Source: http://www.ptab.us/2010/08/reversed-chiu.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:22:00+00:00

Document:
Ex Parte Ludwig et al 10/874,027 WARREN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
Ex Parte Wilkerson 11/034,659 HAIRSTON 103(a) MEHRMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
See Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (absent a showing of long-felt need or the failure of others, the mere passage of time without the claimed invention is not evidence of nonobviousness); In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977) (the mere age of the references is not persuasive of the unobviousness of the combination of their teachings, absent evidence that, notwithstanding knowledge of the references, the art tried and failed to solve the problem).
See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (evidence related solely to the number of units sold without providing any indication of whether this represents a substantial quantity in the relevant market provides a very weak showing of commercial success, if any).
See Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Cntrls. Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 317 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (alleged copying is not persuasive of nonobviousness when the copy is not identical to the claimed product, and the other manufacturer has not expended great effort to develop its own solution); Vandenberg v. Dairy Equip. Co., a Div. of DEC Int’l, Inc., 740 F.2d 1560, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (evidence of copying found particularly persuasive where copyist had itself attempted for a substantial length of time to design a similar device, and failed). Further, a showing of copying requires evidence of efforts to replicate a specific product, which may be demonstrated through internal company documents, direct evidence such as disassembling a patented prototype, photographing its features, and using the photograph as a blueprint to build a replica, or access to the patented product combined with substantial similarity to the patented product. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Evidence of number of units sold, volumes of dollar sales, or proof of existing market share, quite simply does not indicate anything with regard to the reasons for commercial success. See, e.g., Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (number of units sold and profit per unit not enough); or Vandenberg v. Dairy Equip. Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (evidence of dollar sales alone insufficient); or Kansas Jack, Inc. v. Kuhn, 719 F.2d 1144, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (number of units sold not enough). Such evidence must be placed in perspective by demonstrating that the subject invention displaces prior art devices or surpasses the volumes sales of prior art devices. See Vandenburg v. Dairy Equip., 740 F.2d at 1567.
Establishing long-felt need requires objective evidence that an art-recognized problem existed in the art for a long period of time without solution. In particular, the evidence must show that the need was a persistent one that was recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538 (CCPA 1967). The relevance of long-felt need and the failure of others to the issue of obviousness depend on several factors. First, the need must have been a persistent one that was recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also In re Gershon, 372 F.2d at 538. Second, the long-felt need must not have been satisfied by another before the invention by applicant. Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757,768 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("[Olnce another supplied the key element, there was no long-felt need or, indeed, a problem to be solved.") Third, the invention must in fact satisfy the long-felt need. In re Cavanagh, 436 F.2d 491,496 (CCPA 1971). "[Llong-felt need is analyzed as of the date of an articulated identified problem and evidence of efforts to solve that problem." Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Cornrn'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Ex Parte Passke et al 11/476,607 PATE III 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
The subject matter of claims permitted within 35 U.S.C. § 101 must be a machine, a manufacture, a process, or a composition of matter. Moreover, our reviewing court has stated that “[t]he four categories [of § 101] together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If the claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007); accord In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This latter case held that claims directed to a “paradigm” are nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as representing an abstract idea. Thus, a “signal” cannot be patentable subject matter because it is not within any of the four categories. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357. Laws of nature, abstract ideas, and natural phenomena are excluded from patent protection. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185. A claim that recites no more than software, logic or a data structure (i.e., an abstraction) does not fall within any statutory category. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Significantly, “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment.” Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007). The unpatentability of abstract ideas was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010).
Ex parte COLORLAB COSMETICS, INC., Appellant 90/008,988 6,402,120 DELMENDO 112(1)/305/102(b)/102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JOSEPH P. MEHRLE SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
A “claim is enlarged if it includes within its scope any subject matter that would not have infringed the original patent.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Lack of novelty is the ultimate of obviousness. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982).
But see, U.S. v. Crooker, 608 F.3d 94, 95 n.1 (1st Cir. 2010) (using Wikipedia as source for definition); Lantz v. C.I.R., 607 F.3d 470, 482-83 (7th Cir. 2010) (Wikipedia as source for longest human lifespan).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 § 101
 § 101
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.