Add files using upload-large-folder tool

.gitattributes

@@ -57,3 +57,4 @@ saved_model/**/* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 # Video files - compressed
 *.mp4 filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 *.webm filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+ptab_metadata.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text

opinion_split/2009002896_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "11. A lure-emitting device consisting of an extended uniform lure emission dispenser consisting of at least one volatile liquid lure specific for one targeted flying insect species, an adjustable wick wherein said wick area exposed to the atmosphere can be increased or decreased over time to maintain a uniform rate of lure emission providing maximum attraction for said flying insect, and a means for maintaining air pressure in said dispenser wherein said dispenser emits said at least one volatile lure for at least about six months without replenishment of said lure."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Morton Beroza (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. 5 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as unpatentable over Grimes (US 1,056,535, issued Mar. 18, 1913) in view of Baker (US 6,543,181 B1, issued Apr. 8, 2003) or Huang (US 6,585,990 B1, issued Jul. 1, 2003) (Ans. 3), claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as unpatentable over Grimes \"as modified by Huang as applied to claim 11 above\" (Ans. 5), and claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable over Kubalek (US 2,254,948, issued Sep. 2, 1941) in view of Baker or Huang (Ans. 5)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Claim 15 has been withdrawn from consideration.",
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b).",
+    "We REVERSE.",
+    "The claims on appeal relate to a device that will provide a uniform emission of a lure for an extended period of time. Spec. 1:1-2.",
+    "Claim 11, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.",
+    "The determinative issues in this appeal are: 1) Whether the scope and content of Grimes discloses an adjustable wick. 2) Whether the scope and content of Kubalek with Baker or Huang is limited to suggesting a lure lasting about six months.",
+    "As a preliminary matter, it appears that a clear recognition of the claim scope is in order.",
+    "The claims are drafted using the transitional phrase \"consisting of throughout.",
+    "The transitional phrase \"consisting of' excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. In re Gray, 53 F.2d 520, 521 (CCPA 1931).",
+    "It appears neither the Examiner nor Appellant have substantively acknowledged the closed-end aspect of the claims.",
+    "Grimes disclose a wick 16.",
+    "The wick 16 draws water 11 within a container 10 in a capillary manner up to a fabric pad 17 containing a dry poison that is placed on top of a pedestal 14.",
+    "Grimes does not disclose adjusting the wick in any manner.",
+    "The pad 17 being frictionally secured to the top by guard 18 prohibits any movement of the wick upward.",
+    "Further, if the wick 16 were moved downward, then the wick would not contact the pad and defeat the purpose of the wick which is to draw the water into the dry poison to make a solution.",
+    "Therefore, the Grimes wick is not adjustable and thus does not satisfy the claimed wick.",
+    "Kubalek discloses a poison that *will last practically indefinitely. Kubalek, p. 1, col. 2, 11. 34-35.",
+    "There is no evidence that a poison will \"lure\" a targeted flying insect.",
+    "Indeed, Kubalek discloses adding sugar or molasses to the mixture to attract, \"lure,\" the insects. Kubalek, p. 1, col. 2, 11. 23-25.",
+    "Further, Kubalek fails to disclose, teach, or suggest that its sugar or molasses attractant would last practically indefinitely much less last for at least about six months.",
+    "Baker and Huang do not teach or suggest their respective attractants lasting at least six months.",
+    "Therefore, while the prior art suggests a poison lasting about six months, see Kubalek, we find that the prior art of record fails to teach, and the Examiner has not cogently explained how the prior art does in fact teach, a lure lasting about six months in the manner claimed.",
+    "Furthermore, to the extent that the Kubalek patent's disclosure of a \"poison [that will] last indefinitely\" would be regarded by persons skilled in the art as including the sugar or molasses attractant, Kubalek still fails to disclose or suggest a liquid volatile lure that lasts for at least about six months without replenishment.",
+    "The poison is said to last indefinitely, but will only operate as intended *indefinitely** with the replenishment of water. (Kubalek, p. 1, col. 2, 11. 35-37).",
+    "Moreover, the Examiner has not pointed to any evidence that persons of ordinary skill in this art would understand that the term \"indefinitely\" would necessarily include a time period as lengthy as *up to about six months\".",
+    "In view of the foregoing, Appellant's contention that the wick disclosed in Grimes is not adjustable in the manner claimed shows error in the Examiner's s findings directed to the scope and content of Grimes.",
+    "Further, Appellant's contention that Kubalek with Baker or Huang fails to suggest a lure lasting at least six months in the manner claimed shows error in the Examiner's findings directed to the scope and content of Kubalek with Baker or Huang.",
+    "The Examiner does not utilize the other prior art of record to cure the deficiencies raised by Appellant's s contentions.",
+    "Accordingly, the decision of the Examiner to reject the claims is reversed."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009005127_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "For their part, the Appellants argue that \"in the recording described in the reference Wistendahl[,] [a]ny interactivity is provided separately from any recording.\" \" (App. Br. 5.)"
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Wistendahl discloses \u00b7 Adding interactivity to the recording as commanded by the user of the recording device (column 9, lines 17-33: Here, an author identifies hot spots to be linked, thereby providing interactivity) Linking the recording and an interactive module based on the interactivity added to the recording (column 3, lines 1-23; column 9, lines 17-33)[.] (Ans. 3.)",
+    "Although the appellant's preferred embodiment may include embedding the interactivity within the recording, the appellant's claimed limitations are silent as to this aspect.",
+    "Therefore, the added interactivity may be stored external to the recording, as long as the recording is interactive.",
+    "Therefore, Wistendahl's teaching of adding interactivity via an external program and data file constitutes adding interactivity to a recording.",
+    "For these reasons, the appellant's argument is not persuasive. (Ans. 4-5.)"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-6.",
+    "The Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. & 134(a).",
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 6(b).",
+    "The Appellants' invention \"add[s] \u00b7 \u00b7 . interactivity to the audio data and/or visual data as recorded on [a] removable recording medium\" (Spec. 1) \"such as, for example, a Compact-Disc (CD) and a Digital Videodisc (DVD)\".\" (Id.)",
+    "A method of operating a recording device, said method comprising: storing a recording on a removable recording medium; adding interactivity to the recording; and linking the recording and an interactive module based on the interactivity added to the recording.",
+    "Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,708,845 (\"Wistendahl\").",
+    "Based on the Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal of claims 1-6 on the basis of claim 1 alone.",
+    "See 37 C.F.R. & 41.37(c)(1)(vii).",
+    "The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Wistendahl adds interactivity to a recording as required by representative claim 1.",
+    "Wistendahl describes its invention as \"[a] system for allowing media content to be used in an interactive digital media (IDM) program . \u00b7 \u00b7 F (Abstract, 11. 1-2.)",
+    "Figure 2 of the reference follows. a B FRAME DATA FI + n N DATA FI + n: A(F) = P(a), ak) = : B(F) = P(b), bk) = : : IDM PROG, T IF A, GO TO .. k IF B', GO TO \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 I (P) A FIG. 2",
+    "\"FIG. 2 is a schematic drawing showing the generation of object mapping data designating 'hot spots' in a display frame\" (Col. 3, 11. 56-58.)",
+    "\"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under 5 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim, and that anticipation is a fact question . \u00b7 \u00b7 . M In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH V. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).",
+    "Here, we agree with the Examiner's following findings.",
+    "For its part the reference corroborates the Examiner's findings by teaching that \"media content is \u25a0 \u25a0 \u00b7 rendered in the form of a stream of digital data, referred to herein as 'Frame Data', which represent the series of display frames F constituting the movie or video sequence.\" (Col. 6, 11. 1-4.)",
+    "Figure 2, supra, shows one such frame.",
+    "\"[F]or each frame I \u00b7 . the object mapping data, referred to \u00b7 . \u00b7 as 'N Data', are generated to define the display location coordinates of designated 'hot spot' areas in the frames of the movie or video sequence.\" (Id. at 11. 4- 8.)",
+    "Figure 2 \u00b7 supra, shows hot spots A and B and the associated N Data.",
+    "\"[T]he N Data define the location of the designated 'hot spots' or 'anchors' to which hyperlinks are established in the IDM program. This is represented in FIG. 2 by \"IDM PROG.' which references the \"hot spot\" N Data values as anchors for hyperlinks to other files or executable functions (\"GO TO . \u00b7 \").\" (Id. at 11. 29-34.)",
+    "More specifically, \"a hyperlinking tool similar to that offered in the LINKSW ARETTM software is used to establish programmed hyperlinks of the object mapping data to other program functions which provide the IDM program with its interactive responses. \" (Col. 9, 11. 54-58 (emphases added).)",
+    "\"During prosecution . . . the PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation. \" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).",
+    "\"Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).",
+    "Here, we agree with the Examiner's following findings.",
+    "Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Wistendahl adds interactivity to a recording as required by representative claim 1."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009005548_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "The Appellants argue Entertainment fails to describe customizing and printing customized coupons, and the selection associated with the customization. Appeal Br. 15-25.",
+    "They then argue that one would not combine Entertainment' s paper book with Simpson's compact disk. Appeal Br. 18-25.",
+    "The Appellants then argue that their selection allows a greater scope of selection than in Simpson. Id."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "As the Examiner found at Answer 4-5, Entertainment describes these steps, ignoring the qualifier \"customized.\" FF 02-03.",
+    "The Examiner found that one of ordinary skill would have found it predictable to customize Entertainment's selection of coupons using a selection process as in Simpson because it would increase the number of suitable discount offers."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. & 6(b) (2002).",
+    "We AFFIRM.",
+    "The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over Entertainment and Simpson turns on whether it was predictable to have a participant select a plurality of coupons to include in a plurality of customized coupon books.",
+    "The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence.",
+    "The Appellants argue the claims as a group and so we select claim 1 as representative, since that is the claim argued.",
+    "These are the only limitations under contention.",
+    "The issue is then whether given Simpson, it would have been predictable to use customized books in Entertainment.",
+    "Step (c) would be required by any form of customization, as this step is the selection for such customization.",
+    "We agree as Simpson describes a known problem associated with coupon books such as those in Entertainment as being that consumers may find only a limited number of offers particularly suited to their needs. FF 08.",
+    "Thus, affording a selection from a wider universe than that printed by default in Entertainment, as suggested by Simpson, would allow a customer to potentially find more discounts of use to that customer.",
+    "The Appellants argue each of the references separately even though the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references.",
+    "Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097(Fed. Cir. 1986).",
+    "But Simpson does more than just describe a particular compact disk product.",
+    "Simpson explains the problem with not affording a selection of discount offers, and describes a selection mechanism for allowing selection.",
+    "One of ordinary skill would thus find a reason for customizing Entertainment's books.",
+    "As step (c) recites selecting and does not further narrow the manner of selecting, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009005569_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant contends Howe does not teach a communications stage configured to establish a communication link with a resolution utility on receipt of a resolution utility address (App. Br. 5).2",
+    "Appellant further contends Howe does not teach transmitting or sending a content identifier to a resolution utility on determination of the resolution utility (App. Br. 6).",
+    "With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant argues the set top box of Howe is not configured to establish a communication link with a resolution utility *on receipt\" of a resolution utility address.",
+    "Rather, Appellant asserts, Howe's set top box establishes a communication link on receipt of a command from the user.",
+    "Appellant further argues Howe teaches away from establishing a communication link *on receipt\" of a resolution utility address because Howe requires intervening events, including a user notification event and user request event, between receiving an address and establishing a communication link. (App. Br. 5)",
+    "With respect to independent claims 6 and 17, Appellant argues Howe does not teach transmitting (claim 6) or sending (claim 17) a content identifier to a resolution utility *on determination\" of the resolution utility for reasons similar to those argued with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 6)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(e) as anticipated by Howe.",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 3, 14-16, and 24-28 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) based upon the teachings of Howe and Lowell.",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 18, 19, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) based upon the teachings of Howe and Schneidewend.",
+    "The Examiner finds Howe discloses a set top box that receives an address that leads to additional content.",
+    "The set top box notifies the user it has received the address through display of an icon or button.",
+    "The set top box then establishes a communication link with the address upon request by the user. (Ans. 12; Howe col. 4, 11. 18-50)",
+    "The Examiner asserts claim 1 does not preclude intervening steps between receiving an address and establishing a communication link because claim 1 is not limited to establishing a communication link immediately, automatically, or without user intervention (Ans. 11).",
+    "The Examiner relies on the same findings described above with respect to claim 1 in response to Appellant's s arguments regarding claims 6 and 17 (Ans. 13)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We agree.",
+    "The claim language *on receipt\" does not require establishing a communication link without any intervening actions.",
+    "Further, claim 1 does not require the communications stage to actually establish a communication link upon receiving the resolution utility address.",
+    "Claim 1 recites \"a communications stage \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 configured, on receipt of a resolution utility address from said capture stage, to establish a communications link\" (emphasis added).",
+    "Because claim 1 only requires the communications stage to be configured to establish a communication link, it does not preclude additional actions prior to actual establishment of a communication link, as taught by Howe.",
+    "Further, Appellant's s argument that Howe teaches away (App. Br. 5) from the claimed invention has no merit because **teaching away* is irrelevant to anticipation.\" Leggett & Platt, Inc. 17. VUTEk, Inc., 537 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).",
+    "As with the *on receipt\" language in claim 1, the claim language \"on determination'' does not limit claims 6 and 17 to transmitting or sending the content identifier without any intervening event, such as a user command.",
+    "Thus, Howe anticipates claims 1, 6, and 17, and claim 2, which depends from claim 1.",
+    "Appellant makes no additional arguments other than those presented with respect to independent claims 1, 6, and 17, for the rejection of claims 3- 5, 7-9, 11-16, 18, 19, and 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. S 103, over Howe, Lowell, and Schneidewend (Ans. 7-8).",
+    "Thus, these claims fall with claims 1, 6, and 17."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009006672_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "The invention at issue on appeal relates to a device, system and method for embedding data, such as a watermark pattern, into an information signal, such as multimedia content or a video signal, utilizing a signature of the information signal extracted from the information signal to make the embedded data (watermark) dependent on the information signal.",
+    "The invention also relates to a device, system and method for detecting embedding data (watermark pattern). (Spec. 1:1-2:8; 2:28-3:19; 4:5-27; 5:18-6:8.)3",
+    "1. A method of embedding a watermark pattern (W) in an information signal (X) comprising: determining a robust signature (S) as a set of robust features of said information signal (X), generating a watermark pattern (W) on the basis of a first signature dependent function (fs()) applied to a predefined basic watermark pattern (V), embedding said watermark pattern (W) in said information signal (X) resulting in a watermarked signal (Y), wherein a relationship between said first signature dependent function (fs ()) and a second signature dependent function (gs(1)) is given by D(Y; fs(V)) = D(gs(Y);V), V), where (D) is a given detection operation on said watermarked signal (Y).",
+    "2. The method according to claim 1 wherein said first function (fs()) is an invertible and linear function, and said second function (gs(-)) is an inverse function of said signature dependent function (fs(-)), where gs = fs",
+    "6. The method according to claim 1 wherein said watermark pattern (W) is obtained from the basic watermark pattern (V) by modifying the signs of the basic pattern (V) according to the following: W = Ps*V, where Ps is a signature dependent pattern having the same size as the basic watermark pattern (V), with each entry of Ps being equal to either +1 or -1.",
+    "7. A method for detecting a basic watermark pattern (V) in an information signal (Y) with an embedded watermark pattern (W), said method comprising: determining a robust signature (S) as a set of robust features in said information signal (Y), generating a signal (Z) on the basis of a second signature dependent function (gs(-)) of said information signal (Y), detecting said basic watermark pattern (V) from said signal (Z), wherein a relationship between said second signature dependent function (gs(-)) and a first signature dependent function (fs()) is given by D(Y; fs(V)) = D(gs(Y);V), where (D) is a given detection operation on said information signal (Y).",
+    "Appellants, on the other hand, contend that Alattar fails to disclose, teach or suggest a first signature dependent function having a particular the claimed relationship with a second signature dependent function. (Br. 12- 13.)",
+    "Appellants do not otherwise dispute the Examiner's findings with respect to the disclosures and teachings of Alattar. (See Br. 12-13.)",
+    "Appellants contend that Alattar fails to disclose, teach or suggest the inverse relationship between the first signature dependent function and the second signature dependent function. (Br. 13-14.)",
+    "Appellants contend that Alattar fails to disclose, teach or suggest the disputed features of generating a signal utilizing a second signature dependent function with a particular relationship between the first signature dependent function and the second signature dependent function. (Br. 14- 15.)",
+    "Appellants, on the other hand, contend that Nakamura fails to disclose, teach or suggest \"Ps is a signature dependent pattern having the same size as the basic watermark pattern (V), with each entry of Ps being equal to either + 1 or -1.\" (Br. 16.)"
