Source: https://www.ptab.us/2011/03/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:14:01+00:00

Document:
See In re Slocombe, 510 F.2d 1398, 1404 (CCPA 1975) (catalytic effects are a particularly unpredictable aspect of chemistry). For this reason, the § 103(a) rejection will be reversed.
2451 Ex Parte Wand et al 10/268,263 HUGHES 102(e) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
Anticipation by inherent disclosure is “appropriate only when the reference discloses prior art that must necessarily include the unstated limitation;” otherwise, the reference “cannot inherently anticipate the claims.” Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); see In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Appellants argue that this Board has “specifically condoned sub-generic additions where a genus including the sub-generic element and multiple species within the sub-generic element were originally disclosed, as long as the sub-generic element is reasonably communicated to those skilled in the art.” App. Br. 8 (citing Ex parte Sorenson, 3 USPQ2d 1462 (BPAI 1987)). ... As such, we cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill would fail to recognize that Appellants had possession of the scope now claimed as of the time of the filing of the application.
Where a rejection is based on a combination of references, the order in which prior art references are cited to the Applicant is of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961).
In relying on a combination of prior art references, the Examiner’s proposed modification cannot render a prior art reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the on-sale bar is triggered if the invention is both (1) the subject of a commercial offer for sale not primarily for experimental purposes, and (2) ready for patenting. Pfaff v. Wells Elec., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 67 (1998); see also MPEP § 2133.03(b), 8th ed., Rev. 7, July 2008. Traditional contract law principles are applied when determining whether a commercial offer for sale has occurred. See Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2001), petition for cert. filed, 71 USLW 3093 (Jul. 03, 2002) (No. 02-39); Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The Federal Circuit in Group One noted that “[o]nly an offer which rises to the level of a commercial offer for sale, one which the other party could make into a binding contract by simple acceptance (assuming consideration), constitutes an offer for sale under §102(b).” 254 F.3d at 1048.

References: § 103
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2133
 v. 
 v. 
 §102