledge or use, that knowledge or use must have been available to the public. See Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 139, 231 USPQ 644, 646 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (the Section 102(a) language “known or used by others in this country” means knowledge or use which is accessible to the public); 35 U.S.C. Section 102(a) reviser’s note (1952) (noting that “‘known’ has been held to mean ‘publicly known’” and that “no change in the language is made at this time”); P.J. Federico, Commentary on the New Patent Act (1954) reprinted in 75 J. Pat. Trademark Off. Soc’y 161, 178 (1993) (“interpretation [of Section 102(a)] by the courts excludes various kinds of private knowledge not known to the public”; these “narrowing interpretations are not changed”).
Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc., 148 F.3d 1368, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
A “means-plus-function” limitation covers structure which performs a function identical to that recited in the limitation and which differs insubstantially from the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.2d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
obviousness determination. See Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v. Hantscho Commercial Prods. Inc., 21 F.3d 1068, 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a reference is either in the field of the applicant's endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for rejection. References are selected as being reasonably pertinent to the problem based on the judgment of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Internal citations omitted).
A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field of endeavor, it logically would have recommended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem because of the matter with which it deals. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
However, a prior art reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 (1985). Thus, it is not necessary to preserve the conversion-to-bag functionality of Buhyoff’s beach towel.
While it is true that the scope of the invention in a patent application is measured by what is stated in the claims, the same is not true of what is disclosed in a prior art reference. See In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“The scope of a patent’s claims determines what infringes the patent; it is no measure of what it discloses. A patent discloses only that which it describes, whether specifically or in general terms, so as to convey intelligence to one capable of understanding.”). Thus, the fact that Oshlack did not claim a three component formulation is not evidence that it, in combination with Miller, would not have made such a formulation obvious.

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