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 7-9, and 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. S 102(e) as being anticipated by Alattar.",
+    "2. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 12, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Alattar and Nakamura.",
+    "The Examiner rejects Appellants' independent claim 1 as being anticipated by Alattar. (Ans. 4-6.)",
+    "Specifically, the Examiner finds that Alattar discloses signature dependent functions, which in turn necessarily discloses a relationship between signature dependent functions based on the same signature. (Ans. 4-5, 27 (citing Alattar - TI [0240]-[0242]).)",
+    "The Examiner rejects Appellants' dependent claim 2 as being anticipated by Alattar. (Ans. 6.)",
+    "Specifically, the Examiner finds that Alattar discloses invertible signature-dependent functions that necessarily disclose the recited inverse relationship between a first and a second signature dependent function. (Ans. 6, 27-28 (citing Alattar - TI [0062], [0089]).)",
+    "The Examiner rejects Appellants' independent claim 7 as being anticipated by Alattar. (Ans. 7-8.)",
+    "Specifically, the Examiner finds that Alattar discloses detecting a basic watermark signal using a signature- dependent function. (Ans. 7-8, 28-29 (citing Alattar - II [0091]-[0092], [0242]).)",
+    "The Examiner rejects Appellants' dependent claim 6 as being obvious over Alattar and Nakamura. (Ans. 18-21.)",
+    "Specifically, the Examiner finds that Alattar describes an invertible signature dependent watermarking function and a watermarking pattern, and Nakamura describes complexity values, which may be whole numbers and which may equal +1 or -1, that can be combined with a watermarking pattern which in turn necessarily discloses a relationship between signature dependent functions based on the same signature. (Ans. 18-21, 31 (citing Alattar - I [0089]; Nakamura - col. 3, 1. 61 to col. 4, 1. 25; col. 57, 1. 8 to col. 58, 1. 21; col. 58, 11. 25-38, 57-62).)"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Appellants appeal from the Examiner': s rejection of claims 1-3, 6-9, 12, and 14-21 under authority of 35 U.S.C. 5 134(a).",
+    "Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, and 13 have been found to contain allowable subject matter. (Ans. 2, 25.)",
+    "The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 6(b).",
+    "We affirm.",
+    "Independent claim 1, dependent claims 2 and 6, and independent claim 7 further illustrate the invention, and are reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized:",
+    "The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence in support of the rejections:",
+    "Alattar US 2002/0009208 A1 Jan. 24, 2002 (filed Apr. 17, 2001)",
+    "Nakamura US 7,164,778 B1 Jan. 16, 2007 (filed Nov. 18, 1999)",
+    "Based on our review of the administrative record, Appellants' contentions, and the Examiner' is findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues before us are as follows:",
+    "1. Does the Examiner err in finding Alattar discloses \"a relationship between said first signature dependent function (fs 0) and a second signature dependent function (gs()) is given by D(Y; fs(V)) = D(gs(Y);V), where (D) is a given detection operation on said watermarked signal (Y)\" as recited in Appellants' claim 12",
+    "2. Does the Examiner err in finding Alattar discloses a \"second function (gs(-)) is an inverse function of said signature dependent function (fs()), where gs = fs -1m as recited in Appellants' claim 22",
+    "3. Does the Examiner err in finding Alattar and Nakamura would have taught or suggested a pattern Ps, where \"Ps is a signature dependent pattern having the same size as the basic watermark pattern (V), with each entry of Ps being equal to either +1 or -1\" as recited in Appellants' claim 62",
+    "4. Does the Examiner err in finding Alattar discloses: (1) \"generating a signal (Z) on the basis of a second signature dependent function (gs()) of said information signal (Y);\" and (2) \"detecting said basic watermark pattern (V) from said signal (Z), wherein a relationship between said second signature dependent function (gs(-)) and a first signature dependent function (fs()) is given by D(Y; fs(V)) = D(gs(Y);V), where (D) is a given detection operation on said information signal (Y)\" as recited in Appellants' claim 7?",
+    "We adopt the Examiner* s findings in the Answer and Final Office Action as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly overturn or set aside in the Analysis that follows.",
+    "We also add the following factual findings:",
+    "1. Appellants describe their watermark embedding method (and system) as follows: In order to avoid [a] copyl Jattack one option is to make the watermark dependent on the content of the host signal.",
+    "This is done by extracting a robust signature (a set of robust features) from the content of the host signal and the watermark is made dependent on this signature.",
+    "A robust signature is a set of variables that is representative of the essentials of the host signal.",
+    "Ifl.] e.g.l.] the host signal is a video signal, then ideally a slight change in the image represented by the video signal leads to no change in the signature, whereas a complete different image results in a radically different signature.",
+    "A known method of accomplishing a coupling between signature and watermark is by letting the watermark pattern depend on the signature.",
+    "This is done by using a function f(-), from which the watermark pattern results, when the signature is inserted.",
+    "This can also be described as W=f(S), where W is the watermark pattern and s is the signature bitstring. (Spec. 1:26-2:8.)",
+    "The watermark W is generated by first extracting a robust signature from the information signal X, this robust signature is a set of robust features extracted from the content of the information signal X.",
+    "The extraction is performed using signature extraction means (101) and the output of the signature extraction means (101) is a signature S.",
+    "The signature s is used as input to the watermark generating means (105) together with a fixed basic pattern also called the basic watermark pattern V.",
+    "The watermark generating means (105) determine a watermark pattern W as a signature dependent, invertible linear function fs(-) of the basic watermark pattern V.",
+    "w = fs(V).",
+    "The watermark pattern W is embedded in the information signal x by the embedding means (107) and an information signal Y is generated comprising the watermark pattern W.",
+    "Y =X+ w =X+ fs(V). (Spec. 4:15-27; Fig. 1.)",
+    "2. Appellants describe their watermark detecting method (and system) as follows: A signature s is extracted from the information signal Y.",
+    "The extraction is performed using signature extraction means (201) and the output of the signature extraction means (201) is a signature S.",
+    "The signature s is used to generate an inverse signature dependent function fs' and a signal Z is generated by (203) using the watermarked signal Y as input to the inverse signature dependent function fs Z= fs(Y)",
+    "Thereby a signal Z is obtained and by correlating the basic watermark pattern v with Z it is possible to detect whether the basic watermark pattern is present in the signal Z.",
+    "Since Y = x + fs(V), Z=fs '(Y)=fs + fs(V)= fs'(X)+V The detection is performed by the watermark detection means (205), which has the signal Z and the basic watermark pattern v as input. (Spec. 1:26-2:9; Fig. 2.)",
+    "The function fs(-) should be such that there exists another function gs(\u00b7) such that D(Y; fs(V)) = D(gs(Y);V).",
+    "In the case of additive embedding this leads to the necessary property that fs is linear and gs = fs' (and hence the necessary property that f is invertible). (Spec. 6:6-8.)",
+    "2. Alattar, in relevant part, describes counter-measures to attacks that copy or forge a watermark, including a \"copy attack. \" (II [0240]- [0242].)",
+    "Alattar describes making \"the watermark signal dependent on some attribute of the object into which it is to be embedded.\" (I [0242].)",
+    "Alattar also describes making the \"watermark key \u00b7 \u00b7 dependent on some attribute or attributes of the media signal in the watermark is to be embedded, such as the pixel values of an image or the audio sample values of an audio signal. \" (Id.)",
+    "3. Alattar also describes invertible linear watermarking functions (II [0062], [0089]) and orientation patterns combined with the watermarking function and original input signal (I [0062]).",
+    "Alattar detects the watermark by searching for \"an orientation pattern of a watermark\" (I [0091]) and using *known attributes of the watermark signal to estimate watermark signal values (I [0092]).",
+    "4. Nakamura, in relevant part, describes a watermark embedding method (col. 3, 11. 7-16) utilizing complexity values (degree of local (image) complexity) (col. 3, 1. 61 to col. 4, 1. 25).",
+    "Nakamura describes combining a \"basic watermark pattern\" with the \"degree of local complexity\" to generate and embed a watermark pattern in an image, the complexity values may be whole or imaginary numbers. (Col. 4, 11. 9-25; col. 57, 1. 8 to col. 58, 1. 62.)",
+    "Appellants separately argue independent claims 1 and 7, and dependent claim 2 with respect to the Examiner's s & 102 rejection of claims 1-3, 7-9, and 14-19 (Rejection 1). (Br. 12-16.)",
+    "Appellants also separately argue dependent claim 6 with respect to the Examiner's 5 103 rejection of claims 6, 12, 20, and 21 (Rejection 2). (Br. 16-17.)",
+    "Therefore, we select independent claims 1 and 7, and dependent claim 2 as representative of Appellants' arguments and groupings with respect to the Examiner's anticipation rejection; and dependent claim 6 as representative of Appellants' arguments and groupings with respect to the Examiner's obviousness rejections. 37 C.F.R. & 41.37(c)(1)(vii).",
+    "See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987).",
+    "We have considered only those arguments that Appellants have actually raised in their Brief.",
+    "Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to make in their Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. \u25cf 41.37(c)(1)(vii).",
+    "Appellants have the opportunity on appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) to demonstrate error in the Examiner': s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).",
+    "The Examiner sets forth a detailed explanation of a reasoned conclusion of anticipation in the Examiner's Answer with respect to each of Appellants' claims so rejected (Ans. 4-17, 25-31), and in particular claims 1 (Ans. 4-6, 26-27), 2 (Ans. 6, 27-28), and 7 (Ans. 7-8, 28-29).",
+    "The Examiner also sets forth a detailed explanation of a reasoned conclusion of obviousness in the Examiner'. Answer with respect to each of Appellants' claims so rejected (Ans. 18-25, 31-32), and in particular claim 6 (Ans. 18-21, 31-32).",
+    "Therefore, we look to the Appellants' Brief to show error in the proffered reasoned conclusions. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-86.",
+    "Based on the record before us, we do not find error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of Appellants' claim 1.",
+    "We also agree with the Examiner that Alattar discloses signature dependent watermarking functions (FF 2).",
+    "The dispute hinges on the disputed claim language - \"wherein a relationship between said first signature dependent function (fs()) and a second signature dependent function (gs(1)) is given by D(Y: fs(V)) = D(gs(Y);V), where (D) is a given detection operation on said watermarked signal (Y).\"",
+    "We begin our analysis by noting that claim 1, and in particular the disputed claim language, does not require performing a detection operation, nor does it set forth generating or utilizing the second signature dependent function (gs(-)).",
+    "Rather, the disputed claim language merely recites a particular relationship between the first signature dependent function (fs()) and the second signature dependent function (gs(-)).",
+    "The disputed \"wherein clause\" simply constitutes non-functional descriptive material.",
+    "This clause merely recites the relationship between two mathematical formulas (functions).",
+    "How the functions may be related through an unspecified detection operation does not functionally change the claimed first signature dependent function (fs(), and \"does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.\" Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); see Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff d. No. 06-1003 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2006) (Rule 36).",
+    "See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Nehls, 88 USPQ2d at 1887-90 (discussing non-functional descriptive material).",
+    "The Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the method. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994).",
+    "As detailed in the Findings of Fact section supra, Alattar describes signature dependent watermarking functions (FF 2) and also invertible signature-dependent watermarking functions (FF 3).",
+    "Assuming arguendo we were to attribute some patentable weight to Appellants' recitation of the relationship between the first and second signature dependent functions, and considering the breadth of Appellants' claim limitations and Specification disclosures, we agree with the Examiner that Alattar discloses the relationship recited in Appellants' representative claim 1 by the disclosure of invertible signature dependent watermarking functions.",
+    "Appellants describe utilizing a second signature dependent function gs that is necessarily the inverse of the first signature dependent function fs (gs = fs) in order to detect the basic watermark pattern V. (FF 1.)",
+    "Such an inverse (invertible) function is disclosed by Alattar, and meets the recited relationship - D(Y; fs(V)) = D(gs(Y);V). (See FF 1.)",
+    "Thus, we find that Alattar anticipates Appellants' representative claim 1.",
+    "We find Appellants' contrary argument - that \"a review of Alattar fails to find a suggestion of [the] first signature dependent function \u00b7 \u00b7 with a relationship to [the] second function \u00b7 \u25a0 \u00b7 having the properties identified in claim 1\" (Br. 12) - unpersuasive for reasons discussed.",
+    "Also, Appellants failed to file a Reply Brief to rebut the findings and responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer.",
+    "Therefore, we find that Appellants do not provide any persuasive evidence or argument that Alattar fails to disclose the disputed features.",
+    "Based on the record before us, we do not find error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of Appellants' claim 2.",
+    "As with claim 1, the dispute hinges on the disputed claim language - \"second function (gs(-)) is an inverse function of said signature dependent function (fs(), where gs = fsl.\"",
+    "As with claim 1, the disputed claim language merely recites a particular relationship between the first signature dependent-function (fs()) and the second signature-dependent function (gs()), and merely constitutes non- functional descriptive material that does not lend patentability to the claimed relationship.",
+    "As detailed in the Findings of Fact section supra, Alattar describes invertible signature-dependent watermarking functions (FF 2, 3).",
+    "For the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, we find that Alattar anticipates Appellants' representative claim 2.",
+    "We find Appellants' contrary arguments - that the cited sections of Alattar only describe utilizing a linear invertible function, and \"Ithere is nothing in the cited paragraphs pertaining to appellant's claimed second function (gs()) being an inverse function of said signature dependent function (fs(), where gs = fs-Im (Br. 13) - unavailing for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.",
+    "Therefore, we find that Appellants do not provide any persuasive evidence or argument that Alattar fails to disclose the disputed features.",
+    "Based on the record before us, we do not find error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of Appellants' claim 2.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner that Alattar describes detecting a basic watermark signal using a signature- dependent function.",
+    "Alattar describes invertible signature-dependent watermarking functions, detecting basic watermark (orientation) patterns, and utilizing known attributes of the watermark signal (a signature) to detect (estimate) the watermark. (FF 2, 3.)",
+    "For the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, we find that Alattar anticipates Appellants' representative claim 7.",
+    "We also find unpersuasive, for the reason explained previously, Appellants' contrary arguments - that the cited sections of Alattar don't describe the disputed features.",
+    "Appellants do not separately argue independent claims 14, 15-17, and 18, nor dependent claims 3 (dependent on claim 1), 8 and 9 (dependent on claim 7), and 19 (dependent on claim 18) (supra).",
+    "It follows that Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's s anticipation rejection of claims 1-3, 7-9, and 14-19, and we affirm the Examiner' s rejection of these claims.",
+    "Based on the record before us, we do not find error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of Appellants' claim 6.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Alattar and Nakamura would have taught or suggested the recited claim limitations.",
+    "Again, the dispute hinges on the disputed claim language - \"a watermark pattern (W) \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 obtained from the basic watermark pattern (V) by modifying the signs of the basic pattern \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 [such that] W=Ps*V, where Ps is a signature dependent pattern having the same size as the basic watermark pattern (V), with each entry of Ps being equal to either +1 or -1.\"",
+    "We construe claim 6 to simply invert the basic pattern V.",
+    "That is, the claim merely requires multiplying the basic pattern v by a pattern Ps that is the same size with the values equal to either +1 or -1 to modify the signs of the basic pattern V.",
+    "Modifying the values of v to have a different sign (i.e., positive becomes negative or vice versa), is a basic mathematical operation that would be known to those of skill in the art.",
+    "Alattar teaches invertible signature dependent functions. (FF 2, 3.)",
+    "Further, Nakamura teaches a watermark embedding method utilizing complexity values (degree of local complexity) by combining a \"basic watermark pattern\" with the \"degree of local complexity\" to generate and embed a watermark pattern.",
+    "The complexity values may be whole or imaginary numbers.",
+    "Integers +1 and -1 are whole numbers.",
+    "Accordingly, we find Alattar and Nakamura would have taught or suggested the disputed features of claim 6 to one skilled in the art.",
+    "Moreover, we find common sense would have at least suggested inverting a pattern to one skilled in the art.",
+    "Thus, we find that Alattar and Nakamura render Appellants' claim 6 obvious.",
+    "We find Appellants' contrary argument unavailing for reasons discussed.",
+    "Therefore, we find that Appellants do not provide any persuasive evidence or argument that Alattar and Nakamura fail to teach or suggest the disputed features.",
+    "Appellants do not separately argue independent claim 21, or dependent claims 12 (dependent on claim 7) and 20 (dependent on claim 18) (supra).",
+    "It follows that Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 6, 12, 20, and 21, and we affirm the Examiner*. s rejection of these claims."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009006846_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Invention The Appellants describe the invention at issue on appeal as \"preventing unauthorized recording of electronic media. (Spec. 1.)",
+    "The Appellants argue \"that it is much more probable that the web browser plug-in is active when media content identified as being 'protected' is encountered by the web browser.\" (Reply Br. 4.)",
+    "The Appellants make the following argument.",
+    "[T]he rejection improperly results from modifying the present taught methodology of both Schreiber and Cragun to teach the claimed feature when both Schreiber and Cragun solve the same problem utilizing different solutions and, as such, one of ordinary skill would not modify the teachings of Schreiber or Cragun to the claimed feature, as the claimed feature is a novel method of addressing problems already addressed by both Schreiber and Cragun. (App. Br. 14.)"
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 1-13 and 15-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(e) as being anticipated by Schreiber.",
+    "Claim 14 stands rejected under \u25cf 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schreiber and Cragun.",
+    "Here, the Examiner findins that \"Schreiber discloses that if [image] content is not protected, then the web browser processes the content 'in the normal fashion' (i.e. without the use of the plug-in) (Col. 10, lines 3-5).\" (Ans. 13.)",
+    "It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to allow the users of the web browser in Schreiber to set as default various ways to access and store received digital data viewed by the web browser in order to allow the user more control over the web data that they receive through their web browsers as taught by Cragun (Col. 1, line 56 - Col. 2, line 7). (Ans. 12-13.)"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. 5 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 27.",
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. & 6(b).",
+    "Illustrative CLAIM 1. A method of preventing unauthorized recording of electronic media comprising: activating a compliance mechanism in response to a client system receiving media content, said compliance mechanism coupled to said client system, said client system having a media content presentation application operable thereon and coupled to said compliance mechanism; controlling a data path of a kernel-mode media device driver of said client system with said compliance mechanism upon detection of a kernel streaming mechanism operable on said client system by diverting a commonly used data pathway of said media content presentation application to a controlled data pathway monitored by said compliance mechanism; and directing said media content from said kernel-mode media device driver to a media device driver coupled with said compliance mechanism, via said data path, for selectively restricting output of said media content.",
+    "References AND REJECTIONS Cragun US 6,161,112 Dec. 12, 2000 Schreiber US 6,298,446 Oct. 2, 2001",
+    "CLAIM GROUPINGS Based on the Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal of claims 1-13 and 15-27 on the basis of claim 1 alone, see 37 C.F.R. \u25cf 41.37(c)(1)(vii), and the rejection of claim 14 separately.",
+    "CLAIMS 1-13 AND 15-27 The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Schreiber activates a compliance mechanism in response to a client system receiving media content as required by representative claim 1.",
+    "FINDINGS OF FACT Schreiber describes its invention as \"a method and system for enabling a user to view protected image data using his web browser without being able to copy it.\" \" (Col. 3, 11. 2-4.)",
+    "Figure 1 of the reference follows in pertinent part.",
+    "\" \"FIG. 1 is a simplified illustration of [the] system \u25a0 \u25a0 of [Schreiber's] invention \u00b7 , (Col. 5, 11. 10-13.)",
+    "Analysis \"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under 5 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim, and that anticipation is a fact question \u00b7 \u00b7 F In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH V. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).",
+    "Referring to its Figure 1, supra, Schreiber includes the following explanation of how its system and method process protected image content.",
+    "[A] protected image 108 referenced within web page 104 is handled differently.",
+    "A modified web page 120 is generated by a web page modifier 122.",
+    "Specifically, the reference to protected image 108 in web page 104 is modified by web page modifier 122 so as to reference substitute data 124.",
+    "Substitute data 124 preferably corresponds to an image that is visually identical or substantially similar to protected image 108.",
+    "When substitute data 124 corresponds to an image that is visually identical to protected image 108, it is preferably an encrypted version of the protected image data. (Col. 10, 11. 6-17.)",
+    "The reference's \"web browsers 112 may include software that functions as a substitute data processor 126, in the form of a browser plug-in \u00b7 \u00b7 Such a substitute data processor is capable of rendering an encrypted image\" (Id. at 11. 25-29.)",
+    "In other words, the substitute data processor 126 is embodied as a plug-in for the web browser 112.",
+    "Schreiber's \"FIG. 2 is a simplified flowchart of [its] method for protecting digital images . \" (Col. 5, 11. 14-16.)",
+    "The reference describes the method as follows.",
+    "[A]t step 224 the server sends an HTTP [hypertext transfer protocol] response containing the substitute data to the client computer.",
+    "At step 226 the client computer receives the HTTP response containing the requested substitute data, and at step 228 the client computer processes the substitute data using a substitute data processor, as described hereinabove with respect to FIG. 1, and renders the web page. (Col. 11, 11. 59-65.)",
+    "We find Appellants' argument unpersuasive, and agree with the Examiner's findings concerning Schreiber.",
+    "More specifically, because the substitute data processor 126 does not process the substitute data (i.e., the encrypted version of the protected image data) until the data are sent to the client computer, we agree with the Examiner's finding that \"the web browser plug-in is not active until [the encrypted] media content I \u25a0 I is received.' \" (Ans. 13.)",
+    "Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Schreiber activates a compliance mechanism in response to a client system receiving media content as required by representative claim 1.",
+    "CLAIM 14 The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding a reason to combine teachings from Schreiber and Cragun to reject claim 14.",
+    "FINDINGS OF FACT Cragun describes its invention as \"improvements that give [a] user more control over information presented on a web page \u00b7 \u00b7 . \u00b7 M (Col. 2, 11. 3- 4.)",
+    "Analysis The presence or absence of a reason \"to combine references in an obviousness determination is a pure question of fact.\" \" In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).",
+    "\"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.' KSR Int'l V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).",
+    "More specifically, \"when 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.\" Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida V. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).",
+    "Here, we agree with the Examiner's finding that \"Cragun discloses a web page presentation control mechanism that operates within a web browser that allows users of the web browser to select various settings as default (Col. 9, lines 38-47).\" \" (Ans. 12.)",
+    "We also agree with his following conclusion and supporting findings.",
+    "The argument misses the fact that Examiner does not rely on Cragun to solve the same problem as Schreiber.",
+    "He relies on the former reference only for the teaching of default settings and advantages associated therewith, neither of which is contested.",
+    "\"Silence implies assent.\" Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. 12. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 572 (1985).",
+    "Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding a reason to combine teachings from Schreiber and Cragun to reject claim 14."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009006942_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "1. a method of severing and sealing a plurality of layers of film formed of a thermoplastic material, the method comprising the steps of: heating a cutting edge implement to a temperature between about 600 F and about 800 F for severing and sealing a plurality of layers of the film, the temperature being sufficient to melt but not to burn a thermoplastic material; feeding the plurality of layers of the film between the heated cutting edge implement and an opposing surface; moving the heated cutting edge implement and the opposing surface relative to one another to pinch the plurality of layers of film therebetween; and thereafter, suspending any relative lateral movement between the heated cutting edge implement, the plurality of layers of the film, and the opposing surface, while relatively biasing the heated cutting edge implement and the opposing surface together with the plurality of layers of film pinched therebetween, until the cutting edge implement, heated to the temperature between about 600 F and about 800 F, severs the plurality of layers of the film by melting but not burning the plurality of layers, contacts the opposing surface, and seals the plurality of layers of the film together.",
+    "Appellants discuss \"burning\" on page 2 of the Specification: \"For example, as the hot wire burns its way through the film, a significant amount of smoke is produced.",
+    "Some of this smoke condenses on the components of the machine, leaving behind a wax residue.",
+    "On page 15 of the Brief, Appellants argue that there are unexpected results with respect to the claimed subject matter.",
+    "On page 17, Appellants again argue unexpected results, and that Gorlich teaches away from the claimed subject matter."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is:",
+    "Wildmoser US 4,115,182 Sep. 19, 1978",
+    "Dworak US 5,094,657 Mar. 10, 1992",
+    "Coleman US 5,546,732 Aug. 20, 1996",
+    "Noel US 5,718,101 Feb. 17, 1998",
+    "Motomura US 6,260,336 B1 Jul. 17, 2001",
+    "Gorlich US 6,305,149 B1 Oct. 23, 2001",
+    "Claims 1, 2, 8 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coleman and Gorlich. Fin. Rej. 2.",
+    "Claims 3, 7 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coleman, Gorlich and Motomura. Fin. Rej. 5.",
+    "Claims 4, 11, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coleman, Gorlich, and Noel. Fin. Rej. 6.",
+    "Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coleman, Gorlich, and Dworak. Fin. Rej. 6.",
+    "Claims 15-18, 22, 36 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. .5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coleman, Gorlich, and Noel. Fin. Rej. 7.",
+    "Claims 27, 30, 33-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wildmoser, and Gorlich. Fin. Rej. 9.",
+    "Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wildmoser, Gorlich, and Motomura. Fin. Rej. 10.",
+    "Claims 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coleman, Gorlich, Noel, and Dworak. Fin. Rej. 12.",
+    "The Examiner discussed a claim construction of the term *burn** on page 3 of the Answer without reaching an explicit conclusion.",
+    "The Examiner also supports the rejections of the method claims on a finding of inherency. Fin. Rej. 3.",
+    "First, in Coleman a plurality of films 28, 30, 34 are severed and sealed.",
+    "However, in Gorlich a single thermoplastic film 92 is being severed.",
+    "As such, even though the plurality of films of Coleman are heated to 600-800 deg. F, due to the thermal resistance at the interface of the heater and the first plastic layer, the existence of multiple layers with their respective interfacial thermal resistances, and as the Examiner noted, the heating time (Ans. 3, Examiner refers to it as dwell time), the plurality of layers of Coleman do not heat up to 600-800 deg. F so as to \"burn\" as in Gorlich's single layer film."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. 5 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15-18, 22-24, 26-30 and 34-39.",
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. & 6(b).",
+    "We affirm-in-part.",
+    "The claims are directed to an apparatus for and method of severing and sealing thermoplastic film.",
+    "Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:",
+    "We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light of the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner.",
+    "As a result of this review, we have reached the conclusion that the applied prior art establishes the prima facie obviousness of claims 15-18, 22, 27-30, and 34-39.",
+    "However, we have also reached the conclusion that the applied prior art does not establish the prima facie obviousness of claims 1-4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 23, 24, and 26.",
+    "Our reasons follow.",
+    "We first turn to a construction of the claimed subject matter.",
+    "Appellants' claims are directed to a temperature range of 600 F to 800 F, the temperature being sufficient to melt but not burn the thermoplastic material.",
