Source: https://www.ptab.us/2017/08/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:35:20+00:00

Document:
Furthermore, Appellants correctly argue the Examiner’s reliance on routine optimization is improper. Modifications that would have been known to a person of ordinary skill are irrelevant to whether a reference anticipates a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 780 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[A]nticipation under § 102 can be found only when the reference discloses exactly what is claimed and that where there are differences between the reference disclosure and the claim, the rejection must be based on § 103 which takes differences into account.”) Still further, even under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the failure to provide sufficient evidence “that one skilled in the art would necessarily have appreciated the advantageous effects of providing a nitride insulating film in a semiconductor device within the claimed range” (App. Br. 13) renders a rejection based on obviousness improper.
1713 Ex Parte Palaniswamy 13882068 - (D) KRATZ 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY DUCLAIR, STEPHANIE P.
Without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against. . .[,] we cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.
Furthermore, for most of the claims, we are not persuaded that Appellants’ evidence of allegedly unexpected results rebuts this prima facie case of obviousness. To support a contention of nonobviousness, evidence of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Where rebuttal evidence compared catalysts containing sodium to prior art, court held evidence insufficient to rebut prima facie case of obviousness because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with claims, which were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal.). The requirement that the evidence be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention must be applied on a claim-by-claim basis. See MeadWestVaco Corp. v. Rexam Beauty and Closures, Inc., 731 F.3d 1258, 1264—65 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (noting district court erred by failing to treat broader claims differently than narrower claims when considering objective evidence of non-obviousness).
Claim 16 — This claim recites a “plurality of connections between [the] third sheet and [the] fourth sheet. . . whereby [the] third sheet is constrained to expand . . . from [the] fourth sheet.” Appellants argue that the plurality of connections are not shown in the art and that the whereby clause must be considered. App. Br. 26-27. The Examiner argues that the whereby clause is functional language that does not define any structure and thus does not distinguish over the prior art, citing to In re Mason, 244 F.2d 733 (CCPA 1957). Ans. 10. We disagree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation. Claim 16 positively recites a plurality of connections and further recites that the connections are distributed so that the third sheet expands a limited distance from the fourth sheet when the chamber is inflated. The Examiner has failed to provide an adequate showing of where this structural limitation of the plurality of connections is found in either Anderson or Clark. Accordingly, because all of the limitations are not shown to be contained in the references cited, this rejection will not be sustained.

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