Source: https://www.ptab.us/2012/04/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:53:52+00:00

Document:
Thus, “[o]bviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Obviousness cannot be predicated on what is unknown. In re Spormann, 363 F.2d 444, 448 (CCPA 1966).
See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961) (making something separable is obvious).
In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should evaluate claim 1 in light of the recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012), to determine whether claim 1 recites anything more than the combination of a law of nature with a known step of allocating.
See In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 711, 712-13 (CCPA 1943) (declining to consider the belated challenge by an appellant to an examiner’s assertion as to “common knowledge” in the art “in the absence of any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement”); In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971) (requiring “a challenge to judicial notice … contain adequate information or argument so that on its face it creates a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying the judicial notice”).
See In re Cescon, 474 F.2d 1331, 1334 (CCPA 1973) (concluding that, although not every compound within the scope of the claims was tested, the evidence of secondary considerations was sufficient where evidence showed a correlation and there was no factual basis to expect the compounds to behave differently in different environments).
The use of means-plus-function language in a claim does not excuse Appellant from complying with the claim definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303 LLC, Inc., No. 2011-1229, 2012 WL 987833 at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2012); Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., No. 2011-1390, 2012 WL 1150216 at *7 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2012). If an Applicant does not disclose structure for a means plus function term, the claim is indefinite. Ergo, 2012 WL 987833 at *1. The indefiniteness analysis requires us first to construe the claim. Noah, 2012 WL 1150216 at *7. Normally this is a two-step process. First, the claimed function must be determined. Next, the corresponding structure in the written description of the patent that performs that function must be identified. Id.
To act as its own lexicographer, a patent applicant must clearly set forth a definition of the claim term in question other than its plain and ordinary meaning. Thorner v. Sony Comp. Entm’t Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “It is not enough for a [patent applicant] to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the [applicant] must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citation omitted).
A claim satisfies the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, when one skilled in the art understands the claim parameters as read in light of the specification. BJ Servs. Co. v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. 338 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 236 F.3d 684, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The definiteness inquiry focuses on whether those skilled in the art would understand the scope of the claim when the claim is read in light of the rest of the specification.”)).
Broadly providing an automatic way to replace a manual activity accomplishing the same result is not sufficient to distinguish an automated process over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958).
We are also mindful that an inventor’s self-serving statements are rarely relevant to the proper construction of a claim term. Bell & Howell Document Mgmt. Prods. v. Altek Sys.,132 F.3d 701, 706 (Fed.Cir.1997).
"An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims." Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (A reference is analogous prior art when it is “from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed . . . .”) (emphasis added).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s Decision in the above-identified ex parte reexamination proceedings, and remanded the proceedings with instructions to designate the Decision as including a new ground of rejection. In re Stepan Co., 660 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 112
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 112
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.