+    "We find that \"burn\" is a non-technical term.",
+    "Therefore, for purposes of applying the art to the claimed subject matter, we will construe \"burn\" as a process that produces smoke or vapor which condenses on the apparatus leaving a waxy residue.",
+    "With this claim construction in mind, it is our conclusion that Gorlich does not render prima facie obvious the process claims on appeal.",
+    "It is clear to us that Gorlich teaches vaporization as the desired process for severing the thermoplastic film. Col. 8. 11. 55-64 and col. 10, 11. 7-20.",
+    "Since the Examiner relies on Gorlich to teach the process step of melting without burning, and we have determined that Gorlich severs the thermoplastic film by vaporization, the rejections of claims 1, 2, 8 and 23, as unpatentable over Coleman in view of Gorlich; claims 3, 7, and 24 as unpatentable over Coleman in view of Gorlich and Motomura; claims 4, 11, and 26 as unpatentable over Coleman in view of Gorlich and Noel; and claim 12 as unpatentable over Coleman in view of Gorlich and Dworak are reversed.",
+    "Choosing the argument most favorable to the Examiner, it is as follows.",
+    "The problem with this analysis is that it is based on speculation.",
+    "We must emphasize that the applicable jurisprudence requires that a case of inherency be founded upon evidence that necessarily flows from the disclosure.",
+    "\"Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claims limitations, it anticipates.\" Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. 12. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.Cir.192)(quoting Mehl/Biophile Int'l Corp. V. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.Cir.199)).",
+    "Thus, this conjecture or speculation is insufficient to support the Examiner's is finding of inherency.",
+    "However, turning to the apparatus claims on appeal, we agree with the Examiner's s claim construction that the temperature being sufficient to melt but not to burn a thermoplastic material is a function or desired result of the use of the claimed controller.",
+    "In view of this claim construction, the jurisprudence is clear.",
+    "Apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art based on their structure not their function.",
+    "See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971) (\"[W]here the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. \").",
+    "Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's s finding that Gorlich teaches a controller that heats the cutting apparatus of Gorlich to a temperature between 600 and 900F. Col. 8, 11. 55-64.",
+    "Thus the controller of Gorlich is able to maintain Appellants' temperature of 600 and 800 as claimed.",
+    "We further agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to use this heater of Gorlich in either Coleman or Wildmoser. Ans. 3-4.",
+    "For this reason we sustain the rejections of claims 15-18, 22, 36 and 39 as unpatentable over Coleman in view of Gorlich and Noel; claims 27, 30, 34 and 35 as unpatentable over Wildmoser in view of Gorlich; claims 28 and 29 as unpatentable over Wildmoser in view of Gorlich and Motomura; and claims 37 and 38 as unpatentable over Coleman in view of Gorlich, Noel and Dworak.",
+    "Even if Appellants had provided evidence of unexpected results (which Appellants have not), we note that the results do not go to the apparatus claims wherein Gorlich clearly anticipates the claimed controller having the ability to be controlled to a temperature range between 600 and 800",
+    "In our view, these arguments are irrelevant to Appellants' apparatus claims when Gorlich clearly teaches a controller that controls the temperature of the cutting edge implement to Appellants' claimed range."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009007044_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants argue that Farnham does not disclose the claimed use of a threshold, and the Examiner throughout the prosecution has cited 2 different groupings of paragraphs in Farnham which Appellants have addressed previously and in the Appeal Brief. (App. Br. 7)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "D. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4, 11-12, 16', and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Farnham.",
+    "The Examiner merely disagrees and repeats the citation to those previously addressed paragraphs. (Answer 7)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 6(b).",
+    "We reverse.",
+    "From our review of the teachings of Farnham, we agree with Appellants and find no express teaching of the use of a threshold for determining an association measure as recited in independent claim 1.",
+    "Since the Examiner has not specifically and expressly identified what in the Farnham reference teaches or correlates to the \"threshold\" and the use thereof as recited in independent claim 1, we are left to speculate as to how Farnham anticipates the invention as recited in independent claim 1.",
+    "Such conjecture would require us to resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).",
+    "We will not resort to such speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the factual basis in order to support the Examiner'. s rejection.",
+    "We note that the Board is a reviewing body and not a place of initial examination.",
+    "Moreover, it is our view that the more rigorous requirements of 5 102 essentially require a one-for-one mapping of each argued limitation to the corresponding portion of the reference, which the Examiner must identify with particularity.",
+    "Consequently in this regard, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 16 and their respective dependent claims 4, 11, 12, 20, and 21."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009007097_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants assert that Deavers does not disclose plan sponsor and plan member rules for defining payment of claims from employee benefit accounts (App. Br. 29; Reply Br. 12).",
+    "Appellants assert that Deavers \"teaches away from using plan sponsor and plan member rules *in order to define payment of at least a portion of a claim from between at least two different employee benefit accounts'' (emphasis original), because Deavers discloses setting aside funds for **payment of future medical expenses\"\" or \"to pay for a health insurance policy with a high deductible and the remainder to pay medical expenses?\" .. and \"to retain the balance, if any, for future use or savings'\" .. in an interest bearing account (App. Br. 29-32; Reply Br. 12-16)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 1-12 and 19-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 101 for failing to recite patentable subject matter; claims 1-12 and 19-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. . 103(a) as unpatentable over Lencki (US Pub. 2002/0049617 A1, pub. Apr. 25, 2002) in view of Deavers (US Pat. 6,044,352, iss. Mar. 28, 2000).",
+    "However, Lencki is cited for authorizing payment of claims based on benefit rules (para. [0011]) (Exam'r's Ans. 5, 10).",
+    "Deavers is cited for disclosing the plurality of accounts (Exam'r's Ans. 5-6, 11, 15-16)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We AFFIRM.",
+    "We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that claims 1- 12 and 19-25 are not directed to statutory subject matter as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 5 101 (Reply Br. 5-7).",
+    "In other words, both claims recite machines or articles of manufacture, and thus the Examiner has not shown why the machine-or-transformation test, normally applied only to process or method claims, is applicable to these claims.",
+    "We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination of Lencki and Deavers renders obvious the subject matter of claims 1-12 and 19-25 (App. Br. 24-32; Reply Br. 7-16).",
+    "See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references).",
+    "However, a teaching away requires discouragement.",
+    "See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).",
+    "While Deavers may be primarily directed to managing multiple accounts for payment of future medical expenses, there is no discouragement of making claims payments from these multiple accounts, as asserted by the Examiner when combined with Lencki."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009007347_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant contends that Slaughter does not disclose *storing a plurality of mappings that map data held within a field of one of the predetermined templates to fields within an alternative template should it be determined that the data-handling device to which the data is to be sent is not capable of handling data held in the predetermined template\" as recited in claim 16. Br. 10.",
+    "Appellant further contends that Slaughter does not disclose \"altering the data according to one of the mappings should it be determined that the data-handling device cannot handle the data\" as recited in claim 16. Br. 10.",
+    "In the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter section of the Brief, Appellant points to support for the *altering the data\" limitation on page 15, lines 23- 26 of the Specification, which states that if the device cannot handle the data, the data is mapped to the appropriate alternative template."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.",
+    "Claims 1-5, 7, 9-16, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 102(e) as being anticipated by Slaughter (US 6,898,618 B1).",
+    "Claims 6, 8, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slaughter and Horvitz (US 6,980,993 B2).",
+    "The Examiner finds that Slaughter describes storing data in an XML template, then re-mapping the stored data to a different XML template as dictated by the capabilities of the data handling device. Ans. 15."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We affirm.",
+    "In view of Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claim 12 for the non-statutory subject matter rejection, and claim 16 for the prior art rejections.",
+    "ISSUES (1) Has Appellant shown that a \"computer-readable medium\" as recited in claim 12 does not encompass non-statutory subject matter?",
+    "(2) Has Appellant shown that Slaughter does not describe \"storing a plurality of mappings\" and \"altering the data\" as recited in claim 16?",
+    "Slaughter describes a mechanism for a client to specify a display service for displaying results data. Title; Abstract.",
+    "The results data can be stored as XML objects in a space. Col. 96, 1. 66 to col. 97, 1. 15.",
+    "Each space has an XML schema that is capable of being used by most clients, including devices such as PDAs. Col. 43, 11. 39-58.",
+    "Two or more presentation schemas may be provided for formatting and displaying the same results data on different displays.",
+    "For example, one presentation schema can be provided for displaying the results data on a display screen, and another for printing the results data. Col. 86, 11. 18-21 and 47-62.",
+    "The results data includes a plurality of data elements, and the presentation schema includes a plurality of presentation elements.",
+    "The display service maps the data elements to the presentation elements. Col. 87, 11. 47-62.",
+    "Although Appellant contends that he disclaims any interpretation of **computer readable medium\" that covers a transmitted signal (Br. 9), claim 12 does not limit the computer readable medium to non-transitory tangible media.",
+    "The computer readable medium therefore encompasses a transitory, propagating signal, which is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.",
+    "Claim 12 \"covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories [and thus] falls outside the plainly expressed scope of & 101.\"",
+    "Appellant has not presented arguments for separate patentability of dependent claims 13-15.",
+    "Claims 13-15 thus fall with claim 12.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner.",
+    "Slaughter describes storing results data in a space. FF 2.",
+    "Each space has an XML schema, or \"template,\" that can be used by most clients. FF 3.",
+    "The results data can also be mapped to alternative XML templates to display the same results data on different display devices. FF 4-5.",
+    "The space with an XML template that stores the results data is \"one of a plurality of predetermined templates\" within the meaning of claim 16.",
+    "The different presentation templates for formatting data to different display devices are \"a plurality of mappings that map data held within a field of one of the predetermined templates to fields within an alternative template should it be determined that the data-handling device to be sent is not capable of handling data held in the predetermined template\" within the meaning of claim 16.",
+    "Slaughter describes mapping data stored in an XML template to an alternative template so that a display device can display the results. FF 1-5.",
+    "Therefore, Slaughter describes \"altering the data according to one of the mappings should it be determined that the data-handling device cannot handle the data\" within the meaning of claim 16.",
+    "Appellant has not presented arguments for separate patentability for the remaining claims, but instead relies on the arguments presented for claim 16.",
+    "Therefore, claims 2-15 and 17-21 fall with claim 16.",
+    "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (1) Appellant has not shown that a \"computer-readable medium\" as recited in claim 12 does not encompass non-statutory subject matter.",
+    "(2) Appellant has not shown that Slaughter does not describe *storing a plurality of mappings\" and \"altering the data\" as recited in claim 16."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009007971_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants contend there is no motivation to combine Tsukuda and Hirayama (App. Br. 6).",
+    "Appellants also contend Hirayama only describes a single receiver and thus, cannot teach varying the gain of a secondary receiver (App. Br. 5-7).",
+    "Appellants argue Hirayama's gain control is only used for maintaining a constant amplifier output, not for reducing power consumption (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3).",
+    "Appellants argue Hirayama only describes a single receiver.",
+    "Appellants characterize the receiver circuits of Hirayama as a single receiver that has two separate **receive signal paths\"\" and generates an output signal based on the combination of the two signals received over those two paths.",
+    "The first and second receiver circuits are no more than \"receiver front-end circuits that separately pre-process received signals and provide the pre-processed signals to a single receiver.\" (App. Br. 5-6)",
+    "Appellants' also argue \"Tsukuda does not teach or suggest implementing any power reduction techniques during the diversity reception mode because the diversity reception mode only occurs when the portable terminal is plugged into a PC, which provides any required additional power,\" is misplaced (App. Br. 7).",
+    "Appellants contend Hirayama only describes a single receiver and therefore cannot teach varying the gain of a primary receiver in addition to varying the gain of a secondary receiver (App. Br. 7).",
+    "Appellants contend Tsukuda does not teach varying the gain of a secondary receiver by turning an antenna on and off (App. Br. 8).",
+    "Appellants argue the Examiner has not addressed the explicit language of claims 13 and 27, specifically, the front-end controller interchanges the primary and secondary receivers (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4).",
+    "Appellants contend Schmutz does not teach varying the gain of the secondary receiver by adjusting a sampling rate or resolution of an analog- to-digital converter (App. Br. 9).",
+    "Appellants contend the Examiner has not explicitly addressed the language of claim 21, namely, varying the gain of the secondary receiver by disabling one or more components of an analog-to-digital converter (App. Br. 9; Reply 4).",
+    "Appellants contend Callaway does not teach varying the gain of a secondary receiver based on a battery power level of the portable wireless device (App. Br. 9-10)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 9, 13-15, 16, 23, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. . 103(a) based upon the teachings of Tsukuda and Hirayama, and Official Notice.4",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 21, 22, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) based upon the teachings of Tsukuda, Hirayama, Official Notice, and Schmutz.",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) based upon the teachings of Tsukuda, Hirayama, Official Notice, and Callaway.",
+    "The Examiner finds Hirayama teaches selectively varying the gain of a secondary receiver when operating in a dual receiver diversity mode for maintaining a desired performance level (Ans. 4; Hirayama col. 4, 11. 19-44).",
+    "With respect to Appellants' argument that there is no motivation to combine Hirayama with Tsukuda, the Examiner cites Rappaport as evidence of diversity techniques that were well known at the time of Appellants' invention for maintaining or improving reception performance (Ans. 6-7).",
+    "In particular, \"Equal Gain Combining\" and \"Maximal Ratio Combining'' were well known techniques for combining signals from multiple receiving branches (Ans. 9).",
+    "The Examiner recognizes achieving enhanced performance by implementing a Combining diversity technique and cites Hirayama as disclosing a system that implements such a Combining diversity technique (Ans. 9; FF 3).",
+    "Further, as the Examiner finds, Hirayama teaches selectively varying the gains of first and second receivers (Ans. 4; FF 2).",
+    "Contrary to Appellants' assertion, the Examiner finds Schmutz discloses utilizing two analog-to-digital converters for diversity capability, or a single analog-to-digital converter if no diversity capability is required, thus disabling one of the analog-to-digital converters and reducing power (Ans. 12; col. 6, 11. 60-64)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "This attempt to distinguish the first and second receiver circuits of Hirayama from the claimed primary and secondary receivers is not persuasive.",
+    "Accordingly, the claimed primary and secondary receivers cannot be interpreted to exclude a system wherein the outputs of the primary and secondary receivers are input to another receiver component.",
+    "As the Examiner correctly asserts, Figure 2 of Hirayama shows two receivers (Ans. 10; FF 1).",
+    "Thus, the Appellants' argument that Hirayama does not teach two separate receivers because the outputs of the first and second receiver circuits are input to \"a single receiver\" is without merit.",
+    "With respect to Appellants' argument that Hirayama does not teach power reduction, the Examiner correctly notes that power reduction necessarily occurs when amplification is reduced at a power amplifier (Ans. 9-10).",
+    "Thus, since each of Hirayma's AGC IF amplifiers maintains a constant output signal when the input signal increases, this requires reducing amplification, and consequently, the AGC IF amplifier consumes less power.",
+    "The Examiner relies on Hirayama, and not Tsukuda, for this feature, which Appellant acknowledges (Reply Br. 3), teaching AGC IF amplifiers necessarily consume less power when their gains decrease. (Ans. 9-10)",
+    "We agree with the Examiner's is conclusion that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of Appellants' invention to combine Hirayama's s teaching of varying the gain of a secondary receiver (an integral part of Hirayama's Combining diversity technique) and Tsukuda's dual receiver mode (Ans. 4).",
+    "Therefore, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, and dependent claims 10, 11, 14, 16, 24, 25, and 28, which have not been separately argued, is sustained.",
+    "As noted above with respect to claim 1, Hirayama does in fact describe two receivers.",
+    "Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 is sustained.",
+    "However, as the Examiner finds, Tsukuda does in fact teach turning on and off one of the receiving sections, each of which includes an antenna (Ans. 11: FF 5).",
+    "When one of the receiving sections is turned off, the gain at that receiving section is zero.",
+    "Therefore, the rejection of claims 9 and 23 is sustained.",
+    "Appellants have provided no definition or interpretation of the term \"interchanges\" and the Specification provides no guidance.",
+    "Thus, the plain meaning of this term suggests that the front-end controller can designate either the primary or the secondary receiver to operate as the primary receiver, and the other to operate as the secondary receiver.\"",
+    "5 The front-end controller can at some point in time switch the respective designations of the two receivers.",
+    "Thus, the first and second radio receiving sections can interchange operation as the single receiver from one single receiver mode period to the next.",
+    "Therefore, the rejection of claims 13 and 27 is sustained.",
+    "We agree.",
+    "Although Schmutz teaches an analog-to-digital converter operates in a sampling rate range, for example, between 25 and 50 Mega-samples per second, Schmutz does not teach varying the gain of a receiver by adjusting the sampling rate (col. 7, 11. 1-4).",
+    "Therefore, the rejection of claims 7, 8, and 22 is not sustained.",
+    "However, although Schmutz discloses design choices for different systems, it does not teach disabling one or more components of an analog-to-digital converter for varying the gain of a secondary receiver.",
+    "Therefore, the rejection of claim 21 is not sustained.",
+    "We agree.",
+    "Callaway only recognizes the fact that antenna diversity requires additional battery power (col. 1, 11. 59-61).",
+    "Callaway does not teach varying the gain of a receiver based on a battery power level.",
+    "Therefore, the rejection of claims 12 and 26 is not sustained."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009009307_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 1, 5, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(e) as anticipated by Cornelius2."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 5, 27, and 281.",
+    "We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C.  134 and 6 (2002).",
+    "The claimed invention is directed to systems and methods for implementing an industry-wide business to business exchange (Spec. 1).",
+    "Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.",
+    "1. A method for operating an industry wide business to business exchange system comprising the steps of: providing an interface configured to couple a system of each of a plurality of customers to the exchange system; allowing management of authorized users to access data residing in the system of a respective customer by an entity other than the respective customer; authenticating an individual user; and responsive to a result of the authenticating step indicating that the individual user is an authorized user, authorizing the individual user to access data residing in the exchange system and data residing in the system of one of the plurality of customers of the exchange system, wherein the system of each of the plurality of customers of the exchange system is coupled to the exchange system via a data communication network.",
+    "We REVERSE.",
+    "Did the Examiner err in asserting that the VTrade System of Cornelius anticipates \"allowing management of authorized users to access data residing in the system of a respective customer by an entity other than the respective customer,\" as recited in independent claim 12",
+    "The following is Figure 35 of Cornelius:",
+    "Cornelius discloses the following: A Security Management that controls both physical and logical security for the distributed system.",
+    "Due to the nature of a distributed environment, security may need to be managed either centrally, remotely or through a combination of the two methods (col. 155, 11. 30-34).",
+    "The Kerberos security approach within client/server architecture, for example, utilizes interconnected security servers and distributed security clients to provide security for the distributed environment (col. 155, 11. 46- 50).",
+    "The number of security components required to secure a distributed environment will increase due to the computing power available through the use of these new technologies and the heterogeneity of the environment.",
+    "Although things such as dial-up access, LAN access, multiple host access, etc. introduce new user capabilities, they simultaneously introduce security risks into the system (col. 155, 11. 51-57).",
+    "One User-ID for access to all software (central point for all security checking) (col. 156, 11. 7-8).",
+    "Access authority for database objects (data-sets) as they appear outside the DBMS must be controlled (col. 156, 11. 17-18).",
+    "Single user setup and sign-on capability across all platforms and applications (col. 156, 11. 21-22).",
+    "Support for external security devices and dial access equipment, etc. (col. 156, 11. 25-26).",
+    "Today, the Web content of most sites is unmanaged.",
+    "The enterprise does not utilize a method of tracking the content or the attributes of the content.",
+    "Instead, the enterprise has a pool of content that may span multiple directories, departments and web servers.",
+    "When content is created it is added to this pool of content by simply adding it to the Web server's directory and adding the necessary link required to display it (col. 191, 11. 21-28).",
+    "Unmanaged content may be an obstacle for personalization.",
+    "In order to deliver personalized content or filtered content the system must know what content exists and the attributes of this content.",
+    "a content catalog 10000 or content management system should be used to manage the enterprise's content.",
+    "A simple definition of a content catalog is given below (col. 191, 11. 32-38).",
+    "What is deemed as content can take many forms.",
+    "As illustrated in FIG. 100, content may be Web pages (HTML pages) 10002, graphics (images) 10004, audio, video, or even information 10006 and messages.",
+    "How this content is stored may also take many forms; it may be stored in table, files or directories.",
+    "The content catalog needs to be aware of what content exists and where it is stored.",
+    "This can be achieved by retaining attributes of the content and providing indexing to the content.",
+    "Content attributes might be physical properties such as what type of content it is (HTML page, graphic, audio file, video file or textual message) or the size of the content.",
+    "The difficulty is attempting to store the heuristic or analytical attributes and making these attributes available for personalization techniques.",
+    "The indexing strategy should include full text and attribute indexing which provides efficient access for the enterprise's users and potentially any integrated members of the enterprise's value chain (col. 191, 11. 39-56).",
+    "We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that the VTrade System of Cornelius anticipates \"allowing management of authorized users to access data residing in the system of a respective customer by an entity other than the respective customer,\" as recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 4-7; Reply Br. 2-6).",
+    "Cornelius discloses various user system coupled to a central server, for example, buyer system 3500 and seller system 3502 coupled to VTrade processing hub 3504 (Fig. 35) and external world system 3602 coupled to VTrade Enterprise system 3600 (Fig. 36).",
+    "Cornelius also makes numerous references to distributed environments where information is stored in multiple systems (col. 155, 11. 30-34; col. 155, 11. 46-50; col. 155, 11. 51-57, col. 191, 11. 21-25, 32-56).",
+    "Furthermore, Cornelius discloses authenticating access to software and data across all platforms and applications (col. 156, 11. 7-8; col. 156, 11. 21-22; col. 156, 11. 25-26; col. 191, 11. 25-28).",
+    "However, Cornelius does not explicitly disclose that the distributed environment includes external systems such as buyer system 3500, seller system 3502, and external world system 3602.",
+    "Instead, the most likely interpretation is that the access to multiple systems, platforms, and applications in Cornelius is with respect to systems internal to VTrade processing hub 3504 and VTrade Enterprise system 3600.",
+    "Accordingly, as this is an anticipation rejection, we will not sustain this rejection."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009009643_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Introduction According to Appellants, the invention is a system and method for \"provid(ing] a mechanism by which a single physical I/O adapter, such as a PCI, PCIX, or PCI-E adapter, can associate its resources to a system image and isolate them from other system images, thereby providing I/O virtualization. \" (Spec. 1, 1; See also Abstract.)",
+    "GROUPING OF CLAIMS (1) Appellants argue the 5 102(b) rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10- 12, 14, and 16 collectively on the basis of claim 1 (App. Br. 13-22).",
+    "(2) Appellants argue the $ 102(b) rejection of claims 19-21 collectively on the basis of claim 19 (App. Br. 21).",
+    "(3) Additionally, Appellants argue the 5 103(a) rejection of claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 on the basis of their respective parent claims, claims 1 or 10 (id. at 23-24).",
+    "(4) Additionally, Appellants argue the 5 103(a) rejection of claim 22 on the basis of claim 1 (id. at 24-25).",
+    "ISSUE 35 U.S.C. $ 102(b): claims 1-3, 5, 7, 19-12, 14, and 16 Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Craddock because the reference does not disclose associating the first bus address with at least one first virtual adapter of a plurality of virtual adapters of a physical peripheral component interconnect family input/output adapter, and associating the second bus address with at least one second virtual adapter of the plurality of virtual adapters of the physical peripheral component interconnect family input/output adapter, wherein the first system image is enabled to communicate with the at least one first virtual adapter through the first bus address, and the second system image is enabled to communicate with the at least one second virtual adapter through the second bus address. as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 15).",
+    "More specifically Appellants contend that the host channel adapter in Craddock does not describe a PCI input/output adapter and is not a member of a PCI family of input/output adapters (App. Br. 15-20) as recited in claim 1.",
+    "Additionally, Appellants merely recite the claim language and rely on arguments set forth for independent claims 1 and 10 in contending dependent claims 3, 7, 12, and 16 are not anticipated by Craddock.",
+    "35 U.S.C. 5 102(b): claims 19-21 ANALYSIS Appellant responds to the Examiner's s final rejection of representative claim 19 by merely: (1) reciting the language of the claim; (2) asserting that \"[a]s discussed in detail above, Craddock does not disclose or suggest an input/output adapter that facilitates virtualization in a logically portioned data processing system\".; and (3) asserting Craddock does not disclose an input/output adapter having the structure recited in claims 19 and reciting the claim limitations Craddock allegedly does not disclose (App. Br. 21).",
+    "35 U.S.C. 5 103(a): claims 8, 9. 17 and 18 Appellant responds to the Examiner's final rejection of representative claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 by merely: (1) repeating the Examiner* s basis for rejection; (2) quoting case law; (3) asserting these claims further restrict their respective independent claims; and (4) contending Craddock does not disclose or suggest all the claim limitations of independent claims 1 and 10 (App. Br. 23 -24)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 14, 16 and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 102(b) as being anticipated by Craddock (Ans. 3-6).",
+    "Claims 8, 9, 17, 18 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as being unpatentable over Craddock (Ans. 7-9).",
+    "In response, the Examiner maintains that Appellants did not define **physical PCI family input/output adapter\" in their Specification and that despite Craddock having PCI adapters and host channel adapters, when interpreting the claim language, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that any I/O adapter that uses the PCI driver set is a PCI family I/O adapter (Ans. 10-11).",
+    "Further, the Examiner finds that Craddock discloses that the host channel adapters are virtualized into a plurality of virtual host channel adapters and the physical HCAs are shared among the many virtualized HCAs and communicate with other devices (Ans. 11).",
+    "Therefore, the Examiner finds Craddock discloses the invention as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 10- 12)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim.",
+    "We will, therefore, treat claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 10-12, 14, and 16 as standing or falling with representative claim 1.",
