Source: https://www.ptab.us/2017/01/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:00:28+00:00

Document:
[W]here the Examiner fails to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden to rebut the Examiner’s findings and conclusion never shifts to Appellant. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
implementation examples for the generic function. A species of a genus anticipates the genus. Mikus v. Wachtel, 504 F.2d 1150, 1151 (CCPA 1974); In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411 (CCPA 1960); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Indeed, our reviewing court has expressly rejected similar contentions regarding preemption, stating that a patentee’s “attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses . . . outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The court explained that, “[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. . . . Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework . . . preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Id.
Absent some articulated rationale, a finding that a combination of prior art would have been “common sense” or “intuitive” is no different than merely stating the combination “would have been obvious.” Such a conclusory assertion with no explanation is inadequate to support a finding that there would have been a motivation to combine. In re Van Os, 2017 WL 24642, 2015-1975, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 3, 2017).
Thus, Appellant has defined “client type” to be software, at least by implication. “Even when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, the specification may define claim terms by implication such that the meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” In Re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1150 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Irdeto Access, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Independent apparatus claim 1 recites active method steps (e.g., “a first base station transmitting . . .”) in connection with recited structural elements (“A cellular communication system comprising: . . .”). (App. Br. 16—17 (Claims App’x) (emphases added).) As such, this claim is effectively a hybrid apparatus/method claim, which the Federal Circuit has held is indefinite under § 112, second paragraph. See Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding apparatus claim reciting active transmitting step indefinite). This is a critical defect because it is unclear whether claim 1 covers a system that is merely capable of performing the recited function (e.g., “[/or] transmitting” certain information at some future time), or if that function actually must be performed (e.g., “transmitting” certain information actively at the current time).
Stated differently, there is no dispute that Nicola, Jr. teaches that the spacing for holes on the underside of a fixed tube dispenser is a known result effective variable, i.e., a function of the output and viscosity of the chemical used. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable.. .is ordinarily within the skill of the art”).
It is well settled that where, as here, a claim requires two separate elements, one element construed as having two separate functions will not suffice to meet the claim’s terms. See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing only two means using one element twice).
(“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.”) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)).

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