Source: https://www.ptab.us/2015/09/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:37:38+00:00

Document:
(citing Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Laboratories, 575 F. 3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]here the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful an invention would not have been obvious.”).
In fact, the term “a two or more finger touch” is mentioned only once in column 6 of Appellant’s Specification whereas in other instances a gesture operation is performed based on “a user input having two or more input points” (emphasis added).
Vasudevan - "The conjunctive interpretation is also consistent with proper grammar, where the phrase "`not A, B, or C' means `not A, not B, and not C.'" A. Scalia &. B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 119 (2012) (citing DeMorgan's theorem)."
See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (the concept of inherency when applied to obviousness is present “when the limitation at issue is the ‘natural result’ of the combination of prior art elements”); Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985) (“The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.”).
In cases involving claims that recite terms of degree, those claims are generally held definite only so long as there is something in the Specification to enable one skilled in the art to determine the degree required. Often this may be set forth in terms of achieving a particular result. See, e.g., Exxon Research and Eng’g Co. v. U.S., 265 F.3d at 1381 (“Whether there is a ‘substantial absence of slug flow’ therefore can be determined with reference to whether reactor efficiency is materially affected.”).
“The law of anticipation does not require that the reference ‘teach’ what the subject [application] teaches. Assuming that a reference is properly ‘prior art,’ it is only necessary that the claims under attack . . . ‘read on’ something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference.” Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
See Schreiber at 1477-78 (once the Examiner finds that the prior art structure would be capable of performing all of the functions claimed, the burden shifts to the applicant to show this this is not the case.).
[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Net MoneyIN, Inc., v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Our reviewing court has stated the phrase "'[i]n response to' connotes that the second event occur in reaction to the first event." Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1340 (Fed, Cir. 2011). Applying this logic to the instant case we find that when a menu item is activated in claim 1, the "displaying" recited in part [d] must happen "automatically as opposed to requiring further user interaction." Id.
Arts based on chemical reactions may be unpredictable. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (C.C.P.A. 1970). “In cases involving unpredictable factors, such as most chemical reactions and physiological activity, the scope of enablement obviously varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved.” Id.

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