+    "We select independent claim 19 as the representative claim.",
+    "We will, therefore, treat claims 20 and 21 as standing or falling with representative claim 19.",
+    "We treat these claims separately.",
+    "We treat this claim separately.",
+    "Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding that Craddock discloses \"associating the first bus address with at least one first virtual adapter of a plurality of virtual adapters of a physical peripheral component interconnect family input/output adapter, and associating the second bus address with at least one second virtual adapter of the plurality of virtual adapters of the physical peripheral component interconnect family input/output adapter\" as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 10 and 22?",
+    "ANALYSIS We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and emphasize the following points.",
+    "Appellants have not provided a definition of a **physical peripheral component interconnect family input/output adapter.\"",
+    "Instead, Appellants point to the Specification which provides examples of the PCI family (FF 1).",
+    "These examples do not rise to the level of a definition.",
+    "Additionally, Appellants have not provided any persuasive evidence or argument as to why the Examiner's interpretation of this term is incorrect.",
+    "We particularly observe that Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner's is responsive arguments by filing a Reply Brief.",
+    "Given the Examiner's extensive responsive explanations (Ans. 10-11), and the absence of a Reply Brief, we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's s position as articulated in the Answer (id.).",
+    "Appellants' argument - that since Craddock refers to a host channel adapter as well as a PCI input /output adapter, the adapters are different (App. Br. 19) - is similarly unpersuasive.",
+    "Appellants have not shown nor do we readily find that Craddock indicates a host channel adapter cannot be a PCI input/output adapter.",
+    "Instead, Craddock discloses that the adapter cards can be any known type of adapter card (FF 3) thus disclosing that the adapter can be any known type of adapter, including a PCI family I/O adapter.",
+    "As a result, we find Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner\" s interpretation that a PCI family I/O adapter is any I/O adapter that utilizes the PCI driver set.",
+    "Accordingly, we find Craddock describes the invention as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claim 10.",
+    "Appellants did not present any additional arguments for dependent claims 2, 5, 11, and 14.",
+    "Merely reciting the language of the claim and asserting the reference does not disclose the limitations is insufficient.",
+    "Therefore, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding Craddock discloses dependent claims 3, 7, 12, and 16.",
+    "Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding Craddock anticipates the invention as recited in claims 1-3, 5, 7, 19-12, 14, and 16.",
+    "Claim 1 recites different limitations and thus, the arguments presented for claim 1 are not persuasive for claim 19.",
+    "Specifically, Appellants argue with respect to claim 1 that Craddock does not disclose a physical peripheral interconnect family input/output adapter; however, this limitation is not recited in claim 19.",
+    "As to Appellants' other statements, merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient.",
+    "Here, we find Appellant's s arguments are conclusory in nature and fail to address the thrust of the Examiner's s obviousness rejection.",
+    "Given the Examiner's extensive responsive explanations (id.), and the absence of a Reply Brief, we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's position as articulated in the Answer. (Id.).",
+    "On this record, we find Appellant has failed to present substantive arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error.",
+    "Appellants present no additional arguments for claims 20 and 21 which depend from claim 19.",
+    "Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) as being anticipated by Craddock.",
+    "On this record, we find Appellant has failed to present substantive arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error.",
+    "Accordingly, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 for obviousness over Craddock.",
+    "35 U.S.C. 5 103(a): claim 22 Since Appellants failed to present any substantive arguments or supporting evidence aside from reliance on those set forth for claim 1, for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1, we find Craddock does discloses the invention as recited in claim 22.",
+    "Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22 for obviousness over Craddock."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009009964_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "The Appellant has elected to argue claims 1-3 together as a group (App. Br. 4-7) and claims 14-38 together as a group (App. Br. 7-9).",
+    "With respect to claim 1, the Appellant contends that \"[a]s disclosed in the specification of currently pending application, a 'program' may be interpreted as, for example, television programs, movies, and pay-per-view events.\" (App. Br. 5), and \"lilt is respectfully the opinion of the Appellants that this interpretation is overly broad and not supported by the specification,\" which clearly interprets a program as a viewable program, such as a television program.\" (Id. 7).",
+    "The Appellant further contends that Moyer's \"secondary product\" comprises \"finished goods\" such as \"consumables and accessories\". which does not \"correspond to a program identified by one or more program identifiers\" (App. Br. 6).",
+    "In particular, Moyer fails to teach a link from a product to a program identifier. (Id.).",
+    "The Appellant also contends that there is a lack of motivation to modify Oral in view of Moyer because \"the methods and systems of Moyer and Oral represent disparate technologies, systems, distribution methods and products.\" (Id. 7).",
+    "With respect to claim 14, the Appellant contends that Barton's \"database schema does not teach or suggest the database structure as claimed as it merely provides information associating a user with at least one event, whereas the claimed database structure associated a selectable product with one or more entities deliverable to a user\" (App. Br. 9)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence:",
+    "Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Oral and Moyer.",
+    "Claims 4-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Oral, Moyer, and Barton.",
+    "The Examiner sets forth a detailed explanation of a reasoned conclusion of unpatentability in the Examiner's Answer."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "The following rejections are before us for review:",
+    "Only those arguments actually made by the Appellant have been considered in this decision.",
+    "Arguments which the Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.",
+    "The following findings of fact (FFs) are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.",
+    "The Appellant has the opportunity on appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) to demonstrate error in the Examiner'. s position.",
+    "Therefore, we look to the Appellant's Brief to show error in the proffered reasoned conclusion.",
+    "Therefore, we select independent claim 1 and independent claim 14 respectively as the representative claims for those groups, and we will address the Appellant's arguments with respect thereto.",
+    "We start our review by first determining the appropriate scope of the argued claim limitations in the independent claims.",
+    "First, the claims themselves do not define the argued terms.",
+    "Therefore, we have an obligation to construe the terms with broad yet reasonable interpretations.",
+    "Furthermore, in light of the breadth of Appellant's Specification, we broadly but reasonably construe the claim limitation \"link\" as \"[a]n identifying term attached to an element in a system to facilitate connection to other identified elements\".. the claim limitation \"program identifier\" as any identifier to indicate or identify any program, a structure, or event; the claim limitation \"product\" as any product; the claims limitation \"entity\" as any record, field, or element in a database; and the claim limitation \"associating\" as connecting or joining together\" because there is no limitation in the claim language to prevent us from reading the language broadly.",
+    "We now address the merits of the Appellant's s contentions under our claim construction.",
+    "We disagree with the Appellant's contentions.",
+    "We find that the language of claim 1 (see representative claims) has broader scope than that the Appellant contended because claim 1 recites a data structure stored in a memory device for using with a computer application that has one or more program identified by program identifiers.",
+    "We do not find any limitations in claim 1 such as television program for the claim limitation \"program\", let alone movie or pay-per-view events.",
+    "As such, we decline to import the disclosed embodiments in the Specification into claim 1.",
+    "It is our view that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms such as program identifier, link, etc. as discussed above in our claim construction, and not confine the claim terms to \"television programs\" or **pay-per-view events\".",
+    "We disagree with the Appellant's contentions.",
+    "We find Moyer teaches that each product structure is linked by at least one identifier such as product SKU (FF 1).",
+    "We also find Moyer teaches that an application such as a function can traverse a product structure by matching the SKU field of the product structure and a passed SKU number (FF 2).",
+    "We find the knowledge of linking a selected product structure by an identifier such as SKU would have been within the skill in the art, as evidenced by Moyer.",
+    "We, therefore, find that combining the well-known elements of product linked by its identifier taught by Moyer with the well-known technique of selecting a product (television program) to be downloaded and presented to a user taught by Oral is nothing more than a \"predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.\"",
+    "Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1.",
+    "We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of its dependent claims 2-13, which have not been separately argued, and fall with their base claims.",
+    "We disagree with the Appellant's contention.",
+    "We find Barton teaches that a user database for storing user information connects at least one event lists 350 that each list (product) has the plurality of selectable records to be filled for recording television programs (entities) to be presented to a user (FF 3).",
+    "We, therefore, conclude that the teachings of the Barton reference read on the disputed limitations.",
+    "Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 14.",
+    "We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of its dependent claims 15-38, which are not separately argued, and fall with their respective base claims."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009010102_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants' Contentions Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 and 22-24 for numerous reasons. (App. Br. 15-27),"
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-8, 12, 17, 18, 22, and 23, under 35 U.S.C. , 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Fulghum (US 6,728,326 B1) and Oleynik (US 6,853,675 B1).",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. , 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Fulghum, Oleynik, and Pequet (US 5,436,904).",
+    "The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 6 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Fulghum, Oleynik, and Kammeyer (US 4,506,228).",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 9-11, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Fulghum, Oleynik, and Veintimilla (US 6,084,932).",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.  103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Fulghum, Oleynik, and Chiodini (US 5,936,961).",
+    "The Examiner rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Fulghum, Oleynik, and Kohlschmidt (US 5,654,960)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "ANALYSIS We agree with Appellants\" contentions and conclude that the Examiner has failed to set forth sufficient rationale to demonstrate a proper prima facie case of obviousness."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009010734_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "As pointed out by Appellants (Appeal Br. 4), the Baum device requires a user to inject fluid into the container in order to reconstitute a lyophilized medicament held in the container. (Baum, col. 2, II. 34-40; Figs. 1, 2).",
+    "Appellants argue that Baum's nostril guides are not enlarged relative to the body of the delivery device, and that to regard the nostril guides as being enlarged only with respect to the lumen extending through the guides would improperly render the claim limitation directed to an *enlarged stopper\" meaningless. (Appeal Br. 5-6).1",
+    "Appellant argues, referring to claim 35, that neither Baum nor the other cited references disclose structure that would impart spin to a fluid stream, in that the discharge nozzles of Baum appear to be smooth-walled and thus not capable of imparting spin."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 19, 20, 22-25, 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. . 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baum (US 3,874,381, issued Apr. 7, 1975) in view of Haber (US 5,433,191, issued Jul. 18, 1995) and Fournier (US 3,818,911, issued Jun. 25, 1974).",
+    "However, the Examiner pointed out that both parties understood that claims 35 and 36 should have been identified as being subject to that ground of rejection all along, and that Appellants indeed argued in the Appeal Brief for the patentability of claims 35 and 36 as though the ground of rejection applied to those claims. (Ans. 3).",
+    "The Examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious \"to use the check valves of Haber with the vial extractor of Baum in order to prevent the device from leaking fluid [either] back into the container \u00b7 \u00b7 \u25a0 .7. M \u00b7 (Ans. 4).",
+    "The Examiner found that Baum discloses a **nostril guide (44 and 46) configured as an enlarged stopper. (Ans. 3)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 8 6(b).",
+    "We AFFIRM-IN-PART.",
+    "Accordingly, we will treat Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief as being responsive to the new ground of rejection.",
+    "Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the Examiner's proposed modification would prevent the Baum device from operating as intended.",
+    "We are not persuaded by the Examiner's citation (Ans. 6) to the Abstract in Baum that the device is disclosed for use with medicaments that are in liquid form at the outset.",
+    "Accordingly, the rejection of claims 19, 20 and 22-25 as being unpatentable over the combination of Baum and Haber will not be sustained.",
+    "Contrary to Appellants' argument that \"[elach and every one of the rejected claims require a one-way valve (check valve)\" (Appeal Br. 4), independent claim 35 recites a check valve as being only one of a Markush grouping of three possible structural elements making up *a portion of said flow path\". (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix).",
+    "As such, claim 35 does not require a check valve.",
+    "Accordingly, consistent with Appellants' disclosure, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term *enlarged stopper\", is one which has an increasing cross-sectional size, such as a conical (or frustoconical) exterior shape.",
+    "The Examiner's finding that Baum discloses nostril guides meeting this claim limitation is thus not in error.",
+    "As such, the Examiner's findings and conclusion regarding the Baum disclosure in combination with the teachings of Fournier are sufficient to support the rejection of claim 35 as being unpatentable.",
+    "The rejection of claim 35 will be sustained.",
+    "The scope of claim 36 is determined by reading claim 35 as including any one of the three structural elements set forth in the Markush group, and further comprising an atomizer.",
+    "In the case that the structural element is selected to be the tunnel through a nostril guide configured as an enlarged stopper, the claim 36 device would also include *an atomizer\".",
+    "The full scope of claim 36 thus does not require an *atomizing nozzle comprising structure arranged to impart a spin to a fluid stream\" as set forth in a different structural element option set forth in claim 35.",
+    "While we understand Appellants' position to be that all atomizers operate by imparting a spin to a fluid stream prior to ejection of the stream (see, e.g., Spec., p. 13, para. [0050]), the only structural feature disclosed by Appellants as creating this effect is a *small diameter orifice[s]*. (Id.; see also Fig. 6).",
+    "As Baum discloses \"nozzles\" 44, 46 having reduced discharge passages 48, 50 at the point of ejection (Baum, col. 2, II. 14-16; Figs. 2-4), we believe that the Examiner reasonably construed each of the discharge orifices of Baum, which expel the fluid in a spray or mist (Baum, col. 1, 1. 4; Fig. 4), as an atomizer.",
+    "The rejection of claim 36 will also be sustained."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009012109_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant argues that Verhoeven does not disclose a stent coating having an average surface roughness of less than 75 nanometers, and that the Specification discloses \"dramatic and surprising results.\" App. Br. 9-16; Reply Br. 5-9.",
+    "Regarding claims 4 and 9, Appellant additionally argues that Verhoeven does not disclose a coating having a thickness of 1 to 150 nanometers and an average surface roughness of less than 75 nanometers. App. Br. 13, 15-16.",
+    "First, Appellant argues that Verhoeven discloses relative surface roughness and RMS surface roughness, but does not disclose average surface roughness within the claimed range. App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 6-7.",
+    "This argument is unresponsive.",
+    "Second, Appellant contends that Verhoeven's coating thickness is independent of, and unrelated to, relative roughness, and that \"at most\" Verhoeven discloses that the uncoated surface of the stent is visually rougher than the coated surface. App. Br. 12-13 (citing Verhoeven, paras. [0013], [0039], [0042]).",
+    "Third, Appellant calculates that Verhoeven's example of a dry coating thickness of 4 micrometers at a relative surface roughness of about 10 percent results in an RMS surface roughness of 400 manometers. App. Br. 10.",
+    "Appellant then contends that, assuming that RMS roughness is equivalent to average surface roughness, Verhoeven discloses an average surface roughness of 400 nanometer, over five times higher than the claimed range of less than 75 nanometers. Id.",
+    "To explain why Appellant performed the calculation using Verhoeven's stent coating thickness of 4 micrometers instead of 0.1 micrometers, Appellant argues that the thickness of 4 micrometers is \"a reasonable measure of what can be expected\" with Verhoeven's method. App. Br. 11.",
+    "Appellant argues that the burden did not shift to Appellant because the Examiner did not establish that Verhoeven and the subject matter of claim 6 are substantially the same. App. Br. 12-13 (citing as support for this standard to Ex Parte Phillips, 28 USPQ2d 1302 (BPAI 1993).",
+    "Appellant argues that the Specification describes the \"dramatic and surprising end result\" of decreasing average surface roughness from 142 and 77 nanometers for existing stents, to 2.35 and 16.3 nanometers for the claimed stent. App. Br. 12 (citing Spec., para. [0041]",
+    "Appellant also asserts that the Examiner' s conclusion of obviousness is based on an erroneous finding of fact. Ans. 4-5; Reply Br. 7-8.",
+    "Specifically, Appellant asserts that a relative roughness of 0 percent is a physical impossibility, and consequently, the Examiner' s finding that Verhoeven's disclosure of a relative surface roughness of \"at most 25 percent\" is disclosure of a relative surface roughness range of 0 to 25 percent is in error.",
+    "Appellant argues that Verhoeven discloses relative roughness of about 10 percent so that a coating with a thickness of 1 nanometer would have a RMS roughness of 100 nanometers, which exceeds the range called for in claims 4 and 9. App. Br. 13, 15-16."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner concluded that because the claimed range lacks criticality, modification of Verhoeven's surface roughness to meet the claimed range would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Ans. 3.",
+    "The Examiner did not find that Verhoeven discloses surface roughness in terms of average surface roughness. Ans. 3.",
+    "Further, the Examiner found, and Appellant does not contest, that surface roughness expressed in terms of RMS is generally equal to or slightly higher than average surface roughness. Ans. 5."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b).",
+    "We affirm.",
+    "Appellant argues claims 6-8, 10, and 28 as a group, and we select independent claim 6 as representative. App. Br. 9-13; see 37 C.F.R. \u25cf 41.37(c)(1)(vii).",
+    "Appellant argues claims 1-3, 5, and 27 as a group, and we select independent claim 1 as representative. App. Br. 14-16.",
+    "Because the limitation at issue (the average surface roughness of the stent coating) is contained in both claims 1 and 6, we analyze claim 6, and our analysis is equally applicable to claim 1.",
+    "We are unpersuaded by Appellant's s arguments that Verhoeven does not disclose a stent coating having an average surface roughness of less than 75 nanometers.",
+    "Appellant's characterization is inaccurate.",
+    "Verhoeven discloses a direct relationship between coating thickness and relative surface roughness.",
+    "Further, Verhoeven discloses more than the uncoated surface of the stent being visually rougher than the coated surface. See, e.g., Verhoeven \u00b7 para. [0011] (disclosing a uniform coating thickness of 0.1 micrometers with a relative standard deviation of no greater than about 10 percent).",
+    "As the Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 4), Appellant's calculation based on Verhoeven's disclosure of a coating thickness of 4 micrometers ignores Verhoeven's additional disclosure of a dry coating thickness of 0.1 micrometers (100 nanometers).",
+    "Verhoeven discloses a stent coating thickness of 0.1 micrometers (Verhoeven paras. [0011], [0020]), and Appellant fails to present a convincing reason for ignoring this explicit disclosure in an issued patent.",
+    "Consequently, Verhoeven's disclosure of a RMS surface roughness of 10 nanometers is equal to or great than an average surface roughness of 10 nanometers, within the range of less than 75 nanometers called for in claim 6.",
+    "Because the Examiner found (Ans. 4), and we agree, that Verhoeven discloses a coating having an average surface roughness within the claimed range of less than 75 nanometers, claim 6 is anticipated by Verhoeven.",
+    "Consequently, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 27, and 28 on this basis. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982) (anticipation is the epitome of obviousness).",
+    "Even if Verhoeven did not disclose a coating having an average surface roughness as called for in claim 6, we conclude that such would have been obvious in view of Verhoeven.",
+    "We disagree.",
+    "First, routine Board decisions, such as Phillips, are not binding on the Board.",
+    "Second, because it is uncontested that the only difference between the prior art (Verhoeven) and the subject matter of claim 6 is a difference in the range of a particular variable (average surface roughness), the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness. See, e.g., In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003).",
+    "Consequently, Appellant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).",
+    "To the extent that this is an argument that the claimed range of an average roughness of less than 75 nanometers is critical, we are unpersuaded by this evidence.",
+    "This evidence relates to an average surface roughness of 2.35 and 16.3 nanometers while, in contrast, claim 6 calls for a coating having an average surface roughness of less than 75 nanometers.",
+    "Consequently, Appellant's argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 6.",
+    "Appellant has not demonstrated the criticality of the claimed range of less than 75 nanometers.",
+    "Our analysis, as well as the Examiner's, is not based on a finding that Verhoeven discloses a relative surface roughness of 0 percent; rather, the analysis is based upon a finding that Verhoeven discloses a relative roughness for a stent coating of 10 percent, a fact conceded by Appellant. Ans. 4; App. Br. 10; Verhoeven para. [0010], [0020]).",
+    "Thus, the subject matter of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 27, and 28 was obvious over Verhoeven.",
+    "Consequently, Verhoeven's disclosure of a RMS surface roughness of 100 nanometers is equal to or slightly higher than an average surface roughness of 100 nanometers.",
+    "Because it is uncontested that the only different between the prior art (Verhoeven) and the claimed subject matter is the range of a particular variable (average surface roughness), the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329; see also Titanium Metals Corp. V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art range do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties).",
+    "Consequently, Appellant must show that the particular range is critical.",
+    "As explained in the analysis of claim 6 supra, Appellant has not met this burden because Appellant's evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter.",
+    "Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 9."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009012286_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "The sole issue raised by Appellants regarding the rejection of independent claim 1 is whether the Examiner erred by interpreting Suefuji\\'s radially innermost groove 22 of the second embodiment as the claimed *recess communicating the compression chambers to a discharge port formed through the base of the non-orbiting scroll to increase the effective flow area communicating with the discharge port.\" App. Br. 3-4; Ans. 3-4, 9-10; Suefuji, figs. 6A-B; col. 12, 1. 10 - col. 14, 1. 61.",
+    "Appellants contend the grooves 22 do not \"communicate\" with the discharge port because refrigerant will have already moved beyond those structures prior to communicating with the discharge port. App. Br. 3-4; Reply Br. 1-2.",
+    "The sole issue raised by Appellants regarding the rejection of independent claim 7 is whether the Examiner failed to articulate reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. App. Br. 4; See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int \\'I Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).",
+    "While the Examiner does not expound upon this reasoning in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Reply Br. 2), Appellants have not addressed the Examiner's position, contending only that there would be no reason to make the Examiner's proposed modification. App. Br. 4."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 8 102(b) as being anticipated by Suefuji. Ans. 3.",
+    "Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suefuji and Fujitani. Ans. 6.",
+    "Claims 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bush and Mori. Ans. 7.",
+    "Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bush, Mori and Fujitani. Ans. 8.",
+    "The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a recess at an end of the orbiting scroll at the tip in order to improve communication between the compressionchamber and the discharge port. Final Rej. 6 and Ans. 7 citing Mori abst., 11. 15-17."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b).",
+    "We affirm.",
+    "Adopting Appellants\\' proposed interpretation would mean that only the innermost compression chamber could \"communicate\" with the discharge port.",
+    "This is contrary to the claim which states that the recess is **communicating\" multiple \"chambers\" to a discharge port.",
+    "Thus, we decline to adopt Appellants\\' proposed claim construction.",
+    "Since fluid flows from Suefuji\\'s compression chamber to groove 22 and from groove 22 to discharge opening 7, Suefuji\\'s groove is reasonably read as the claimed *recess communicating the compression chambers to a discharge port.\"",
+    "\" Furthermore, since the presence of the groove results in additional space in which fluid can flow, the groove increases the effected flow area communicating with the discharge port. Contra Reply Br. 2.",
+    "Thus, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained.",
+    "Since Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1-5 as a group and contest the rejection of claim 6 only for the reasons set forth regarding claims 1-5, the rejections of claims 2-6 are also sustained.",
+    "Mori makes apparent both a reason for providing a tapered surface 15b in an orbiting scroll--reducing discharge resistance, and a reason for making the taper small, i.e., less than the wrap height--minimizing reexpansion of compressed gas. Col. 6, 11. 17-35.",
+    "Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 7.",
+    "Since Appellants argue the rejection of claims 7-11 as a group and contest the rejection of claim 12 only for the reasons set forth regarding claims 7-11, the rejections of claims 8-12 are also sustained."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009012418_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant contends that Oliphant does not support a finding of anticipation because: The claims require an optical pipe that guides light.",
+    "Examples of an **optical pipe\" discussed in the specification are the lock 1 (e.g., in relation to Fig. 2) and optical pipe 213 (e.g., in relation to Fig. 5).",
+    "The optical pipe functions to guide light incident at one end of the pipe to the other end of the pipe.",
+    "Each of the independent claims explicitly requires that the optical pipe guide light.",
+    "For example, claims 1 and 16 each recite \"guiding light from said light emitting element of said receptacle \u00b7- , Claim 6 recites that light is \"guided by said optical pipe .",
+    "Oliphant's translucent plug does not guide light.",
+    "An *optical pipe\" is a term known to one skilled in the art and is more than just a transparent material through which light is capable of passing.",
+    "An optical pipe is, for example, one or more waveguides adapted to guide optical signals between locations. (App. Br 7)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) as being anticipated by Oliphant (US 6,483,712 B1). 1"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. .8 6(b).",
+    "We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's contentions that the Examiner has erred.",
+    "We disagree with Appellant's conclusions.",
+    "We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief.",
+    "We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.",
+    "As the lock part 1 version of the *optical pipe\" is not further defined in Appellant's Specification, we turn to dictionaries for guidance as to the art recognized meaning of the term **optical pipe. \"",
+    "We find a number of definitions ranging from broad to specific.",
+    "From these definitions of a \"light pipe\" and Appellant's use of the term in the various embodiments of the Specification (particularly lock part 1), we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of an *optical pipe\" is *an elongated transparent medium for transmitting light** and that the Examiner is correct that Oliphant's \"translucent plug is an optical pipe.' \" (Ans. 7).",
+    "We note that to the extent that one (or more) disclosed embodiment of Appellant's invention may be narrower than the Examiner's reading of the term \"optical pipe\", the Appellant is not precluded during continuing prosecution from amending the claims to limit them to this narrower embodiment."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009012538_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants argue that the claims recite patentable subject matter because they recite the practical application of training a neural net. (Ans. 19.)",
+    "Appellants further argue that the Patent Office considered the training of a neural net to be a practical application in its \"Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions.\" (Id.)",
+    "As explained by Appellants, however, this claim limitation refers to the weighting of the sets of data that are representative of the inputs and output of the neural net. (See App. Br. 24-25.)"
