Source: http://www.ptab.us/2012/07/custom-search-reversed-1600.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:36:24+00:00

Document:
However, consistent with the ‘390 Decision, we do not impart any specific structure from Figures 10A-12 as being required for the claimed channel or portion of the medical line to be “irregularly shaped.” See Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., 635 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2011) (citing Lampi Corp. v. Am. Power Prods., 228 F.3d 1365, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (concluding that the embodiment drawings did not compel a conclusion that the written description is so narrowly tailored to be limited to the embodiments depicted in the drawings).
The Federal Circuit has outlined how the prima facie case burden for anticipation is met, and its purpose. Specifically, “the prima facie case is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production.” Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This burden is met by “adequately explain[ing] the shortcomings it perceives so that the applicant is properly notified and able to respond.” Id, at 1370. It is only “when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection” that the prima facie burden has not been met and the rejection violates the minimal requirements of 35 U.S.C. §132. Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
When it is necessary to select elements of various teachings in order to form the claimed invention, we ascertain whether there is any suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make the selection made by applicant. Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §132
 v. 
 v.