Source: https://www.ptab.us/2017/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:45:35+00:00

Document:
Furthermore, “[p]rior art references may be ‘indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means . . . [and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.’” In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
The Examiner’s rejection is pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results, is not relevant to a rejection under § 102(b). See In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA 1973).
As the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained, for anticipation, the dispositive question is “whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from a prior art reference that every claim element is disclosed in that reference.” Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst, at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 849 F.3d 1073, 1074-1075 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
The rejection relies upon a construction of the expression “supported for rotation” that would render superfluous the words “for rotation.” “A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.” Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Ascribing meaning to the phrase “for rotation” here requires that the identified element be capable of rotation. An element that is fixed to another structure, such that it cannot rotate, is not “supported for rotation,” per claim 17.
The abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where “it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished.” O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1853).
In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus, the intended use is not limiting. “The claiming of a new use . . . which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.” In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
And “references to ‘common sense’ . . . cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support.” Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This is consistent with the Board’s past construction of the term “configured to.” See PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734, 744–45 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[C]omponents that are shaped or configured to fit one another ‘are sized and dimensioned to abut one another’”).

References: § 102
 § 102
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.