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Examiner's Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1-27 as directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. .5 101. (Ans. 3-5.)",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, first paragraph, because the specification fails to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention. (Ans. 5-13.)",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 10-12, and 18-22 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 102(b) by Wang (U.S. Patent Number 5,720,002). (Ans. 13-21.)",
+    "ANALYSIS Issue 1- Claims 1-27 The Examiner found that claims 1-27 recite non-patentable subject matter because they \"are impermissibly abstract under 35 U.S.C. $ 101 doctrine.\" (Ans. 4.)",
+    "Issue 2 \u00b7 Claims 1-27 The Examiner found that claims 1-27 are invalid for failing to satisfy the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C \u25cf 112, first paragraph, because the Examiner believed that the \"breadth of the claims is infinite.\" (Ans. 7; see also Ans. 7-13.)",
+    "Issue 3- Claims 1-3, 10-12, and 18-22 The Examiner found that the back-propagation algorithm of Wang discloses the claim limitation of \"attributing greater weight in the calculation to at least one set of the plurality of sets of data than at least one other set of the plurality of sets of data,\" \" as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 10, 18, and 21. (Ans. 14.)"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b).",
+    "We affirm-in-part.",
+    "Our reviewing courts have provided further guidance on the correct interpretation of the law since the guidelines were published in 1996.",
+    "Based on this more recent guidance, claims are not patentable processes if **they are attempts to patent abstract ideas.\" Bilski V. Kappos, 561 U.S. - - 132 S.Ct. 3218, 3229-3230, 177 L.Ed.2d 792 (2010).",
+    "And as explained by the Examiner, \"the claimed artificial neural network is a mathematical model.' (Ans. 23.)",
+    "Moreover, \"[t]raining such a neural network is merely the process of parameter adjustment for a pure algorithm.\" (Ans. 26.)",
+    "In other words, the method of training a neural network is an abstract idea.",
+    "Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's s rejection of the claims that recite a method for training a neural network (i.e., claims 1-9, 16, and 24) because they recite unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. & 101.",
+    "The Examiner, however, fails to explain why the system claims that recite physical components such as a processor are directed to unpatentable subject matter. (See Ans.21-28.)",
+    "Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's s rejections of claims 10-15, 17, and 25.",
+    "Similarly, claims 18-20 and 26 also recite a system with physical components because they include means plus function elements having corresponding structure in the specification that includes physical components. (See FF 0; particularly the \"computer system that comprises a processor 32, memory 34 and storage 36.)",
+    "Accordingly, we will also reverse the Examiner': s rejections under 35 U.S.C. & 101 of claims 18-20 and 26.",
+    "The remaining claims (i.e., claims 21-23 and 27) require a \"computer readable medium. \"",
+    "The patent office is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the patent office. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989).",
+    "The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims drawn to a computer readable medium covers forms of non-transitory media and transitory medium because the specification does not preclude transitory medium. (See Spec. 10; see also MPEP 2111.01.)",
+    "Because the broadest reasonable interpretation of these claims covers a signal per se, the claims must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter).",
+    "Accordingly, we affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 101of claims 21-23 and 27.",
+    "Contrary to the Examiner's belief, however, the breadth of claims 1-27 is not infinite.",
+    "Rather, all of the claims are limited to a particular way to train a neural network and as explained supra, some of the claims require particular physical components.",
+    "Accordingly, we reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C .5 112, first paragraph of claims 1-27.",
+    "In other words, the claim limitation refers to the weighting of training data.",
+    "In contrast, the back-propagation algorithm of Wang determines the weights of the neurons within the neural network. (FF 2.)",
+    "Accordingly, we reverse the anticipation rejections of claims 1, 10, 18, and 21 as well as the claims dependent therefrom (i.e., claims 2-3, 11-12, 19-20, and 22)."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009012584_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants argue that Reed fails to disclose a solution data set that includes the three sections with the particularly recited information. Br. 6-12.",
+    "Appellants assert that Reed fails to disclose receiving feedback from the user that relates to the first solution data set. Br. 12-13.",
+    "Appellants contend that Reed discloses displaying a solution - not a problem --and Paragraph 108 provides no association of problems with a solution data set that are delivered to the user when the user selects the problem. Br. 14.",
+    "Appellants assert that Reed does not disclose an \"identifiable 'solution' or comparable element \u00b7 . \u00b7 that is organized, delivered, or stored in at least three sections as claimed.\" Br. 7."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "THE REJECTION Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 102(e) as anticipated by Reed. Ans. 3-6.2",
+    "Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Reed discloses all the recited limitations, including the specific sections of the first solution data set. See Ans. 3-5, 7-11.",
+    "Regarding representative claim 9, the Examiner finds that Reed discloses a code segment for receiving feedback from the user regarding the first solution data set. Ans. 5, 12.",
+    "As for claim 12, the Examiner finds that Reed discloses displaying problems, associating a first problem to the first solution data set, and delivering solution data on the webpages as shown in Figures 16A-B. Ans. 6, 13.",
+    "Additionally, the Examiner maps Reed's tools, which permit the user to understand the customer's s problems and provide a solution from a product or service list, to the recited associating step that delivers solution data. See Ans. 13 (citing to Reed, 1 0006)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 8 6(b).",
+    "We affirm-in-part.",
+    "ISSUES Under 5 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Reed discloses: (1) a first solution data set organized in at least three sections and the first section is subdivided into at least two subsections as recited in claim 12 (2) a code segment for receiving feedback from the user regarding the first solution data set as recited in claim 92 (3) associating a first problem from the displayed problems to a first solution data set, wherein the first solution data set is delivered to the user when the user selects the first problem as recited in claim 12?",
+    "ANALYSIS Claims 1. 3, 5, 7, 11, 15, and 18 We begin by construing the key disputed limitations of claim 1, which calls for a first set of solution data, wherein the database has stored solution data sets that are organized in at least three sections: (a) a first section that provides general information about the solution; (b) a second section that: (i) provides exceptions to the general information; (ii) describes situations in which the general information is not applicable; and (iii) contains alternative solutions to those provided by the general information; and (c) a third section that sets forth contact information for one or more of the user or the third party to obtain further assistance with the solution.",
+    "We find this recitation contains non-functional descriptive material that need not be given patentable weight. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).",
+    "As a general proposition, merely reciting what data or information represents constitutes non-functional descriptive material as it does not further limit the claimed invention either functionally or structurally.",
+    "The recited information of the first solution data set is merely descriptive material and does not functionally affect the method steps of retrieving and delivering the first solution data set.",
+    "Rather, the solution data set is merely information being manipulated by the knowledge management system.",
+    "Such information is properly considered non-functional descriptive material and does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339; see also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-89 (precedential) (discussing cases pertaining to non-functional descriptive material).",
+    "Because the recitations about what information the first solution data set contains in claim 1 does not patentably distinguish over Reed, Reed need not disclose the first solution data set in complete detail (see Br. 7) or: (1) a first section that provides general information about the solution; (2) a second section that: (a) provides exceptions to the general information, (b) describes situations in which the general information is not applicable, and (c) contains alternative solutions to those provided by the general information; and (3) a third section that sets forth contact information for one or more of the user or the third party to obtain further assistance.",
+    "Moreover, the further recitations about what the first section contains (i.e., a first subsection that describes common solutions and a second subsection that provides the user with a set of designated comments and questions related to the common solutions to be provided to and asked of the third party as a script for the user to follow in an interaction with the third party) is also non-functional descriptive material that does not patentably distinguish over Reed.",
+    "As such, many of Appellants' arguments related to Reed failing to disclose a first solution data set with various attributes are unpersuasive. See Br. 6-12.",
+    "Nonetheless, claim 1 recites a first solution data set that includes at least three sections.",
+    "Moreover, the first of the at least three sections is subdivided into at least two subsections.",
+    "Reed therefore needs to disclose a solution data set having three sections and one section subdivided into at least two subsections but the particular details of the sections and subsections.",
+    "We disagree.",
+    "Even presuming, without deciding, that the recited \"set of solution data\" only includes Reed's *solution** (see Br. 7 citing to Reed, 1 0034), Reed discloses solution information (see Ans. 4; Reed, I 0062) which \"can include, but is not limited to, an action to address or otherwise solve a previously input issue, competitive information, and a solution component\" (Reed, I 0063 (emphasis added)).",
+    "Thus, Reed's taught solution information has at least three sections (e.g., an action, competitive information, and a solution component).",
+    "Reed also discloses the competitive solution information includes one or more issues entered by the user into a series of fields, such as a status field showing issue information, who owns it, solution type, solution component, competitor identify, and relative ranking of competitor's strength to evaluated strength of weaknesses for particular solutions. Reed, I 01 15; Fig. 21; see also Ans. 5.",
+    "Reed therefore discloses either a first section (e.g., either an action to address a previously input issue or competitive information) that is subdivided into at least two subsections (e.g., solution type, solution component, competitor identify, ranking of competitor's strength) or additional solution data that can reasonably be mapped to the at least two subsections of the solution data set's first section.",
+    "Reed further shows that this information is retrieved (e.g., discovery map engine receives the solution information) and delivered (e.g., transmits solution information to a database engine) for storage, processing, and later retrieval. See Ans. 4 (citing to Reed, 11 0062-63, 0075).",
+    "Thus, despite Appellants\" assertions (Br. 7-8), Reed discloses this information is retrieved and delivered to a user in three sections, where the first section has two subsections.",
+    "For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of: independent claim 1 and claims 3, 5, 7, 11, 15, and 18 not separately argued with particularity (Br. 7-12).",
+    "Claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 173 Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 9, which calls for a code segment that receives feedback from the user regarding a first solution data set.",
+    "Reed discloses a process 300 that includes a customer (i.e., a user) providing feedback and changes to various information, including solution information (e.g., the above described solution data set). Reed, 11 0049, 0070; Fig. 3.",
+    "For example, Reed discloses the user's ability to modify solution information (see Reed, ' 0110; Fig. 17), such as a \"Solution,\" a \"Solution Component\" and \"Notes.\"",
+    "\" Thus, as the Examiner explains (Ans. 5, 12), Reed discloses code for receiving feedback from a user regarding a solution data set as recited and discusses that the feedback relates to the solution data set.",
+    "For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 9 and claims 10, 13, 14, 16, and 17, not separately argued with particularity (Br. 12-13).",
+    "Claim 12 Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 12, which calls for associating a first problem from the displayed problems to a first solution data set, wherein the first solution data set is delivered to the user when the user selects the first problem.",
+    "Reed discloses displaying solution information for a particular issue in Figure 16A. Reed, I 0108; Fig. 16A.",
+    "However, Reed also discloses that the user can select from user options, such as issues, and Figure 16A includes an \"Issues\" tab.",
+    "In all likelihood, this user option and tab is capable of displaying issues or \"problems\" as recited.",
+    "Nonetheless, probabilities and possibilities do not demonstrate that this feature is necessarily present in Reed. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999).",
+    "Moreover, even if we consider that the displayed problems recited in claim 12 contain non-functional descriptive material and fail to distinguish over Reed (see Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339), claim 12 also requires associating a first problem from the displayed problems to a first solution data set, such that the first solution data set is delivered to the user when the user selects the first problem.",
+    "Reed fails to disclose this limitation.",
+    "Figure 16B in Reed discloses a Solution List that may be selectable (e.g., by clicking on \"mySAP CRM\"). See Reed, Fig. 16B.",
+    "That is, while Reed's list in Figure 16B may link to more information when selected, Reed is silent on this point.",
+    "Reed also states that the solution information can be viewed by the user, but fails to provide any more details about how the information is viewed. See Reed, I 0109; Fig. 16B.",
+    "However, there is insufficient detail in this paragraph to relate the product/service list to recited displayed problems and then associating one of items on this list to the recited first solution data, such that the first solution data set is delivered to a user when the user selects the first problem as recited.",
+    "Whether such associating is obvious in light of Reed's s teaching is not before us.",
+    "Under 8 102 rejection and based on the evidence presented, we therefore are constrained to find that Reed does not disclose the limitations in claim 12.",
+    "For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 12."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009012752_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "In 24 doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have risked sacrificing 25 desirable features of Sunaga's s fuse member 60, such as the capacity of 26 Sunaga's fuse member to radiate excess heat. (See Reply Br. 3, citing 27 Matsuoka, col. 7, 11. 11-15)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "21 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify 22 Sunaga's s method by **applying the simple process of making a fuse, as 23 taught by Matsuoka et al., in order to easily mount a fuse to an existing 24 circuit and speed up the fuse making process.\" (Ans. 4).",
+    "In the \"Response 25 to Argument,\" the Examiner elaborates on the proposed modification: 1 [W]hen the technician needs extra protection for 2 the winding coils (Fig. 1, item 7) and new switch 3 (45) [sie, 41] which are interconnected through the 4 printed circuit board or PCB (40) and terminal 5 (48), the technician just needs to mount a small 6 fuse on the printed circuit board (40) near the 7 terminal (48), disconnects the excess magnetic 8 wire of the winding coil (7) that is connected to the 9 terminal and reconnects the magnetic wire directly 10 across the fuse to a PCB solder spot then severing 11 the wire across the fuse. 12 (Ans. 7).",
+    "The Examiner cites Lewchenko as teaching 9 the use of hooks or tangs to facilitate connections of the magnet wires. (See 10 Ans. 6)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "13 The Appellants correctly contends that the Examiner has not 14 articulated a persuasive reason why one of ordinary skill in the art might 15 have combined the teachings of Sunaga and Matsuoka in the fashion claimed 16 in claim 11. (See Reply Br. 4).",
+    "In order to implement the modification 17 proposed by the Examiner, one of ordinary skill would have had to substitute 18 the fuse 15 described by Matsuoka for the fuse member 60 described by 19 Sunaga.",
+    "In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had to move 20 the fuse from a position intermediate the first and second circuit sections 21, 22; find room on the printed circuit board 40 for the fuse; and change the 22 manner in which the magnet wire of Sunaga's s exciting coils 7 were coupled 23 to the second circuit section 32 mounted on the printed circuit board 40.",
+    "28 The reasoning articulated by the Examiner does not persuasively 29 explain why the modifications to Sunaga's motor 1 proposed by the 30 Examiner would have been obvious, even after taking account of \"the 1 inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would 2 employ.\" See KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex, Inc.550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).",
+    "This 3 is particularly true in light of the nature of the electric motor 1 described by 4 Sunaga and the nature of the fuse 15 described by Matsuoka.",
+    "We do not 5 sustain the rejection of claims 11-13 and 16-18 under \u25cf 103(a) as being 6 unpatentable over Sunaga and Matsuoka.",
+    "Lewchenko does not remedy the deficiencies in the combined 11 teachings of Sunaga and Matsuoka.",
+    "We do not sustain the rejection of 12 claims 14, 15 and 19 under 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sunaga, 13 Matsuoka and Lewchenko."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009012803_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant contends that BIL 's disclosure of an information-capturing document or questionnaire, which is used to obtain information to generate a fully customized document from a template, does not describe \"means for generating second data representing a partially customized document on the basis of said first data and said received further information,\" as recited in independent claim 29. (App. Br. 38-40; Reply Br. 41-44.)",
+    "In response to the Examiner's Answer, Appellant argues that BIL's 's information-capturing document cannot be broadly construed as the claimed **partially customized document\" because it is not a hybrid document wherein the evaluated sections appear complete (e.g., Appellant's figure 8), and the unevaluated sections appear incomplete (e.g., Appellant's figure 6). (Reply Br. 44-46.)",
+    "Further, Appellant contends that the rules in BIL 's figure 7 do not describe \"said second data comprising said second logical rule,\" as recited in independent claim 29. (App. Br. 41; Reply Br. 47.)",
+    "In particular, Appellant argues that BIL discloses generating another information-capturing document if all the required information is not captured, whereas the claimed invention is directed to outputting a partially customized document and rules even if sufficient information has not been received. (Id.)",
+    "In response to the Examiner's Answer, Appellant contends that the rules in BIL 's figure 6 are a complete set of rules used in the first pass at generating the final document, whereas the second rules are a subset of the first rules (i.e., the rules that remain unevaluated once at least some of the rules have been evaluated.) (Reply Br. 47-48.)"
