Supporting a Rejection Under 3. U. S. C. 1. 03. 21. Supporting a Rejection Under 3. U. S. C. This section discusses supporting. U. S. C. 1. 03 by reliance on scientific theory and legal precedent. In. keeping with the flexible approach to obviousness under KSR, as well as the requirement for. Education and information about healthy water, including drinking water, swimming / recreational water, recreational water illnesses, diseases related to. Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting. So, for. example, automating a manual activity, making portable, making separable, reversing or. However. such rationales should not be treated as per se rules, but rather must be explained and. A similar caveat applies to any obviousness analysis. In re Fine, 8. 37 F. USPQ2d. 1. 59. 6 (Fed. In re Jones, 9. 58 F. USPQ2d 1. 94. 1. (Fed. See also In re Kotzab, 2. F. 3d 1. 36. 5, 1. USPQ2d 1. 31. 3, 1. Fed. 2. 00. 0) (setting forth test for implicit teachings). In re Eli Lilly & Co., 9. F. 2d 9. 43, 1. 4 USPQ2d 1. US Department of Labor: The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs administers four major disability compensation programs which provide wage replacement benefits. If you need help using Tor you can contact WikiLeaks for assistance in setting it up using our simple webchat available at: https://wikileaks.org/talk. Notice: This is a Restricted Web Site for Official U.S. Unauthorized entry is prohibited and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Sections; Top Stories; Video; Election; U.S. World; Entertainment; Health; Tech; Lifestyle; Money; Investigative; Sports; Good News; Weather; Photos; Shows. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use 2013 (U.S. SPR), comprises recommendations that address a select group of common. Fed. 1. 98. 8) (references do not have to. Ex parte Clapp, 2. USPQ 9. 72. (Bd. 1. Ex parte Levengood, 2. USPQ2d 1. 30. 0 (Bd. In re. Sernaker, 7. Official Bureau of Economic Analysis website. Source of US economic statistics including national income and product accounts (NIPAs), gross domestic product (GDP. The 1983 Beirut barracks bombings were terrorist attacks that occurred on October 23, 1983, in Beirut, Lebanon, during the Lebanese Civil War when two truck bombs. Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to. F. 2d 9. 89, 9. 94- 9. USPQ 1, 5- 6 (Fed. See also. Dystar Textilfarben Gmb. H & Co. Patrick, 4. F. 3d 1. 35. 6, 1. USPQ2d 1. 64. 1, 1. Fed. 2. 00. 6) (“Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine. Because the. desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is. LEGAL PRECEDENT CAN PROVIDE THE RATIONALE SUPPORTING. OBVIOUSNESS ONLY IF THE FACTS IN THE CASE ARE SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE. APPLICATIONThe examiner must apply the law consistently to each application after. If the facts in a prior legal decision are. If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a. It. is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same. See, e. g., In re Kahn. F. 3d 9. 77, 9. 87, 7. USPQ2d 1. 32. 9, 1. Fed. 2. 00. 6) (motivation question arises in. Cross Med. Medtronic Sofamor. Danek, Inc., 4. 24 F. USPQ2d 1. 66. 2, 1. Fed. 2. 00. 5). (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a. In re. Lintner, 4. F. 2d 1. 01. 3, 1. USPQ 5. 60 (CCPA 1. In re Dillon, 9. 19 F. USPQ2d 1. 89. 7 (Fed. The claims were. rejected over the combination of a primary reference which taught all the claim. Appellant argued that in the claimed invention, the sugar is. The court sustained the rejection, stating “The fact that appellant uses. The Board affirmed the rejection. The reference. disclosed that catalytic processes for converting methane with sulfur vapors into carbon. In re Soli, 3. 