Source: https://www.ptab.us/2016/02/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:50:03+00:00

Document:
Claim 10 is directed to a driver, a machine or apparatus. As correctly pointed out by the Examiner, "the manner in which a device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations," and "apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art." Ans. 3. This is because "[a] machine is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." See Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570 (1863) (defining "machine"). Because an apparatus is a structure, the apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structure, and where there is reason to believe that the structure of the prior art is inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed fünction patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981).
Where there is doubt regarding the teachings of a reference, "the scales should be inclined toward applicant." See In re Coley, 40 F.2d 982, 986 (CCPA 1930) (reversing anticipation rejections).
We are instructed that "claims under examination before the [U.S. Patent and Trademark Office] are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). However, [t]he broadest-construction rubric . . . does not give the [Examiner] an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention." In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
An inherent characteristic must be inevitable, and not merely a possibility or probability. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981).
In our view, this is insufficient as “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct components of the patented invention. Becton Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
see also Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 779 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("an invention may be held to have been either obvious (or nonobvious) without a specific finding of a particular level of skill or the reception of expert testimony on the level of skill where, as here, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level"); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ( [T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error 'where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown'") (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (patentability may not be based on limitations not appearing in the claims).
See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Limitations not explicit or inherent in the language of a claim cannot be imported from the specification.).
We also note that the "mere fact that generic pharmaceutical companies seek approval to market a generic version of a drug, without more, is not evidence of commercial success that speaks to the nonobviousness of patent claims." Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 740 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Settled law maintains that a broader independent claim cannot be nonobvious where a dependent claim stemming from that independent claim is invalid for obviousness. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

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