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 29-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) as being anticipated by BIL.",
+    "Claims 1-14, 16, 17, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of BIL and Leymaster.",
+    "Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of BIL, Leymaster, and AAPA.",
+    "Claims 18-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over BIL.",
+    "Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of BIL and AAPA.",
+    "The Examiner finds that BIL discloses an information-capturing document that contains portions of a fully customized document, such as the execution of the rules that place the address values in the top paragraph of figure 7b. (Ans. 16-17.)",
+    "Consequently, the Examiner finds that BIL 's information-capturing document can be broadly construed as the **partially customized document,\" as recited in independent claim 29. (Id.)",
+    "Moreover, the Examiner finds that Appellant has not pointed to any element that the information-capturing document lacks which would preclude it from being construed as the claimed **partially customized document.\" (Id. at 17.)",
+    "Further, the Examiner finds that BIL 's figure 7 depicts not evaluating all the rules because all the predetermined elements relating to the rules are displayed along with each rule. (Id.)",
+    "In particular, the Examiner finds that at the bottom of figure 7b and the top of figure 7c, BIL depicts that the predetermined elements or rules pertaining to stock levels have not been evaluated. (Id.)",
+    "Therefore, the Examiner finds that BIL describes *said second data comprising said second logical rule,\" as recited in independent claim 29. (Id.)"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b) (2008).",
+    "We affirm.",
+    "First, we consider the scope and meaning of the claimed term \"a partially customized document, ~ which must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant's disclosure.",
+    "Upon reviewing Appellant's Specification for context, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed term \"a partially customized document\" may be broadly, but reasonably construed as any document that only contains a portion which has been fully customized or complete. (See Ans. 16-17.)",
+    "Therefore, consistent with our claim construction above, we find that BIL describes the claimed \"partially customized document\" because it discloses a document that that only contains a portion that appears to be fully customized or complete (i.e., \"The Address\" section).",
+    "Put another way, we find that BIL discloses generating information that represents the claimed **partially customized document,' which is based on both predetermined elements of content (i.e., \"The Address,' ~ \"Stock (Expensive),\" and \"Stock (Inexpensive)\" labels) and received further information (i.e., the address information entered by a user).",
+    "Therefore, we find that BIL describes *means for generating second data representing a partially customized document on the basis of said first data and said received further information, \" as recited in independent claim 29.",
+    "Consequently, we find that while BIL describes a portion of a document that appears to be complete (i.e., the section under \"The Address\" label), BIL also describes a portion of the document that appears to be incomplete because it contains rules that remain unevaluated due to insufficient information (i.e., \"Stock (Expensive)\" and \"Stock (Inexpensive)\" labels).",
+    "Therefore, we find that BIL describes \"said second data comprising said second logical rule,\" as recited in independent claim 29.",
+    "It follows that the Examiner has not erred in finding that BIL anticipates independent claim 29.",
+    "Therefore, for the same reasons discussed supra, the Examiner has not erred in finding that BIL anticipates independent claims 30, 31, and 34.",
+    "Therefore,' we select independent claim 29 as representative of these cited claims.",
+    "Consequently, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting dependent claims 32, 33, 35, and 36 for the same reasons set forth in our discussion of independent claim 29.",
+    "We have already addressed these arguments in our discussion of independent claim 29, and we found them unpersuasive.",
+    "Therefore, the Examiner has not erred in concluding that the combination of BIL and Leymaster renders independent claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 16, 17, and 28 unpatentable.",
+    "Therefore, we select independent claim 29 as representative of these cited claims.",
+    "Consequently, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting dependent claims 2-4, 8-15, and 18-27 for the same reasons set forth in our discussion of independent claim 29.",
+    "The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 29-36 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 102(b).",
+    "The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a)."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009012922_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants first argue that the rejection is improper because Durand does not teach construction of a vehicle part from a hydroformed tube, and because Jaekel does not teach a one-piece hydroform structure, but rather teaches a multi-piece welded construction. Appeal Br. 6.",
+    "Appellants further argue, in a similar vein, that the a D-pillar would be understood as being a structure adjoining the tailgate of a vehicle, and that the pillar structures in Jaekel relied on by the Examiner as disclosing hydroformed singular tubular members have nothing to do with supporting a tailgate. Reply Br. 2.",
+    "Appellants maintain that the D-pillar in Jaekel is a welded assembly. Id.",
+    "Appellants further argue that Hull does not teach a tailgate attached to a one-piece hydroformed member, but rather to upright members 21, 22 which are welded to a crossbeam 24. Appeal Br. 6.",
+    "Finally, Appellants contend that \"there is nothing regarding a tailgate supported by a hydroformed tube in either Durand or Jaekel.\" Appeal Br. 7.",
+    "Appellants' sole argument with respect to this rejection is that \"Schubring discloses nothing regarding hydroforming or the use of a hydroformed structure\" in the manner contemplated by Appellants. Appeal Br. 7."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner has rejected: (i) claims 1-12, 17, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. S 103(a) as being unpatentable over Durand (US 6,945,591 B2, issued Sep. 20, 2005) in view of Jaekel (US 6,533,348 B1, issued Mar. 18, 2003); (ii) claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. , 103(a) as being unpatentable over Durand in view of Jaekel and Hull (US 6,764,130 B1, issued Jul. 20, 2004); (iii) claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. S 103(a) as being unpatentable over Durand in view of Jaekel and Lester (US 7,097,224 B2, issued Aug. 29, 2006); and (iv) claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 8 103(a) as being unpatentable over Durand in view of Jaekel . Hull and Schubring (US 2005/0060867 A1, issued Mar. 24, 2005).",
+    "Claims 13-15 are rejected as being unpatentable over Durand in view of Jaekel and Hull.",
+    "The Examiner concluded, in view of the disclosure in Jaekel of pillars for vehicles hydroformed as one-piece U-shaped members, that it would have been obvious to form the one-piece D-pillar 14 of Durand by hydroforming, citing to several advantages that would obtain using hydroforming to fabricate that member. Ans. 4.",
+    "Claim 19 is rejected as being unpatentable over Durand, Jaekel, Hull and Schubring."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Ryan Delaney et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. 6 134 of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 13-15 and 19.",
+    "Claims 1- 12, 16-18 and 20 are pending in the application and are finally rejected, but the rejections thereof are not appealed. Appeal Br. 3.",
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. $ 6(b).",
+    "We AFFIRM.",
+    "Appellants' invention is directed to a cargo box assembly having a D- pillar structure comprising a one-piece hydroformed tube.",
+    "Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative: 13. The cargo box assembly recited in claim 7 wherein said pair of D-pillar portions has a rear surface attached to said tailgate.",
+    "Claim 7 requires that the cargo box assembly comprise the D-pillar structure recited in claim 2, with a cargo box inner comprised of a plurality of panels and that the one-piece hydroformed tube constituting the D-pillar structure have the plurality of panels attached thereto.",
+    "Claim 2 requires the D-pillar structure of claim 1 to comprise a cross sill portion and a pair of D- pillar portions.",
+    "Claim I recites a D-pillar structure for a vehicle comprising a one-piece hydroformed tube configured for supporting and positioning a rear vehicle body structure, with the rear body structure comprising at least one of a cargo box inner, a tailgate, and a pair of fenders.",
+    "Has the Examiner established that the combination of the teachings of Durand, Jaekel and Hull renders obvious the cargo box assembly of claim 13?",
+    "The Notice of Appeal in this case advised that the appeal is directed to the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. Notice of Appeal filed Nov. 8. 2008.",
+    "The Appeal Brief confirmed that claims 1-20 are pending in the application, but that only the rejections of claims 13-15 and 19 are being appealed. Appeal Br. 3.",
+    "Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1-12, 16, 17 and 20 are summarily sustained. See Ex Parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (BPAI 2008).",
+    "Appellant may not reserve arguments for some later time.",
+    "Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. 6 41.37(c)(1)(vii).",
+    "The argument is unpersuasive in that it simply attacks the references individually and does not address the combination of teachings. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where rejections are based on combinations of references).",
+    "This argument is also unpersuasive, in that the Examiner is not proposing to employ the D-pillar in Jaekel in the Durand device, but is instead proposing to fabricate the one-piece D-pillar structure shown in Durand using hydroforming.",
+    "The result of the combination is that the modified Durand structure would be a one-piece hydroformed D-pillar.",
+    "That the Jaekel pillars specifically cited to by the Examiner are not the D- pillar on the Jaekel vehicle is of no moment, in that the Examiner is applying the more general teaching that vehicle pillars may be formed in one piece by hydroforming to the D-pillar of Durand.",
+    "This argument again is an individual attack on the teachings of Hull, whereas the Examiner\\'s \\'s rejection is grounded in employing the teachings of Hull to the effect that it is known to attach a tailgate to a rear surface of D-pillar portions 21, 22.",
+    "The one-piece hydroformed D-pillar in the rejection comes as a result of the combined teachings of Durand and Jaekel.",
+    "The argument is thus not persuasive of error in the Examiner\\'s position.",
+    "This argument fails to take into account the further modification set forth by the Examiner in view of the teachings of Hull.",
+    "Again, the argument is not persuasive of error on the part of the Examiner.",
+    "As such, the Examiner\\'s s position and conclusion as to the obviousness of claims 13-15 are supported by rational underpinnings.",
+    "The rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over the cited references is sustained.",
+    "The Examiner correctly points out that Schubring is not relied on for the teaching of hydroforming or the use of a hydroformed structure, and that the proposed combination of the teachings of Durand, Jaekel and Hull produce a one-piece hydroformed structure. Ans. 7.",
+    "The rejection of claim 19 is therefore sustained."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009013292_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants contend, inter alia, that Li (i) discloses only a single query result 2106 in multiple output formats (Reply Br. 3-4); and (ii) does not disclose elements [b], [c], and [d] of claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15 (App. Br. 15, Reply Br. 2 and 4)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. & 102(b) over Li (US 6,725,227 B1). Ans. 3-6."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. 5 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21.",
+    "Claims 2, 9, and 16 have been canceled.",
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b).",
+    "We reverse.",
+    "Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphasis and bracketing added, reads as follows:",
+    "1. A computer-implemented method of processing a first database query, comprising:",
+    "[a] executing the first database query to retrieve a set of data records consistent with conditions specified by the first database query;",
+    "[b] generating a first query result from the set of data records, organized according to a first output format mode;",
+    "[c] generating at least a second query result from the set of data records, organized according to at least a second output format mode;",
+    "[d] combining the first and second query results to form a polymorphic query result set;",
+    "[e] presenting the polymorphic query result set to a requesting entity, according to one of the first and second output format modes;",
+    "[e] receiving a request to view the polymorphic query result set according to another one of the first and second output format modes; and",
+    "[f] switching the presentation of the polymorphic query result to the requested output format mode.",
+    "Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 as being anticipated because Li fails to teach at least limitation [d] at issue?",
+    "We agree with the Appellants' above contention that Li fails to disclose limitation [d] of representative claim 1, \"combining the first and second query results to form a polymorphic query result set.\"",
+    "Li's Figures 14, 16(a), and 21 do not disclose or show, nor do the portions of Li cited by the Examiner (col. 5, 11. 7-40 and col. 8, 11. 43-52) address the concept of, combining the first and second query results to form a polymeric query result set as claimed.",
+    "At most, Li discloses three output format modes (e.g., VRML form 2107, HTML Layout form 2108, and HTML Table form 2109 shown in Fig. 21 and described at col. 5, 11. 31-34) for displaying or representing a \"query result class 2106\" (col. 5, 11. 28-29).",
+    "In other words, the VRML form 2107 displays query results in a first output format mode, the HTML Layout form 2108 displays results in a second output format mode, and the HTML Table 2109 displays results in a third output format mode.",
+    "Thus, Li discloses at least limitation [b] of claim 1 (\"generating a first query result from the set of data records, organized according to a first output format mode\").",
+    "Furthermore, we find that even if Li could be said to disclose generating multiple query results from the WQL parser 2102, as asserted by the Examiner (see Ans. 7), and even if the query results could be said to be organized according to different ones of the three output format modes, Li still fails to disclose combining two query results to form a polymorphic query result set.",
+    "The Examiner has erred in finding that Li discloses element [d], as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 8 and 15.",
+    "(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 102(b).",
+    "(2) On this record, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 have not been shown to be unpatentable."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009013748_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants argue that \"the claimed invention (directed towards the use of relatively large polytetrafluoroethylene particles in a fluoroelastomer layer to provide gloss advantages) is clearly not taught or suggested by Eddy et al in view of Donnelly et al \u00b7 \u00b7 . \u00b7 App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We REVERSE.",
+    "The issue presented by this appeal is whether the combined teachings of Eddy and Donnelly would have resulted in a fuser member having a fuser surface layer comprising filler particles \"with a mean particle diameter of at least about 50 microns\" so that \"the fuser member generates an image having a gloss number of about 5 or less\" as called for in independent claim 64.",
+    "We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence.",
+    "While we agree with the Examiner that Donnelly would have suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art to add a polytetrafluoro- ethylene filler to the fuser roll of Eddy to improve the roll's release ability, temperature resistance, and reinforcing properties (see Facts 3-5), we disagree with the Examiner* s determination that it would have been obvious to such a person to have used the polytetrafluoroethylene filler having the claimed particle size to result in a fuser roll being inherently capable of fusing the toner to the substrate to generate the claimed gloss number of about 5 or less. Ans. 5-6.",
+    "Donnelly does not teach a specific particle size for its polytetrafluoro- ethylene filler.",
+    "Donnelly teaches that to achieve the critical reinforcing effect provided by the filler, the low surface energy filler should be added to a high viscosity silicone gum in a high shear mixing device, such as aparticles of the low surface energy filler into threads to provide a fiber structure within the silicone elastomer (Fact 6).",
+    "Appellants' Specification describes, however, that polytetrafluoroethylene particles do not sufficiently retain their shape and size when subjected to dry compounding such as milling (Fact 7).",
+    "As such, if one were to incorporate the polytetrafluoro- ethylene particles to the fuser roll of Eddy in the manner disclosed in Donnelly in order to achieve the reinforcing effect as taught in Donnelly, then the polytetrafluoroethylene particles would likely not have a mean particle diameter of at least about 50 microns as called for in claim 64.",
+    "Rather, the particles would be milled into threads to form reinforcing fibers in Eddy's fluoropolymer layer.",
+    "Further, Eddy is directed to the problem of developing a fuser roll that is particularly suited to developing color images, for which a smooth surface is necessary to provide the color images with preferred increased gloss (Facts 1, 2).",
+    "If one having ordinary skill in the art were to modify the fuser roll of Eddy to achieve improved characteristics by adding polytetrafluoro- ethylene filler as taught by Donnelly, such a combination would not necessarily lead to, and would likely not lead to, the use of the filler having a particle size as claimed so that a low gloss number of about 5 or less is achieved.",
+    "Rather, a person having ordinary skill in the art would add the polytetrafluoroethylene filler to the fluoropolymer surface layer of Eddy in a manner to result in smooth surface for achieving an increased gloss suitable for color images.",
+    "Thus, the Examiner's s finding that a fuser roll resulting from the combined teachings of Eddy and Donnelly would include filler particles with a mean particle diameter of at least about 50 microns so that the fuser member would inherently generate the low gloss number characteristic of claim 64 is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.",
+    "We will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 64 or its dependent claims 65, 69, 70, 86, and 87, as being unpatentable over Eddy and Donnelly."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009013880_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant disputes whether Curry teaches or suggests \"producing blocks of an output halftone image from ones of the contone image blocks and ones of the graphical code word symbols in accordance with the values of respective ones of the bits of the bi-level bitmap, wherein ones of the output halftone image blocks associated with respective ones of the bits having the first value are derived from respective ones of the contone image blocks and ones of the output halftone image blocks associated with respective ones of the bits having the second value are derived from respective ones of the graphical code word symbols,\" as recited in claim 1.",
+    "Appellant directs attention to Curry's Figure 3 as depicting regions of the output halftone image that contain the human-readable pattern and regions of the output halftone image that do not contain the human-readable pattern are formed by halftone cells encoded with both ones and zeros. Id."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner finds that the limitation \"wherein ones of the output halftone image blocks associated with respective ones of the bits having the first value are derived from respective ones of the contone image blocks and ones of the output halftone image blocks associated with respective ones of the bits having the second value are derived from respective ones of the graphical code word symbols,\" recited in independent claims 1 and 21 is not disclosed in Appellant's Specification as originally filed. Ans. 3-4, 24-25.",
+    "The Examiner directs attention to Appellant's s Specification paragraphs 31, 33, 42, 43 and Figures 2A, 3, and 4 and asserts: There is no functional structure elements, steps, or processes supporting the features of \"respective ones of the bits having the first value are derived from respective ones of the contone image blocks\" and *and ones of the bits having the second value are derived from respective ones of the graphical code word symbols\" (emphasis are added by the examiner) as claimed in the invention of claims 1 and 21 in the original disclosure. Ans. 3-5, 25-27.",
+    "The Examiner also finds that the recitation of dependent claim 3 \"wherein the determining comprises producing the bitmap by halftoning a contone patch of the graylevel value,\" is not disclosed in Appellant's original Specification. Ans. 6, 27-29.",
+    "The Examiner finds that paragraph 13 of Appellant's Specification \"merely [re]cites \"The bitmap may be produced by halftoning the constant patch of the graylevel' without functional structure elements, steps or processes disclosed 0 to support the feature of \"wherein the determining comprises producing the bitmap by halftoning a contone patch of the graylevel value.\" Ans. 6, 27-29.",
+    "The Examiner finds that the same limitation of independent claim 1 renders the claims indefinite because Appellant \"failed to particularly point out how and in what extent the derivation of values from 'contone image block' and *graphical code word' discussed in the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.\" Ans. 7.",
+    "The Examiner further explains that without the written description support in the disclosure, one ordinary skill in the art does not know how and to what extent that the features of \"respective ones of the bits having the first value are derived from respective ones of the contone image blocks\" and \"and ones of the bits having the second value are derived from respective ones of the graphical code word symbols\" are carried out. Ans. 33-34 (emphasis in original).",
+    "The Examiner also determines that claims 18, 28 and 38, which recite *using the set of probability parameters to select a likely sequence of graphical code word symbols,\" are rendered indefinite \"because the word *likely* used in the claim language is an uncertain word.\" Ans. 8.",
+    "The Examiner further explains that using words like \"likely\" in a claim is considered indefinite. Ans. 34.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Curry teaches: producing blocks of an output halftone image (e.g. halftone cells 20, 22 & 24 of Fig. 3) from ones of the contone image blocks (e.g. blocks or cells or sample values of grayscale input images discussed above) and ones of the graphical code word symbols (e.g. the letter \"R\" of Fig. 3) in accordance with the values of respective ones of the bits of the bi-level bitmap (e.g. the \"I\"s and \"OMs of bitmap codes discussed above, col 1, lines 46-50 and col 4, lines 57-63), wherein ones of the output halftone image blocks (e.g. halftone cells 20, 22 & 24 of Fig. 3) associated with respective ones of the bits having the first value are derived from respective ones of the contone image blocks (e.g. the bit values, \"I\"s and \"OMs are derived based on the presence or absence of marks of the contone image blocks, or cells, or sample values discussed above, col 1, lines 46-50) and ones of the output halftone image blocks associated with respective ones of the bits having the second value are derived (e.g. generated) from respective ones of the graphical code word symbols (e.g. bitmap codes are generated based on a desired pattern or \"the graphical code word symbols\" to be embedded within the halftone image, and the desired pattern is input into bitmap generator 10 of Fig. 1, col 3, lines 36-45, and to encode the data either by the presence or \"I\" or absence or \"O\" of marks at a sequence of spatial locations, col 1, lines 46- 50 discussed above). Ans. 9-10, 37-38 (emphasis omitted).",
+    "The Examiner finds that Wang '971 teaches a method of extracting information embedded in a halftone image including partitioning the halftone image into a plurality of image blocks. Ans. 17-18.",
+    "In support of the findings, the Examiner directs attention to Figure 6 of Wang '971 and asserts that the halftone image is partitioned into a series of tiles, or blocks, and directs attention to column 4, lines 1-28 which discloses \"these tiles establish the basic building blocks from which zero phase-shifted clustered halftones can be converted to TT phase-shifted cluster halftones\" as indicating that halftone image is partitioned into tiles or blocks. Ans. 18, 48."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We REVERSE.",
+    "We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office Action and the Reply Brief presented in response to the Examiner* s Answer.",
+    "We agree with Appellant's conclusions.",
+    "We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.",
+    "We agree with Appellant's s arguments that the subject matter of claim 1 is described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 6.",
+    "More specifically, we agree with Appellant's argument that one skilled in the art at the time the application was filed would have understood from the explicit teachings of the Specification that blocks of the output halftone image 390 are produced from ones of the contone image blocks x(m) and ones of the graphical code word symbols 360 in accordance with the values of respective ones of the bits of the bi-level bitmap 310, wherein ones of the output halftone image blocks associated with respective ones of the bits 310 having a value 0 are derived from respective ones of the contone image blocks, and ones of the output halftone image blocks associated with respective ones of the bits 310 having a value of 1 are derived from respective ones of the graphical code word symbols 360. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4-6 (citing Appellant\". s Specification \" 30, 31, 33, 42; Fig. 3).",
+    "Although the Specification does not provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter, the disclosure reasonably conveys to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application that the inventors had possession of the claimed subject matter. See Purdue Pharma L.P. V. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Ariad Pharms., Inc. V. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).",
+    "We agree with Appellant that the subject matter of claim 3 is described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 8.",
+    "In particular, we agree with Appellant\". s assertions that: (1) a \"contone patch\" is disclosed in paragraph 13 of the Specification and in each of claims 2, 22, and 30, as originally filed; and (2) paragraph 13 of the Specification also discloses that the bit map is produced by halftoning a constant patch of a graylevel. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 7.",
+    "For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner': is rejection of claims 1-11 and 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, 1\" paragraph for failure to comply with the written description requirement.",
+    "We agree with Appellant's s arguments that the Examiner has not sufficiently explained why one of ordinary skill in the art, when reading the claims in light of the Specification and prior art, would not have been able to ascertain with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity the particular area set out and circumscribed by claims 1-11. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 10.",
+    "We agree with Appellant\". s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art, when reading claims 18, 28 and 38 in light of the Specification, would have been able to ascertain with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity the particular areas set out and circumscribed by claim 3. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 11.",
+    "In particular, we agree that one with ordinary skill in the art when reading claims 18, 28 and 38 in light of the Specification would have been able to ascertain that a likely sequence of graphical code word symbols is a graphical code word sequence that has a high probability of being the actual code word sequence that was encoded into the halftone image based on the ordinary meaning of the term \"likely\". Id.",
+    "For all these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11, 18, 28 and 38 under section 112, 2nd paragraph as indefinite.",
+    "We agree with Appellant's s argument that instead of teaching the disputed limitations of claim 1, the cited portions of Curry teach that the output halftone image is formed from output halftone cells that encode information in their respective orientations. App. Br. 18, Reply Br. 13.",
+    "We also agree that Curry describes background art in which a pattern encodes data with the presence or absence of marks (citing Curry col. 1, 11. 46-50), but that this disclosure does not even remotely suggest that Curry's system operates by placing halftone cells in some areas of the output halftone image and not others.",
+    "We further agree that the 1's and O's shown in Curry's Figure 3 do not indicate the presence or absence of marks and instead represent a data value that may be encoded in each of the halftone cells and which encode information in their respective rotational orientations. Reply Br. 14 (citing Curry col. 4, 11. 59-62); see also Curry col. 2, 11. 51-53; col. 3, 11. 2-5, 47-58; col. 4, 11. 15-18; 27-32; 41-44; 62-65; Figs. 2A-2C.",
+    "For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 10, 11 and 29-34 as obvious over Curry, Tai and Wang '361.",
+    "Lapstun does not remedy the deficiencies of Curry.",
+    "Therefore, for the same reasons as claim 1, we cannot sustain the Examiner* s rejection of claims 8 and 9 as obvious over Curry, Tai, Wang '361 and Lapstun.",
+    "We agree with Appellant\" s argument that Wang '971 does not disclose that an input image containing embedded information is partitioned into a plurality of image blocks, but instead teaches detecting and visualizing the embedded information (i.e., watermark) by analyzing the input image to determine the average amplitude and angle of halftone frequency and overlapping the input image with a checkerboard reference pattern that is generated to have the same halftone frequency and size of the input image. App. Br. 26; Reply Br. 22 (citing Wang '971 col. 7, 11. 25-39, 56-65; Figs. 12-13).",
+    "We further agree with Appellant's s argument that, contrary to the Examiner'. s position, column 4, lines 1-28 of Wang '971 instead teaches how a watermark is embedded in an input image, not how information is extracted from an input image. Reply Br. 22",
+    "For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner's s rejection of claims 12-20 and 35-38 as obvious over Wang *971, Curry and Wang '361."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009014735_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "According to Appellants, the invention relates to point to multi-point communications systems and, more specifically, to optimizing the frequency of registrations as well as the area of paging in a wireless group communication network (Spec. 1, I [0002]).",
+    "As to representative independent claim 1, Appellants contend that \"Ithe scheme of Kallin occurs at the MSC while the scheme of Ho occurs at the mobile station\" (App. Br. 12), that \"there does not appear to be a storage 'problem' in Kallin\" (id.), and thus \"the two references are working against each other and not combinable\" (App. Br. 13).",
+    "In particular, Appellants contend that \"In]one of the applied references are concerned with billing\"' and that \"the Examiner invents a motivation based upon a movement history to be used for purposes not taught or suggested by the three references\" (App. Br. 15).",
+    "Appellants then contend that \"there is no disclosure in the relied upon passage of Funato that the cell in which the MH last registered is retained in the CLT\" but rather \"the last registered cell--the CLT of Funato-- is moved to the PLT\" (App. Br. 14).",
+    "As for independent claims 7, 13 and 19, though Appellants provide separate arguments for the claims, Appellants merely state that \"[the arguments set forth above in regard to claim 1 apply here\" and that \"[the only apparent basis for combining the prior art disclosures is the present Appellants' disclosure and claims\" (App. Br. 22-24).",
+    "Appellants merely argue that \"Papadimitriou does not rectify the deficiencies of Kallin, Ho and Funato\" (App. Br. 25)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is:",
+    "Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-16 and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Kallin in view of Ho and Funato.",
+    "Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Kallin, Ho, Funato in view of Papdimitriou.",
+    "However, the Examiner finds that **Kallin pertains to a paging technique for tracking or locating a mobile terminal, \" that \"Ho pertains to a location update or reporting procedure performed by a mobile terminal based on movement between cells,' \" and that \"Funato pertains to paging registration, and tracking a mobile terminal\" (Ans. 10).",
+    "Thus, the Examiner finds that \"all three inventions pertain to monitoring or tracking the location of a mobile terminal and are therefore combinable\" (id.).",
+    "That is, as the Examiner explains, \"[the mobile terminal used in the system of Kallin is modified with the registration (location update) teachings wherein the paging system of Kallin would receive location updates, or registration, when a movement threshold is reached\" and \"is further modified to maintain the cell IDs of movement history\" (Ans. 10-11).",
+    "As to Appellants' argument that \"there is no disclosure in the relied upon passage of Funato that the cell in which the MH last registered is retained in the CLT* (App. Br. 14), the Examiner explains that \"Ho teaches maintaining the cell for which the MS last registered in the first list, \" that \"Funato pertains to maintaining a current location table and a history location table\" and that *in the combination of the inventions, the current cell ID would be maintained as taught by Ho and the removed cell IDs would be moved to a previous location table or the second list as taught by Funato\" (Ans. 12).",
+    "However, the Examiner rejects the claims over the combined teachings of Kallin, Ho and Funota and what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.",
+    "That is, as the Examiner explains, the references \"pertain to monitoring or tracking the location of a mobile terminal and are therefore combinable'' (Ans. 10)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 .U.S.C. \u25cf 6(b) (2008).",
+    "We affirm.",
+    "The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence.",
+    "We find no error in the Examiner* s findings.",
+    "We find Kallin to teach a paging area that is centered at a cell that a target mobile terminal last registered and expanded by a predefined number of cells around the cell, wherein the last registered cell is maintained in a record/list.",
+    "We find Ho to also teach expanding a paging area by a predefined number of cells around the cell that last registered cell.",
+    "In addition, we find claim 1's \"receiving registration\" to read on Ho's location updating when the movement threshold is reached, wherein Ho also discloses removing cell IDs from a register except the cell ID of the current (last registered) cell.",
+    "Accordingly, we conclude that Kallin in view of Ho would at least suggest \"receiving registration from the MS when a number of cells identified in a first list is equal to a predetermine limit\" wherein \"the MS having moved the cells identified in the first list, other than a cell in which the MS last registered\" as required by claim 1.",
+    "Thus, we find no error in the Examiner's conclusion that \"[the mobile terminal used in the system of Kallin is modified with the registration (location update) teachings wherein the paging system of Kallin would receive location updates, or registration, when a movement threshold is reached\" (Ans. 10-11).",
+    "We find Funato to disclose current first list and a previous second list.",
+    "Accordingly, we conclude that Kallin and Ho in further view of Funato would at least suggest \"the MS having moved the cells identified in the first list, other than a cell in which the MS last registered, to a second list\" as required by claim 1.",
+    "That is, we find no error in the Examiner's conclusion that the combined teachings of Kallin and Ho *is further modified to maintain the cell IDs of the movement history\" (Ans. 10-11).",
+    "As to Appellants' contention that the \"there is no disclosure in the relied upon passage of Funato that the cell in which the MH last registered is retained in the CLT* but rather \"the last registered cell--the CLT of Funato-- is moved to the PLT\" (App. Br. 14), Appellants are arguing that individually, Funato does not anticipate the claim features.",
+    "One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.",
+    "We find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that \"Ho teaches maintaining the cell for which the MS last registered in the first list, \" that \"Funato pertains to maintaining a current location table and a history location table\" and that \"in the combination of the inventions, the current cell ID would be maintained as taught by Ho and the removed cell IDs would be moved to a previous location table or [the] second list as taught by Funato\" (Ans. 12, emphasis added).",
+    "As to Appellants' contention that the references are \"not combinable'' (App. Br. 13) and that \"the Examiner invents a motivation based upon a movement history to be used for purposes not taught or suggested by the three references\" (App. Br. 15), the Supreme Court has determined that the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.",
+    "As stated by the Supreme Court, an obviousness \"analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.\"",
+    "We conclude that such combination of Kallin, Ho and Funato is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.",
+    "The skilled artisan would \"be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle\" since the skilled artisan is \"a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.\"",
+    "Although Appellants argue that \"[the scheme of Kallin occurs at the MSC while the scheme of Ho occurs at the mobile station\" (App. Br. 12), that \"there does not appear to be a storage 'problem' in Kallin\" (id.), and thus \"the two references are working against each other and not combinable\" (App. Br. 13), Appellants appear to have viewed the references from a different perspective than the Examiner.",
+    "The issue here is not whether the ordinarily skilled artisan would have added Ho's system and Funato's s system to Kallin's system but whether the artisan, upon reading the references, would find it obvious to include receiving registration when a limit is reached in a paging system and then storing removed cells in a second list.",
+    "Here, it is our view that an artisan possessing common sense and creativity at the time of the invention would have been familiar with monitoring the location of a mobile terminal to combine the teachings of receiving registration when the limit is reached as taught by Ho to the registration of Kallin.",
+    "We also view that the artisan would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of storing previous cells' information in a second previous list, as taught by Funato, to the known teachings of storing the last registered cell in a first current list while removing the previous cells from the first list.",
+    "While we are fully aware that hindsight bias often plagues determinations of obviousness, Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966), we are also mindful that the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the \"combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.'",
+    "This reasoning is applicable here.",
+    "Thus, we find unavailing Appellants' contention that the Examiner has relied on impermissible hindsight reconstruction (App. Br. 15).",
+    "Given the breadth of Appellants' claims, we are not persuaded that combining the respective familiar elements of the cited references in the manner proffered by the Examiner was \"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.\"",
+    "Therefore, we find the Examiner's proffered combination of familiar prior art elements according to their established functions would have conveyed a reasonable expectation of success to a person of ordinary skill having common sense at the time of the invention.",
+    "Lastly, though Appellants argue that \"the Examiner invents a motivation\" (App. Br. 15) and \"provides yet another *motivation* to combine\" (Reply Br. 4), the standard for obviousness is not whether the Examiner has articulated a consistent motivation to combine the references but whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the references upon reading them.",
+    "We note that Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner'. s legal conclusion of obviousness by showing that the claimed combination of familiar elements produces any new function.",
+    "Appellants have not provided any factual evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected or unpredictable results, commercial success, or long felt but unmet need.",
+    "Therefore, we find Appellants* arguments unavailing regarding the combinability of the Kallin, Ho and Funato references for essentially the same reasons proffered by the Examiner in the Answer (4-7), and as further discussed above.",
+    "As set forth above, we find no error in the Examiner* s combination of the references.",
+    "Accordingly, claims 7, 13, and 19 also fall with claim 1",
+    "Thus, we conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 7, 13 and 19 and claims 2-4, 8-10, 14-16 and 20-22, depending respectively therefrom, unpatentable over Kallin in view of Ho and Funato.",
+    "However, as discussed above, we find no deficiencies with respect to Kallin, Ho and Funato.",
+    "Thus, we conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23 and 24 unpatentable over Kallin, Ho and Funato in further view of Papadimitriou."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009015229_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "INVENTION The invention is directed to an integrated chip carrier where a plurality of carrier vias are arranged in anti-parallel tessellation and the current flow through one group is in an opposite direction of current flow in the other group of carriers. See Specification pages 3 through 5.",
+    "Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. An integrated circuit chip carrier comprising: first and second groups of carrier vias extending substantially from a first side of said carrier towards a second side of said carrier, said first and second groups of carrier vias arranged in an anti-parallel tessellation at a first pitch; first and second groups of electrically conductive structures on said second side arranged in an anti-parallel tessellation at a second pitch, said first group of carrier vias electrically coupled to said first group of electrically conductive structures, said second group of carrier vias electrically coupled to said second group of electrically conductive structures; and a loop circuit having an associated loop inductance, the loop circuit defined from said first group of electrically conductive structures through said first group of carrier vias to said first side and back through said second group of carrier vias to said second group of electrically conductive structures, wherein said first and second groups of carrier vias include a substantial majority of all carrier vias for conveying respective power supply voltages and wherein the anti-parallel tessellations include respective arrangements of multiple, parallely-oriented conductors of the loop circuit wherein current flow through a first group of the conductors is in an opposing direction to the current flow through a second group of the conductors and wherein the arrangement provides for a reduction in the inductance of the loop circuit due to the mutual coupling among the conductors of the two groups and due to the multiple parallel conductors of each group.",
+    "ISSUES Appellants argue that Sudo does not teach a chip carrier where the conductive pathways in which anti-parallel current flows will be the closest vertical path. Brief 9.",
+    "Appellants argue that the Examiner's assumption that each of a substantial majority of the vertical conductive pathways participate in the claimed loop circuit is incorrect. Brief 9."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 14 through 17, 23 through 26, 32, 33, 40, 41, 42, and 45 through 48 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 102(b) as being anticipated by Sudo. Answer 4-9.",
+    "The Examiner has rejected claims 3 through 7, 9. 10, 13, 18 through 22, 27, 31, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sudo in view of Patil. Answer 9-13.",
+    "The Examiner has rejected claims 28 through 30, 35 through 37, and 43 through 44 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sudo in view of Forehand. Answer 13-14.",
+    "The Examiner has rejected claims 38 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sudo in view of Forehand and Hernandez. Answer 14-15.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Sato teaches in Figure 11 that power flows in through the pin (item 41) connected to power via item 15 and ground current flows out through the pin (item 41) to the ground via, item 16. Answer 15.",
+    "The Examiner finds that a loop is taught as the chip, though not depicted as connected to ground via 16, and is connected at some point through wiring layers 21. Answer 15-17.",
+    "Based upon this, the Examiner finds that current is flowing through all of the conductive vias 15 and 16 in anti-parallel arrangement. Answer 19."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "REFERENCES Hernandez US 4,754,366 Jun. 28, 1988 Sudo US 5,475,264 Dec. 12, 1995 Patil US 5,672,911 Sep. 30, 1997 Forehand US 5, 847,936 Dec. 8, 1998",
+    "These arguments present us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Sudo teaches a first and second group of carrier vias, with associated conductive structures, in a loop circuit, where the conductors are in an anti-parallel tessellation arrangement such that current through the first conductors is in an opposite direction from current flow in the second group of conductors?",
+    "ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiners* rejection in light of Appellants* arguments that the Examiner has erred.",
+    "We agree with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that Sudo teaches a first and second group of carrier vias, with associated conductive structures, in a loop circuit, where the conductors are in anti-parallel tessellation arrangement such that current through the first conductors is in an opposite direction from current flow in the second group of conductors.",
+    "Each of independent claims 1, 23, 24, and 43 recites that there are two groups of conductive structures in a loop circuit, where the conductors are in an anti-parallel tessellation arrangement such that current through the first conductors is in an opposite direction from current flow in the second group of conductors.",
+    "We disagree.",
+    "While there may be a loop circuit in Sato, it is not a loop circuit with conductors in anti-parallel arrangement as claimed.",
+    "Sato teaches plural power and ground visa distributed around the substrate and that they are electrically connected.",
+    "However, we do not find that this means that they all carry current in an opposite direction from each other.",
+    "As they are all electrically connected, all of the power conductors will be at the same potential and all of the ground conductors will be at the same potential, however they do not all carry current.",
+    "Rather, the current path will be between the source connected at one pin item 41 through the chip item 23 and back from the non-illustrated connection to the ground conductors to another pin 41.",
+    "The Examiner has not shown that Sato teaches that either the chip has more than one power connection to the substrate, or the substrate has more than one connection to the power source.",
+    "Similarly there is no showing that there is more than one connection to ground.",
+    "Thus, there is only one current path (one conductor in each group) and not an anti-parallel tessellation arrangement such that current through the first conductors is in an opposite direction from current flow in the second group of conductors (multiple current paths).",
+    "Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown that Sudo teaches all of the limitations of the independent claims.",
+    "Thus, we will not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection.",
+    "The Examiner's obviousness rejections similarly rely upon Sudo to teach the limitations of the independent claims.",
+    "Thus, we will not sustain these rejections for the same reasons as the anticipation rejection."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009015352_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Claims 1-7. 9-11 Appellants argue that the cited portions of Ambani do not describe a customized image that is created and sent by the user. Br. 7-9.",
+    "Appellants assert that instead Ambani describes that when someone gives a gift of stock or mutual fund shares, a card is sent to the recipient carrying an icon related to the underlying stock, and not any image that has been created and sent by the user. Br. 7.",
+    "Appellants further assert Ambani's Figure 7 shows an example gift card that accompanies a gift of stock in McDonald' 's including a Golden Arches logo which is not a customized image created and sent by the user. Id.",
+    "Appellants further argue that no part of Ambani shows a customized image on a transaction card. Br. 7.",
+    "Appellants also argue that Ambani's gift card is not a transaction card, but merely a greeting card that accompanies and announces a gift. App. Br. 7, 9.",
+    "Appellants assert that a gift card is often used to mean a kind of stored- value transaction card, often given as a gift that can be used to make purchases from a pool of associated stored value. Id.",
+    "Appellants also argue that claim I requires the user to be the transaction account user and requires the transaction card to be provided to the transaction account user. Br. 7-8.",
+    "Appellants argue that in the cited passages of Ambani, the gift card is provided to a child who has received a gift, but the child is not the user of any transaction account. Br. 8.",
+    "Claims 12-16 Appellants argue that Ambani does not describe *sending the account user a customized transaction card having a customized image created by and received from a person opening the account, as recited in claim 12. Br. 10.",
+    "More specifically, Appellants argue that Ambani does not describe a transaction card, a transaction card that has a customized image created by and received from a person opening the account, and does not describe sending the transaction card to an account user. Br. 10.",
+    "Claims 17-22 Appellants argue that Ambani does not describe *an account distributor, **supplying the account distributor with a plurality of transaction cards, \" and *wherein each of the transaction cards includes a customized image created and provided by the account distributor,\" as recited in claim 17. Br. 11.",
+    "Claims 23-27 Appellants argue that Ambani does not describe \"a first customized transaction card having a first customized image,\" and \"a second customized transaction card having a second customized image, wherein the first and second customized images are different.\" Br. 12.",
+    "Appellants also argue that Ambani does not describe \"displaying the first customized image next to one or more transactions listed on the customized statement that were conducted with the first customized transaction card, and displaying the second customized image next to one or more transactions listed on the customized statement that were conducted with the second customized transaction card.\" \" Id."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 1-6, 9-23 and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 8 102(e) as anticipated by Ambani (US 7,117,173 B1).",
+    "Claims 7 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 8 103(a) as unpatentable over Ambani.",
+    "In the Answer, the Examiner briefly addresses claim 17 as follows:",
+    "The account distributor is the conventional centralized existing account distributor and service provider as has been discussed above regarding claim 1.",
+    "The Website is where multiple account services being performed, including the method of providing gift card purchases from different account holders.",
+    "The steps of incorporating the customized image on the transaction card and the account messages have been discussed above regarding claim 1. Ans. 13.",
+    "In the Answer, the Examiner briefly addresses claim 23 as follows:",
+    "Claim 23 is considered as another way of expressing the limitations of claim 1 in that each photograph is unique for each transaction card.",
+    "Thus, different card [sic] issued to different customers [sic] accounts would include different customized images.",
+    "Likewise for the transaction messages containing the unique customized images from the various customers. Ans. 14."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We AFFIRM-IN-PART.",
+    "We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office Action (\"FOA\").",
+    "We disagree with Appellants' conclusions regarding claims 1-7 and 9-16.",
+    "However, we agree with Appellants' conclusions regarding claims 17-27.",
+    "We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.",
+    "We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments.",
+    "In addition to the McDonald's@ se Golden Arches logo, Ambani's Figure 7 depicts a gift card that includes a design related to the occasion of giving as input by the user or donor (i.e., \"*Happy Birthday\"), an indication of the quantity and price of the stock purchased (i.e., *10 Shares X $32.70=$327.00M), and a personal message from the donor (i.e., \"To My Niece Jenny\", \"From Aunt Mary\"). Col. 11, 11. 27-35; see also col. 11, II. 6-8.",
+    "Since Ambani's gift card in Figure 7 includes a design related to the occasion of giving, the indication of quantity and price of the stock purchased, and the personal message, all of which are input or selected (i.e., customized) by the donor, the disputed limitations of \"a customized image created and sent by the user on a transaction card\" are met by Ambani's gift card.",
+    "We decline to construe a \"transaction card\" as narrowly as Appellants propose.",
+    "Rather, we apply \"to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification.' \" In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).",
+    "Similar to the Examiner's s construction (Ans. 9), we broadly and reasonably construe a \"transaction card\" as a card associated with a transaction.",
+    "Ambani's gift card, which Appellants admit is a greeting card that accompanies and announces a gift, is encompassed within the broad yet reasonable meaning of a transaction card, since Ambani's gift card is associated with a transaction, namely the purchase of a gift.",
+    "We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments because in addition to providing the gift card to a recipient or child, as argued by the Examiner (Ans. 10), it is understood that the gift card is also provided to the gift donor for review during the check-out process using a conventional electronic commerce subroutine for submitting payment information for the gift.",
+    "More specifically, Ambani describes that a visitor to the gift registry service site may log-in as either a child/account holder or as a gift giver. Col. 6, II. 3-6; see also col. 10, 11. 47-51.",
+    "Ambani describes that the gift donor is prompted for selection of a gift card and/or input of a message to be added to the gift card (step 230) and that the program then proceeds to check-out (step 240) using a conventional electronic commerce subroutine to obtain payment information. Col. 11, II. 6-10.",
+    "Since the check-out processes of conventional electronic commerce subroutines require the purchaser to confirm the products that they are purchasing before final submission of payment information, it is inherent that during the check-out process of the conventional electronic commerce subroutine, the gift donor (i.e., transaction account user) is provided with the stock purchase information and gift card for review and confirmation prior to the final submission of payment information.",
+    "For all these reasons, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-6 and 9-11 as anticipated by Ambani and of claim 7, not separately and substantively argued (Br. 14), as obvious over Ambani.",
+    "Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive.",
+    "As explained before addressing claim 1, Ambani describes the claimed gift card which corresponds to the claimed transaction card, as broadly interpreted.",
+    "Ambani further describes that the gift giver or donor can set up an account for a recipient if an account has not already been established. Col. 6, 11. 47-52; Fig. 6, steps 200, 210.",
+    "Ambani further describes that a gift card includes a customized image created and received from a donor or person opening the account (i.e., the design related to the occasion of giving as input by the donor, indication of the quantity and price of the stock purchased and a personal message from the donor). Fig. 7; col. 11, 11. 27-35, see also col. 11, II. 6-8; Fig. 6, step 230.",
+    "Last, Ambani describes that the gift card is sent to the recipient which corresponds to the claimed transaction account user. Col. 6, II. 11-12; col. 11, 11. 18-26.",
+    "For these reasons in addition to those addressing claim 1 above, we sustain the rejection of claims 12-16 as anticipated by Ambani.",
+    "Appellants correctly point out that claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 and the additional limitations appearing in claim 17 are not addressed in the rejection. Id., see Ans. 3-7; FOA 3-6.",
+    "However, the Examiner does not direct us to any description of, and Ambani is silent as to, supplying an account distributor with a plurality of transaction cards, where each the transaction cards include a customized image created and provided by the account distributor.",
+    "For these reasons we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 17-22 as anticipated by Ambani.",
+    "We further note that the issue of whether claim 17 would have been obvious, over Ambani alone or in combination with additional prior art, is not before us on appeal.",
+    "Appellants are correct that the basis of rejection for claim 23 is lumped together with claim 1 and that the additional limitations appearing in claim 23 are not addressed. Id., see Ans. 3-7; FOA 3-6.",
+    "However, the Examiner does not direct us to any description of, and Ambani is silent as to, a first customized transaction card having a first customized image and a second customized transaction card having a second different customized image, and displaying the first customized image next to a transaction listed on a customized statement conducted with the first transaction card, and displaying the second customized image next to a transactions listed on the customized statement conducted with the second transaction card.",
+    "For these reasons we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 23 and 25-27 as anticipated by Ambani.",
+    "As applied by the Examiner addressing the limitations of dependent claim 24, the proposed modification does not remedy the deficiencies of Ambani with respect to the limitations of independent claim 23. Ans. 7.",
+    "For the same reasons, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's s rejection of claim 24 as obvious over Ambani.",
+    "We additionally note that our opinion has addressed only the anticipation rejection of claim 23, whereas the issue of whether claim 23 would have been obvious over Ambani, alone or in combination with additional prior art, is not before us on appeal."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009015427_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "The Appellants argue that the Admissions Center in Sehr is the issuer of the programmable memory device and that paragraph [0024], cited by the Examiner, does not describe routing payment information or instructions to the Admissions Center. Br. 7-8.",
+    "The Appellants argue that instead the payment information is routed to the Service Providers, such as banks or financial institutions. Br. 7.",
+    "The Appellant argues that Sehr does not describe these steps. Br. 8-9.",
+    "The Appellants argue the Sehr does not disclose issuing a visitor card (11) to a vendor, merchant, or other party besides a visitor and, therefore, Sehr does not describe this limitation. Br. 10."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner cites paragraph [0057] of Sehr's as describing this limitation. Answer 8."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. $ 6(b) (2002).",
+    "We AFFIRM.",
+    "We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence.",
+    "1. Sehr describes an event organizer which is a corporate entity or individual that organizes the entertainment and operates the stadium. Sehr [0026].",
+    "2. Sehr describes that the event organizer employs the means to compile and authenticate the cards and that the event organizer communicates the required information to the Admissions Center. See Sehr [0032] and [0033]",
+    "3. Sehr describes an admissions center, which is a computerized means for the automated issuance of visitor cards. Sehr [0027] and [0040].",
+    "4. Sehr describes that, along with traditional paper/plastic bank cards, electronic payment points can be added to the visitor card. Sehr [0049].",
+    "5. Sehr describes the event organizer as providing or underwriting the payment points. Sehr [0049].",
+    "See also Sehr [0086] (\"[t]he payment points, which are sold or provided to the visitor by the event organizer, \u00b7 \u00b7 .\"",
+    "6. Sehr states: At the same time, the mobile vendor can also forward the electronic payment received from the visitors to the merchant database or financial institution, as well as to the event organizer underwriting the payment points.",
+    "To make sure that the electronic money or points will be deposited only to the vendor's account, the vendor can attach a security key to the forwarded payment information. Sehr [0063].",
+    "7. Sehr describes the event organizer as redeeming the payment points for the merchant. Sehr [0049].",
+    "See Sehr [0105] (\"If electronic payment points were used for the purchase, the points will be forwarded to the non-financial institution who then reimburses the provider.\" )",
+    "8. Sehr describes that the vendor/merchant system can load the payment in real-time or as an accumulation of payments at a later time. Sehr [0102].",
+    "9. Sehr describes the vendor/merchant system has a database scheme (310) that stores data and information related to transactions, including payment information, performed between the vendor and visitors. Sehr [0057]-[0058].",
+    "See also [0030] and [0105].",
+    "We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims 2-15 and 17-19 stand or fall with claim 1.",
+    "We disagree with the Appellants.",
+    "First, we find that the event organizer is the claimed \"issuer\" and that the admission center is the means by which the event organizer issues the card. See FF 1-5.",