17 F. USPQ 7. 97 (CCPA 1. However, when an examiner relies on a scientific theory. The. known chemical relationship between structurally similar compounds (homologs, analogs. See In re Gartside, 2. F. 3d. 1. 30. 5, 1. USPQ2d 1. 76. 9, 1. Fed. In. light of recent Federal Circuit decisions as discussed below and the substantial. USPTO Board decisions, the following. While “official. notice” may be relied on, these circumstances should be rare when an application. CFR 1. 1. 13. Official notice. As noted by the. court in In re Ahlert, 4. F. 2d 1. 08. 8, 1. USPQ 4. 18, 4. 20. CCPA 1. 97. 0), the notice of facts beyond the record which may be taken by the. In re Knapp Monarch Co., 2. F. 2d 2. 30. 1. 32 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1. In Ahlert, the court held that the. Board properly took judicial notice that “it is old to adjust intensity of a flame. See also In re Fox. F. 2d 1. 40. 5, 1. USPQ 3. 40, 3. 41 (CCPA 1. Furthermore, it. might be reasonable for the examiner in a first Office action to take official. In re Zurko, 2. 58 F. USPQ2d 1. 69. 3, 1. Fed. 2. 00. 1); Ahlert, 4. F. 2d at 1. 09. 2, 1. USPQ at 4. 21. For example, assertions of. In re Ahlert, 4. 24 F. USPQ at 4. 20- 2. See also In re Grose, 5. F. 2d 1. 16. 1. 1. USPQ 5. 7, 6. 3 (CCPA 1. The facts constituting the state of the art are normally. Zurko, 2. 58 F. 3d at 1. USPQ2d. at 1. 69. Rather, the Board must point to some concrete evidence in the. While the court explained that, “as an. Board clearly has expertise in the subject matter over. As the court held in. Zurko, an assessment of basic knowledge and common sense. See In re Soli, 3. F. 2d 9. 41, 9. 45- 4. USPQ 7. 97, 8. 00 (CCPA 1. Office); In re Chevenard, 1. F. 2d 7. 11, 7. 13, 6. USPQ. 2. 39, 2. 41 (CCPA 1. If such notice is taken, the basis for such reasoning must be set. The examiner must provide specific factual findings predicated. See Soli, 3. 17 F. USPQ at 8. 01. Chevenard, 1. F. 2d at 7. 13, 6. USPQ at 2. 41. The applicant. Office action in which the common knowledge statement was. See also. Chevenard, 1. F. 2d at 7. 13, 6. USPQ at 2. 41 (“. A general allegation that the. If applicant adequately. Office action if the rejection is to be. See 3. 7 CFR 1. 1. See also Zurko, 2. F. 3d at 1. 38. 6, 5. USPQ2d at 1. 69. 7 (“. If the examiner is relying on personal knowledge to. See 3. 7 CFR 1. 1. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should. If no amendments are made to the claims, the examiner. If the newly cited reference is added for reasons other than to support the. Furthermore, as noted by the court in. Ahlert, any facts so noticed should be of notorious. It is never appropriate to rely solely on common. See Zurko, 2. 58 F. USPQ2d at 1. 69. 7; Ahlert, 4. F. 2d at 1. 09. 2, 1. USPQ. 4. 21. Examples directed to various. If the applicant. Appellant argued that certain limitations in the upper. The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no. But see Ex parte Hilton, 1. USPQ. 3. 56 (Bd. 1. Claims were directed to fried potato chips with a specified. While recognizing that in some cases the particular shape of. Board held in this case the shape. Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal. The claims were rejected over a. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that. See also In re. Larson, 3. F. 2d 9. 65, 1. 44 USPQ 3. CCPA 1. 96. 5) (Omission of. In re Kuhle, 5. 26 F. USPQ 7. (CCPA 1. 97. In re. Edge, 3. 59 F. USPQ 5. 56 (CCPA 1. Claims at issue. were directed to a printed sheet having a thin layer of erasable metal bonded. The prior art disclosed a similar printed sheet which further. The claims were. found unobvious over the prior art because the although the transparent layer of. USPQ 2. 32 (1. 98. Federal. Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims. Prior art. reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is. See also In re. Burhans, 1. F. 2d 6. 90, 6. 9 USPQ 3. CCPA 1. 94. 6) (selection of. In re. Gibson, 3. F. 2d 9. 75, 5 USPQ 2. CCPA 1. 93. 0) (Selection of any. The court affirmed the. Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard- bearing wheel. Nortron argued that. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any. The court held that. The court held the claimed. The. claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs”. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of. Although the. reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in. Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. In re. Bergstrom, 4. F. 2d 1. 39. 4, 1. USPQ 2. 56 (CCPA 1. Purer forms of. known products may be patentable, but the mere purity of a product, by itself, does. In. re. Cofer, 3. F. 2d 6. 64, 1. 48 USPQ 2. CCPA 1. 96. 6) (Claims to the. Claims to. interleukin- 2 (a protein with a molecular weight of over 1. In re. Wertheim, 5. F. 2d 2. 57, 1. 91 USPQ 9. CCPA 1. 97. 6); In. Woodruff, 9. 19 F. USPQ2d 1. 93. 4 (Fed. The. prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1- 5%” while the claim was. The court held that “about 1- 5%” allowed for. In re. Geisler, 1. F. 3d 1. 46. 5, 1. USPQ2d 1. 36. 2, 1. Fed. 1. 98. 5). (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0. See also Warner- Jenkinson Co., Inc. Hilton Davis Chemical. Co., 5. 20 U. S. 1. H of 5. 0 could infringe a patented purification process. H of 6. 0- 9. 0, explaining “. Glide N Lock Gmb. H, 5. 67 Fed. 2. 01. Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter. Gentiluomo v. Brunswick Bowling and Billiards Corp., 3. Fed. 2. 00. 2)(non- precedential)(disagreeing with argument that. See also In re. Harris, 4. F. 3d 1. 33. 9, 7. USPQ2d 1. 95. 1 (Fed. However, if the reference’s disclosed range is so broad as to. See also In re Baird, 1. F. 3d 3. 80, 2. 9 USPQ2d 1. Fed. 1. 99. 4); In re Jones, 9. F. 2d. 3. 47, 2. 1 USPQ2d 1. Fed. USA Sports, Inc., 3. F. 3d 1. 31. 7. 1. USPQ2d 1. 22. 5, 1. Fed. The patent claim at issue was directed. Multiple prior art patents each disclosed weight plates having 1, 2. F. 3d at 1. 31. 9, 7. USPQ2d at 1. 22. 6. The court stated that. F. 3d at 1. 32. 2, 7. USPQ2d at 1. 22. 8. The. court further stated that the “range” disclosed in multiple prior art patents is “a. For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck. Co. Inc., 8. 74 F. USPQ2d 1. 84. 3 (Fed. Cir.). cert. 9. 75 (1. In re. Kulling, 8. F. 2d 1. 14. 7, 1. USPQ2d 1. 05. 6 (Fed. In re Geisler, 1. F. 3d 1. 46. 5, 4. USPQ2d 1. 36. 2 (Fed. In re. Williams, 3. F. 2d 4. 36, 4. 38 (CCPA 1. It is a settled principle of. See also KSR Int’l. Co. Teleflex Inc., 5. U. S. 3. 98, 4. 16 (2. In KSR International Co. Supreme Court held that. When there. is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite. If this. leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but. In that instance the fact that a combination. Thus, after. KSR, the presence of a known result- effective variable would. In such a situation, the. In re. Woodruff, 9. F. 2d 1. 57. 5, 1. USPQ2d 1. 93. 4 (Fed. See. also Minerals Separation, Ltd., et al. In re Scherl, 1. 56 F. CCPA 1. 94. 6) (“Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant. In re Becket, 8. 8 F. CCPA 1. 93. 7). (“Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so. In re Lilienfeld, 6. F. 2d 9. 20, 9. 24 (CCPA 1. It. is well established that, while a change in the proportions of a combination shown. In re Wells, 5. 6 F. CCPA 1. 93. 2) (“Changes in proportions of agents used in combinations . In re Geisler, 1.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |