Source: https://www.ptab.us/2009/08/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:50:33+00:00

Document:
Furthermore, “[e]ven when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Ex Parte Sengupta et al HANLON 103(a) HAMMER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Ex Parte Pavel et al PAK 103(a) MOSER IP LAW GROUP / APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
The specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
Ex Parte Sutardja et al KRIVAK 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
Ex Parte Winkel et al McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. §101, a computer-readable medium (or media) comprising instructions is directed to statutory subject matter so long as the language of the claims is not supported in the specification with non-statutory embodiments (i.e., signals, transmission mediums and the like). See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (A claim directed to computer instructions embodied in a signal is not statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101).
Ex Parte Khan et al WARREN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) FENNEMORE, CRAIG, P.C.
Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038-40 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("The meaning of the word ‘about’ is dependent on the facts of a case, the nature of the invention, and the knowledge imparted by the totality of the . . . disclosure to those skilled in the art." (citation omitted)).
Ex Parte Saccomanno et al HAIRSTON 103(a) HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
Ex Parte Kaiser et al COLAIANNI 103(a) NORRIS, MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, P.A.
"The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). "Claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part." Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
Ex Parte Kim et al COLAIANNI 102(e)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
“Appellant’s opinion on the ultimate legal issue is not evidence in the case . . . . [However,] some weight ought to be given to a persuasively supported statement of one skilled in the art on what was not obvious to him.” In re Lindell, 385 F.2d 453, 155 USPQ 521, 524 (CCPA 1967) (emphasis added).
In evaluating the obviousness of a composition, it is appropriate to consider the method of preparation of the composition. In re Burt, 53 CCPA 929, 934, 356 F.2d 115, 119 (CCPA 1966).
See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-15 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (a single means claim which covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose is nonenabling for the scope of the claim because the specification disclosed at most only those means known to the inventor).
Ex Parte Marinet et al MANTIS MERCADOR 102(b) ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST P.A.
Ex Parte Shizuka et al SAADAT 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
Ex Parte Pitts et al CRAWFORD 103(a) Theodore W. Olds CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
Ex Parte So et al BARRY 102(b)/103(a) Christopher C. Winslade McAndrews, Held & Malloy, LTD.
“[A]n indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
Ex Parte Seaford et al MERCADER 102(b) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
Ex Parte Cripe NAGUMO 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
Our reviewing court has found "a proposed modification inappropriate for an obviousness inquiry when the modification rendered the prior art reference inoperable for its intended purpose." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265-66 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale, and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.").
Ex Parte Schell et al PATE III 102(b) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
article. See [Gottschalk v.] Benson, 409 U.S. [63,] 70, 93 S. Ct. 253 [(1972)].
to impart patent-eligibility. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 93 S. Ct. 253.
437 U.S. [584,] 590, 98 S. Ct. 2522 [(1978)].
Bilski, 545 F.3d at 961-62.
patent-eligibility under § 101); In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40 (Fed. Cir.
In fact, one can perform each of these steps in one’s mind. Such mental steps are patentably excluded under § 101. See Benson, 409 U.S at 67; see also In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[M]ental processes – or processes of human thinking – standing alone are not patentable even if they have practical application.”) Thus, we do not find claim 1 recites any machine, let alone a particular machine, under this prong of the machine-ortransformation test.
Ex Parte Millard et al BARRY 102(e)/103(a) Driggs, Hogg, Daugherty & Del Zoppo Co., L.P.A.
"[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). "The operative word is reasonable: the PTO has no such obligation regarding unreasonable interpretations." Genentech, Inc. v. Wellcome Found. Ltd., 29 F.3d 1555, 1565 n.22 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Ex Parte Chen et al BAUMEISTER 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
The prior art may anticipate a claimed invention, and thereby render it non-novel, either expressly or inherently. In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Express anticipation occurs when the prior art expressly discloses each limitation (i.e., each element) of a claim. Id. In addition, “[i]t is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless inherent in it.” Id.
One shows “possession” of the invention by describing the invention using such description means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Circ. 1997). It is not necessary that the exact terms that appear in the claim also appear in the description. Id.
Ex Parte Glorioso WARREN 102(b) VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C.
