Source: https://www.ptab.us/2018/04/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:44:37+00:00

Document:
D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("Where some claims are broad and others narrow, the narrow claim limitations cannot be read into the broad." (quoting Deere & Co. v. Int 'l Harvester Co., 658 F.2d 1137, 1141 (7th Cir. 1981))).
2194 Ex Parte MARATHE et al 13167278 - (D) WINSOR 103 Clayton, McKay & Bailey, PC TRUONG, LECH!
[I]dentification in the prior art of each individual part claimed is insufficient to defeat patentability of the whole claimed invention. . . . Rather, to establish obviousness based on a combination of the elements disclosed in the prior art, there must be some motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that was made by the applicant.
see also Ecolochem Inc. v. Southern California Edison, 227 F.3d 1361, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[A] rejection cannot be predicated on the mere identification ... of individual components of claimed limitations. Rather particular findings must be made as to the reason the skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected these components for combination in the manner claimed." (citations omitted)).
In sum, we find the evidence on this record favors Appellants. Claims are not indefinite simply because they do not describe the invention using numerical values. See In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 565 (CCPA 1975).
3745 Ex Parte Miners 13132030 - (D) GUIJT 103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP COLLINS, DANIELS.
Appellants thus provide evidence of the criticality and results of the claimed coating thickness range compared to the prior art range of 8 mm to 10 mm. This evidence precludes the Examiner's finding that the claimed coating thickness is an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 299 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (evidence that the claimed structure and function it performed differed from the prior art precluded a finding that catalyst placement was merely a design choice).
Nor has the Examiner explained why a skilled artisan would have arrived at the claimed coating thickness. Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., 636 F. App'x 575, 578 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) ("stating that a particular placement of an element is a design choice does not make it obvious.").
A prima facie case for obviousness "requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim," CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup International Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and "a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does," KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
3721 Ex Parte BATZER et al 13873592 - (D) DOUGAL 103 KEATING & BENNETT, LLP SCHOPPE, ZIMMERMANN , STOCKELER & ZINKLER PATHAK, PRAACHI M.
"It is the use of the words in the context of the written description and customarily by those skilled in the relevant art that accurately reflects both the 'ordinary' and the 'customary' meaning of the terms in the claims." Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls, Div. of Dover Res., Inc. v. Mega Sys., LLC, 350 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.