Source: https://www.ptab.us/2015/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:45:59+00:00

Document:
In order to antedate a reference, an affidavit or declaration and exhibits must clearly explain which facts or data applicant is relying on to show completion of his or her invention prior to the particular date. Vague and general statements in broad terms about what the exhibits describe along with a general assertion that the exhibits describe a reduction to practice “amounts essentially to mere pleading, unsupported by proof or a showing of facts” and, thus, does not satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b). Applicant must give a clear explanation of the exhibits pointing out exactly what facts are established and relied on by applicant. In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718–19 (CCPA 1974).
Conditional steps employed in a method claim need not be found in the prior art if, under the broadest scenario, the method need not invoke the steps. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, *4 (BPAI 2011) (citing In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
An applicant cannot defeat an obviousness rejection by asserting that the cited reference(s) fail to teach or suggest elements which the applicant has acknowledged are taught by the prior art. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Device, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 571n.5 (CCPA 1975) (A statement by an applicant that certain matter is prior art is an admission that the matter is prior art for all purposes).
Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, "the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim." Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This presumption is "especially strong when the limitation in dispute is the only meaningful difference between an independent and dependent claim, and one party is urging that the limitation in the dependent claim should be read into the independent claim." SunRace Roots Enterprise co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Design choice may apply when alternative elements or configurations in the prior art perform the same function as the claimed structures with no unexpected results. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (finding that the use of the claimed feature "would be an obvious matter of design choice" when it "solves no stated problem" and "presents no novel or unexpected result" over the disclosed alternatives). In the context of a rejection based on design choice, the relevant issue is whether the alleged differences between the claimed invention and the prior art "result in a difference in function or give unexpected results." See In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965).
2184 Ex Parte Sterns et al 12204119 - (D) HOMERE 102 Avago Technologies Limited BARTELS, CHRISTOPHER A.
. It is not enough to say that there would have been a reason to combine two references because to do so would ‘have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.’ Such circular reasoning is not sufficient—more is needed to sustain an obviousness rejection.” In re Chaganti, 554 F. App’x 917, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We have also recently been instructed that “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc., v. Berk-Tek LLC, Nos. 2014-1575, 2014-1576, 2015 WL 6756451, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2015) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
2128 Ex Parte Subbu et al 12895293 - (D) DEJMEK 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY CALLE, ANGEL J.
See Perfect Web [Tech., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009)] (“[W]hile an analysis of obviousness always depends on evidence that supports the required Graham factual findings, it also may include recourse to logic, judgement, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.”).
Two separate tests define the scope of analogous art: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
"[S]tructural similarities" and "functional overlap" can show that the art to which a prior art reference belongs "is reasonably pertinent to the art with which [A]ppellant's invention dealt with." In re Ellis, 476 F.2d 1370, 1372 (CCPA 1973).
Under § 112, first paragraph, claims must find sufficient support in the written description, such that the disclosure "reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Ariad Pharma, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Whether written description adequately supports claims is an issue of fact. See In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

References: § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 112
 v.