Ex Parte Fair LUCAS 102(b) DAVIS BUJOLD & DANIELS, P.L.L.C.
Ex Parte Fischer et al HOFF 102(e)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
The determination of obviousness must consider, inter alia, whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the Examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Further, our reviewing court has held that "[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l., Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Ex Parte Lin et al KRIVAK 102(b)/103(a) NXP, B.V.
Ex Parte Mathias et al GRIMES 102(e) COOK ALEX LTD.
In determining whether a claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea, a key distinction has been drawn between (1) claims that seek to wholly pre-empt the use of a fundamental principle, and (2) claims that are merely limited to foreclosing others from using a particular application of that fundamental principle. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), cert. granted, 77 U.S.L.W. 3442, 3653, 3656 (U.S. June 1, 2009) (No. 08-964).
In Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1999), our reviewing court further stated that the particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, requires that the corresponding structure(s) of a means-plus-function limitation … [is] disclosed in the written description in such a manner that one skilled in the art will know and understand what structure corresponds to the means limitation. Otherwise, one does not know what the claim means. It has also been established that for means-plus-function claiming, all disclosed embodiments covered by the claim must be enabled. Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC., 516 F.3d 993 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Ex Parte Brown et al BAHR 103(A) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
Ex Parte McDevitt et al SCHEINER 103(a) MICHAEL C. BARRETT FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
founded in the prior art, not in the applicant’s disclosure.
In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).
Ex Parte Bray WALSH 102(b)/103(a) CONVATEC INC.
Ex Parte Jordens et al KIMLIN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORP.
Ex Parte Meyer et al KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C.
"The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13 (CCPA 1971) (there is nothing intrinsically wrong in defining something by what it does rather than by what it is).
While the Specification must enable the skilled artisan to practice the full scope of the claimed subject matter, "[i]t is well settled that patent applicants are not required to disclose every species encompassed by their claims, even in an unpredictable art." In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 496 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Moreover, a claim does not lack enablement merely because it encompasses inoperative embodiments. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
[T]here must be sufficient disclosure, either through illustrative examples or terminology, to teach those of ordinary skill how to make and how to use the invention as broadly as it is claimed. This means that the disclosure must adequately guide the art worker to determine, without undue experimentation, which species among all those encompassed by the claimed genus possess the disclosed utility.
Vaeck, 947 F.2d at 496 (footnote omitted).
Ex Parte Philbrook HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A.
Ex Parte Keller PATE, III 112(1)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C.
in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. 439 F.2d at 213.
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477-78.
In relying upon the theory of inherency, an Examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1463 (BPAI 1990).
Ex Parte Spyrou et al GARRIS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.
Ex Parte Munetsugu et al BLAKENSHIP 103(a) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
Ex parte WOODS et al KRIVAK 103(a) Stephen C. Durant Morrison & Foerster, L.L.P.
Ex Parte Cantrell BAHR 102(b)/103(a) R REAMS GOODLOE, JR. & R. REAMS GOODLOE, P.S.
When a word of degree, such as the term “generally,” is used in a claim, we look to the specification to determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. See Seattle Box Company, Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
"The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Where the Examiner establishes a reasonable assertion of inherency and thereby evinces that a claimed process appears to be identical to a process disclosed by the prior art and/or that the products claimed by the applicant and disclosed in the prior art appear to be the same, the burden is properly shifted to the applicant to show that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-56 (CCPA 1977); cf., In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (noting that inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities).
All evidence of nonobviousness, including data in the specification, must be considered when assessing patentability, In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing In re Margolis, 785 F.2d 1029, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
Ex Parte Pearson et al NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
Ex Parte Chauhan NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) FELLERS, SNIDER, BLANKENSHIP, BAILEY & TIPPENS, P.C.
Ex Parte Bloom et al MILLS 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) REISING, ETHINGTON, BARNES, KISSELLE, P.C.
"[T]he discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious." Exceptions to this rule include (1) the results of optimizing a variable were unexpectedly good and (2) the parameter optimized was not recognized in the prior art as one which would affect the results. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977).

References: §101
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 § 101
 v. 
 § 41
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 112
 v. 
 v. 
 § 41
 v.