+    "We note that a definition of the verb *issue* is \"is to distribute or circulate.\" See Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary 647 (1984) (Entry for \"issue\").",
+    "The event organizer is the entity that puts the visitor cards into circulation (see FF 2) and can reasonably be considered the claimed *issuer. \"",
+    "Next, Sehr describes that, as well as traditional debit/credit forms of payment, the visitor cards can be loaded with electronic payment points, underwritten by the event organizer. FF 4-5.",
+    "Sehr describes that if the electronic payment points are used, the payment information is forwarded to the event organizer (i.e. the issuer) for redemption. FF 6.",
+    "Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have not overcome the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-15 and 17-19, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. 15 102(e) as being anticipated by Sehr.",
+    "We select claim 22 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims 23 and 24 stand or fall with claim 22.",
+    "As to the step of storing the payment information, we disagree with the Appellant.",
+    "Sehr describes that the vendor/merchant system includes a database scheme, which stores payment information related to transactions performed between the vendor and visitors. FF 8.",
+    "See also FF 9.",
+    "As to the step of uploading the payment information, for the same reasons as discussed above with regards to claim 1, we find that Sehr anticipates this step.",
+    "Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have not overcome the rejection of claim 22, and claims 23 and 24, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. . 102(e) as being anticipated by Sehr.",
+    "We see nothing in claim 28 that requires that the programmable memory device issued to a second user be Sehr's is visitor card or the same type (i.e. visitor card) as the recited programmable memory device issued to the first user.",
+    "This passage and the following paragraph describes that the vendor/merchant system includes a database scheme, which stores data and information related to transactions performed between the vendor and visitors. FF 8.",
+    "The Appellants do not argue that the vendor/merchant system with the database scheme does not anticipate this limitation.",
+    "Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have not overcome the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. .8 102(e) as being anticipated by Sehr."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010000221_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants argue claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10-13, and 16 as a group and present separate arguments for dependent claims 12 and 13. App. Br. 3-6.",
+    "Appellants argue that Figures 3 and 6 of Hunter do not show that the corrugated zones of extensibility 56 align with the curved leg openings in any meaningful way such as to indicate proper alignment of the absorbent article with the curved leg openings. App. Br. 5.",
+    "Appellants also argue the Office Action does not provide evidence that the zones of extensibility are visible from the body-facing surface of the absorbent article or explain how the zones of extensibility indicate proper alignment of the absorbent article with respect to the curved leg openings. App. Br. 5.",
+    "Appellants further argue that it is not clear from Figure 3 of Hunter how the corrugated zones of extensibility 56 qualify as indicator markers disposed to *indicate proper alignment of the absorbent article with respect to the curved leg openings.\" \" Reply Br. 3 (emphasis in original).",
+    "Appellants assert that neither the mechanical fastening material 70 nor the zones of extensibility 56 are printed marks as recited in claim 12. Reply Br. 5; App. Br. 5-6.",
+    "Appellants also argue that Hunter discloses nonwoven materials, films, and scrims as materials for the side wrapping elements, not as indicator markers as called for in claim 13. App. Br. 6.",
+    "Appellants argue claims 3, 8, 14, and 19 as a group. See App. Br. 7.",
+    "Appellants assert claim 14 cannot be rejected based on Hunter because Hunter does not disclose at least one indicator marker as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 7.",
+    "Appellants also argue that modifying Hunter with Murji, Unger, or Papajohn does not disclose this claimed subject matter. App. Br. 7.",
+    "Appellants further argue the Examiner lacks a motivation to include an indicator marker on an absorbent article but instead relies on impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 7.",
+    "Appellants argue claims 5 and 17 as a group. See App. Br. 8.",
+    "Appellants challenge the rejection of claim 17 on the grounds that Hunter does not disclose at least one indicator marker visible from the body-facing surface and disposed to indicate proper alignment of an absorbent article with respect to curved leg openings of an undergarment. App. Br. 8.",
+    "Appellants also argue that Stone, Mathison, Abbott, Dove, and/or Teed do not cure this deficiency in Hunter. App. Br. 8.",
+    "Appellants argue claims 15, 20, and 21 as a group. See App. Br. 9.",
+    "Appellants argue that claim 15 is directed to an absorbent article with at least one indicator marker visible from a body-facing surface and disposed to indicate proper alignment with curved leg openings and Hunter allegedly does not disclose this claimed subject matter as called for in claim 10. App. Br. 9."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:",
+    "1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10-13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. . 102(b) as being anticipated by Hunter.",
+    "2. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 8, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 6 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunter, Murji, Unger,' and Papajohn.",
+    "3. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 17 under 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunter and any one of Stone, Mathison, Abbott, Dove, and Teed, each one individually.",
+    "4. The Examiner rejected claims 15, 20, and 21 under S 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunter.",
+    "The Examiner found Hunter discloses an absorbent article with at least one indicator marker as called for in claim 10. Ans. 4, 6.",
+    "The Examiner found Hunter's corrugated zones of extensibility 56 are formed on the side wrapping elements/flaps 50, visible from the body facing surface 20A, and disposed to indicate proper alignment of the absorbent article with leg elastics on a pair of curved leg openings E, as shown in Figures 3 and 6. Ans. 4, 6.",
+    "The Examiner also found that the side flaps 50 and the zones of extensibility 56 are intended to be wrapped around the crotch portion of an undergarment so the napkin must be positioned properly with the side flaps 50 and zones of extensibility 56 aligned with the curved leg openings of an undergarment, indicating proper alignment. Ans. 6; Supp. Ans. 3.",
+    "In rejecting claim 12, the Examiner cited to portions of Hunter that discuss mechanical fastening material 70 that can be printed or sprayed on a substrate (Ans. 4 (citing Hunter, col. 12, 11. 17-52)) and also argued that the zones of extensibility are printed marks (see Ans. 7).",
+    "In rejecting claim 13, the Examiner relied on Hunter's disclosure that the side wrapping elements include nonwoven materials, films, scrims, and laminates of such materials. Ans. 4 (citing Hunter, col. 9, 11. 57-61).",
+    "The Examiner relied on Murgi, Unger, and Papajohn for their disclosure of asymmetric absorbent articles and determined it would have been obvious to include Hunter' s corrugated zones of extensibility on an absorbent article that is asymmetrical about the longitudinal or transverse centerline. Ans. 4-5.",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 15, 20, and 21 as obvious over Hunter. Ans. 5-6."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. .5 6.",
+    "We AFFIRM-IN-PART.",
+    "We select claim 10 as the representative claim of the group and address Appellants' separate arguments for the patentability of claims 12 and 13.",
+    "The Examiner's s findings that Hunter discloses an absorbent article with at least one indicator marker are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.",
+    "The zones of extensibility 56 are formed by corrugating or ring rolling two regions onto each side wrapping element 50, and are visible from the body-facing surface 20A, as shown in Figures 1 and 6. See Hunter, col. 10, 11. 37-43 and 63-65.",
+    "The zones of extensibility 56 position a sanitary napkin with respect to curved leg openings of an undergarment as shown in Figures 3 and 6.",
+    "Hunter discloses that the zones of extensibility 56 should be located where the panty edge \"E\" crosses the distal edge 54 of the side elements 50 at two points \"P.\" Hunter, col. 8, 11. 56-65.",
+    "The zones of extensibility 56 thereby indicate proper alignment of a sanitary napkin with the curved leg openings of an undergarment.",
+    "Folding the side elements 50 and the zones of extensibility 56 also aligns the napkin with the curved leg openings as the Examiner found. Ans. 6; Supp. Ans. 3.",
+    "Hunter notes the curved line \"E\" represents the location where the edges of a panty crotch might lie in relation to the napkin 20 because the napkin is used with different panty styles and sizes. See Hunter, col. 8, 11. 64-66.",
+    "Appellants have not shown Hunter's alignment of an article is not a \"proper alignment\" as recited in claim 10.",
+    "Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 and claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11 and 16, which fall with claim 10, based on Hunter.",
+    "The Examiner* s finding that Hunter discloses a printed mark with a plurality of line segments is not supported by a preponderance of evidence.",
+    "The zones of extensibility are formed as ring-rolled corrugations, not printed marks. Hunter, col. 10, 11. 63-65.",
+    "The mechanical fastening material 70 can be printed on the garment-facing surface of the side elements 50 and zones of extensibility 56 as nubs that are formed into projections 74, not printed marks. Hunter, col. 11, 11. 46-66; col. 12, 11. 12-20; figs. 3, 4.",
+    "The Examiner* s finding that Hunter discloses indicator markers that comprise nonwoven material is supported by a preponderance of evidence.",
+    "The corrugated zones of extensibility 56 are formed on the side elements 50, which comprise nonwoven materials, films, scrims, and laminates of such materials. See Hunter, col. 9. 11. 59-61.",
+    "Therefore, the zones of extensibility are indicator markers with visible corrugations and additional material such as nonwoven material or film material as called for in claim 13.",
+    "As such, we cannot sustain the Examiner's s rejection of claim 12, but we do sustain the Examiner'. s rejection of claim 13.",
+    "We select claim 14 as the representative claim of the group.",
+    "Claims 3, 8, and 19 stand or fall with claim 14. 37 C.F.R. 6 41.37(c)(1)(vii).",
+    "As discussed supra, the Examiner' s findings that Hunter discloses an absorbent article with at least one indicator marker as recited in claim 10 are supported by a preponderance of evidence, so there is no deficiency for Murgi, Unger, and Papajohn to cure.",
+    "The Examiner's s conclusion of obviousness is supported by rational underpinnings.",
+    "Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's findings or conclusion of obviousness.",
+    "As such, we sustain the Examiner' s rejection of claims 3, 8, 14, and 19.",
+    "We select claim 17 as the representative claim of the group.",
+    "Claim 5 stands or falls with claim 17. 37 C.F.R. 5 41.37(c)(1)(vii).",
+    "As discussed supra, the Examiner's findings that Hunter discloses this claimed subject matter of claim 10 are supported by a preponderance of evidence.",
+    "Therefore, there is no deficiency for Stone, Mathison, Abbott, Dove, and/or Teed to correct in this regard.",
+    "Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 17.",
+    "We select claim 15 as the representative claim of the group.",
+    "Claims 20 and 21 stand or fall with claim 15. 37 C.F.R. . 41.37(c)(1)(vii).",
+    "As discussed supra, the Examiner's findings that Hunter discloses an absorbent article having at least one indicator marker are supported by a preponderance of evidence. See Ans. 3-4, 6; Supp. Ans. 3.",
+    "Appellants have not pointed out any error in these findings or the Examiner's other findings and conclusion of obviousness for claims 15, 20, and 21. See App. Br. 9.",
+    "As such, we sustain the Examiner's s rejection of claims 15, 20, and 21."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010000249_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants' invention is directed to an integrated circuit device for accommodating electronic components on a multilayer signal routing device.",
+    "A plurality of electrically conductive pads formed on a primary surface are electrically connected via a group of conductive micro-vias to a channel on a secondary surface which accommodates an electronic component mounted on that surface.",
+    "See Abstract.",
+    "Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A multilayer signal routing device comprising: a primary surface having a plurality of electrically conductive pads formed thereon, a group of the plurality of electrically conductive pads in respective electrical connection with a group of electrically conductive micro-vias formed in the multilayer signal routing device; and a secondary surface having a channel formed thereon, the channel having a channel area on the secondary surface for accommodating an electronic component mounted on the secondary surface; wherein the group of electrically conductive micro-vias extend from the primary surface into the multilayer signal routing device, but not entirely through the multilayer signal routing device to the secondary surface; wherein the channel is formed on the secondary surface directly beneath where the group of electrically conductive micro-vias extend from the primary surface into the multilayer signal routing device.",
+    "Appellants argue that their Specification contains written description of micro-vias which recites that some of the electrical contacts on the primary side of the multilayer signal routing device are not coupled to conductive contacts on the secondary side of the multilayer signal routing device. App. Br. 6-8.",
+    "Appellants argue that multiple related patents, which are incorporated in their entirety within the present application by reference thereto, disclose and illustrate micro-vias which do not entirely extend through the multilayer signal routing device. Reply Br. 4-5.",
+    "Applicants also argue that Takeuchi fails to disclose \"a secondary surface having a channel formed thereon.. *, (App. Br. 11-12); that through- holes 5 and 6 disclosed by Takeuchi are not \"micro-vias\" and are merely formed through a printed wiring substrate (Reply Br. 8); and, that the Examiner has inappropriately combined Takeuchi and Haller. Reply Br. 11- 12.",
+    "Appellants argue that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,388,890; 6,545,876; 7,069,646; and 7,069,650, each of which was incorporated by reference in its entirety within the present application, satisfies the written description for the disputed element within claim 1. Reply Br. 4-5.",
+    "Additionally, Appellants argue that the \"packaged integrated circuit electronic component\" set forth within claim 8 is illustrated within Figure 2A and is adequately described within Appellants' Specification. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 5-7.",
+    "Appellants argue that Takeuchi fails to disclose \"a secondary surface having a channel formed thereon. ~ App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 7-8.",
+    "Further, Appellants argue that Takeuchi fails to disclose a group of electrically conductive micro-vias which extend from the primary surface into the multilayer signal routing device, but not entirely through the multilayer signal routing device to the secondary surface, as set forth in claim 1, arguing that the through-holes disclosed in Takeuchi are merely formed through a printed wiring substrate. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 8."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Haller US 5,357,403 Oct. 18, 1994 Takeuchi US 2002/0008314 A1 Jan. 24, 2002 (filed Apr. 13, 2000)",
+    "The REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 3-4.",
+    "2. The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. $103(a) as unpatentable over Takeuchi and Haller. Ans. 5-9.",
+    "Contentions Regarding claim 1, the only independent claim in the present appeal, the Examiner finds that the claim limitation which recites \"wherein the group of electrically conductive micro-vias extend from the primary surface into the multilayer signal routing device, but not entirely through the multilayer signal routing device to the secondary surface\" was not described in the Specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Ans. 3-4.",
+    "The Examiner also finds that Takeuchi discloses a multilayer signal routing device having a primary surface with a plurality of conductive pads, (Ans. 5), a group of electrically conductive micro-vias formed in the multilayer signal routing device and a secondary surface having a channel formed thereon for accommodating an electronic component. (Id. at 6.)",
+    "The Examiner acknowledges that Takeuchi does not disclose that some of the micro-vias do not extend completely through the multilayer signal routing device, (Id.) but cites Haller for a disclosure of a micro-via that does not extend entirely through a multilayer signal routing device. Id. at. 6-7.",
+    "The S 112 Rejections The Examiner has rejected claims 1-8 under 35 U. S. C. .5 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement.",
+    "Specifically, the Examiner finds that the limitation within representative claim 1which recites \"wherein the group of electrically conductive micro- vias extend from the primary surface into the multilayer signal routing device, but not entirely through the multilayer signal routing device to the secondary surface\" was not described in the Specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.",
+    "Similarly, the Examiner also finds that the limitation added by amendment to claim 8, i.e. \"a packaged integrated circuit electronic component\" was not adequately described in the Specification. Ans. 3-4.",
+    "The $ 103 Rejections The Examiner finds that Takeuchi discloses a multilayer signal routing device having a primary surface with a plurality of conductive pads, (Ans. 5) a group of electrically conductive micro-vias formed in the multilayer signal routing device and a secondary surface having a channel formed thereon for accommodating an electronic component. (Id. at 6).",
+    "The Examiner acknowledges that Takeuchi does not disclose that some of the micro-vias do not extend completely through the multilayer signal routing device, (Id.) but cites Haller for a disclosure of a micro-via that does not extend entirely through a multilayer signal routing device. Id. at 6-7."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "The issues before us, then, are as follows: ISSUES 1. Under \u25cf 112, has the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 by finding that the claim limitation which recites \"wherein the group of electrically conductive micro-vias extend from the primary surface into the multilayer signal routing device, but not entirely through the multilayer signal routing device to the secondary surface\" was not described in the Specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention?",
+    "2. Under \u25cf 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1 by finding that Takeuchi and Haller collectively would have taught or suggested a multilayer signal routing device having a primary surface with a plurality of conductive pads, a group of electrically conductive micro- vias formed in the multilayer signal routing device and a secondary surface having a channel formed thereon for accommodating an electronic component wherein some of the micro-vias do not extend completely through the multilayer signal routing device?",
+    "3. Is the Examiner's reason to combine the teachings of these references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion?",
+    "FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) We find that the following enumerated findings of fact are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence.",
+    "Ethicon, Inc. V. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).",
+    "1. U. S. Patent No. 6,388,890, inter alia, incorporated by reference in its entirety within the present application, (Specification, 1) discloses and illustrates a micro-via 26, which terminates without extending entirely through a multilayer signal routing device. U.S. Patent No. 6,388,890, Figure 1, element 26; col. 4, 11. 25-44.",
+    "2. Appellants' Figure 2A is reproduced below:",
+    "Appellants' Figure 2A illustrates \"multiple additional electronic components 106A\" mounted on a secondary side of the multilayer signal routing device. Specification, p. 19, 11. 2-7 (describing Figure 2A).",
+    "3. Takeuchi discloses a semiconductor integrated circuit having conductive pads disposed on opposite sides thereof and through- holes disposed therein for conductive connection between both sides of the semiconductor integrated circuit. Takeuchi, Abstract.",
+    "4. Haller discloses via holes, such as via 54, which terminate within the integrated circuit and do not extend entirely through the integrated circuit. Haller, col. 9, 11. 32-64 (describing Figure 2).",
+    "We find that the incorporated United States patents set forth above, including U.S. Patent No. 6,388,890, describe micro-vias which \"extend from the primary surface into the multilayer signal routing device, but not entirely through the multilayer signal routing device to the secondary surface, as set forth in representative claim 1. (FF1).",
+    "It is well-settled that **essential material, \" that is, material which is necessary to provide a written description of the claimed invention, may be incorporated by reference to a United States patent or a United States patent application publication. See 37 C.F.R. 81.57(c)(1).",
+    "Further, we find that Appellants' illustration of **multiple additional electronic components 106A\" within Figure 2A appears to illustrate graphically a packaged integrated circuit electronic component within their specification. (FF2).",
+    "Consequently we find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. $112, first paragraph, for failing to comply with the written description requirement.",
+    "[DJuring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).",
+    "We find that Takeuchi discloses conductive mounting pads on a secondary surface, (FF3), which we conclude is a reasonable interpretation of \"a channel area on the secondary surface for accommodating an electronic component mounted on the secondary surface\" as set forth in claim 1.",
+    "We find that Haller discloses so-called \"blind vias\" such as via 54, which terminate within the integrated circuit and do not extend entirely through the integrated circuit. (FF4).",
+    "We also find the Examiner has articulated a rational basis for combining the Takeuchi and Haller references, noting that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Ans. 7.",
+    "We find that Takeuchi and Haller are both directed to the construction of integrated circuit devices and we find no error in the Examiner' s proposed combination of these two references.",
+    "Appellants separately list features recited within each of claims 2-8 and merely urge that such features are not shown within the cited references.",
+    "In In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 201 1) the Federal Circuit held that a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art is not sufficiently substantive to comply with Rule 41.37.",
+    "Consequently we find that Appellants have not separately argued claims 2-8 with sufficient particularity.",
+    "We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and claims 2-8, not separately argued with particularity, as unpatentable under $103."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010000301_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant argues, inter alia, that Joachims does not teach that user selection of a query result from a ranked list causes the selected result to be added to a first set of data (categorized as relevant to a user's context) and causes the results not selected by the user but ranked higher than the selected result to be automatically added to a second set of data (categorized as non- relevant to the user's context) (App. Br. 8)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner finds that Joachims teaches all the limitations of the independent claims."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Appellant's contentions, and the Examiner's findings, present us with the following issue:",
+    "Does Joachims teach a search engine tuning component in which user selection of a query result from a ranked list causes the selected result to be added to a first set of data (categorized as relevant to a user's context) and causes the results not selected by the user but ranked higher than the selected result to be automatically added to a second set of data (categorized as non- relevant to the user's context)?",
+    "\" We disagree with the Examiner's finding of anticipation.",
+    "Joachims very clearly states that it does not categorize links as \"relevant\" or *non- relevant,\" but instead establishes a relative relevance scale.",
+    "Joachims teaches that \"[a] click on a particular link cannot be seen as an absolute relevance judgment\" (FF 1); that \"[w]e will depart from a binary relevance scheme\" (FF 2); and that *most work on machine learning in information retrieval \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 simplifies the task to a binary classification problem with the two classes 'relevant' and 'non-relevant.' Such a simplification has several drawbacks \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 Section 2.2 showed that such absolute relevance judgments cannot be extracted from clickthrough data\" (FF 3).",
+    "We agree with Appellant that Joachims does not teach causing results not selected by the user but ranked higher than the selected result to be automatically added to a set of data categorized as non-relevant.",
+    "Therefore, the Examiner has not established that Joachims teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention.",
+    "We find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-22, 29-40, 42, and 43 as being anticipated by Joachims.",
+    "We will not sustain the rejection.",
+    "We have reviewed Pazzani and we find that it does not remedy the noted deficiencies of Joachims.",
+    "Therefore, we will not sustain the S 103 rejection of claims 7, 17, and 23-28, for the reasons given supra with respect to independent claims 1, 13, and 22."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010000638_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant argues that *[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the connecting device is used to connect two workpieces and that neither workpiece is part of the connecting device.\" \" App. Br. 12.",
+    "Appellant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand \"the manner in which the components of the connecting device interact with the workpieces.\" Id. at 10.",
+    "While Appellant agrees with the Examiner that claim 29 positively recites a shank engaged in a longitudinal groove of the first workpiece (Reply Br. 4-5), Appellant contends that the preamble is not inconsistent with the body of the claim because \"it is clear , \u00b7 that the invention is directed to a connecting device for connecting a first workpiece having an interior space to a second workpiece.\" App. Br. 7."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 29 and 31-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 8 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention.",
+    "The Examiner determines that the metes and bounds of claim 29 are unclear as to whether *any of the workpieces are part of the claimed invention.\" Ans. 3.",
+    "The Examiner reasons that the preamble language \" \"for connecting a first workpiece having an interior space\\' . \u00b7 inferentially suggests that both the clamping screw and the sleeve \u00b7 \u25a0 \u00b7 are intended for this particular purpose, but that *the limitation *the clamping screw having a shank [which] engages in a longitudinal groove of the first workpiece\\' suggests that the first workpiece is positively recited.\" Id. at 3- 4.2",
+    "The Examiner then poses the question: *Accordingly, is the first workpiece part of the connecting device?\" Id. at 4.",
+    "The Examiner asserts that even though the workpiece is positively recited in the body of claim 29, \"the question remains whether the connecting device is still *for connecting a first workpiece\\' as recited in the preamble.\" Id. at 5.3",
+    "The Examiner determines that the metes and bounds of claim 35 are unclear for essentially the same reasons as claim 29. Ans. 3-5."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We REVERSE.",
+    "As a threshold matter, we determine that the interrelated features of the connecting device and the first workpiece, as positively recited in the body of claim 29, do not suggest that the first workpiece is a part of the connecting device.",
+    "The connecting device can be separate from the first workpiece, as recited in the preamble of claim 29, and still have such interrelated features, as illustrated in Appellant's Figures 1-12 describing an embodiment of the claimed invention.",
+    "Thus, we agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the connecting device in claim 29 is used to connect two workpieces, as recited in the preamble, and that neither workpiece is part of the connecting device.",
+    "Further, we do not agree with the Examiner that claim 29 is indefinite as to whether *any of the workpieces are part of the claimed invention.\" See Ans. 3.",
+    "This positive recitation and those noted by the Examiner are strong indications that the connecting device is being claimed as fixed in and engaged with the first work piece.",
+    "The preamble language *for connecting a first workpiece having an interior space to a second workpiece (emphasis added)\" is not inconsistent with the positive recitations in the body of the claim, because the included phrase \"a first workpiece having an interior space\" is itself a limitation of claim 29, as discussed below.",
+    "Here, the preamble of claim 29 recites \"a first workpiece having an interior space, which provides antecedent basis for the positively recited limitation \"the first workpiece\" in the body of the claim, and thus the preamble phrase \"a first workpiece having an interior space\" is a limitation of claim 29.",
+    "In this case, the preamble language *for connecting a first workpiece having an interior space to a second workpiece\" does not suggest that only the connecting device is being claimed, because the included phrase \"a first workpiece having an interior space\" is itself a limitation.",
+    "Having considered claim 29 in its entirety, we conclude that the claim apprises one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope and, therefore, serves the notice function required by 35 U.S.C. 8 112, second paragraph.",
+    "Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 29, and claims 31-34, 36 and 37 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. $ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention.",
+    "We disagree.",
+    "For the reasons discussed supra in connection with claim 29, we conclude that claim 35 apprises one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope and, therefore, serves the notice function required by 35 U.S.C. 8 112, second paragraph.",
+    "Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 35, and claims 38 and 39 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. 8 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010000970_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants argue: Appellants' claim 1 recites 'receiving a request via a centralized interface' and \"providing interface capability\" such that the embodiments of Appellants' claims 1 - 7 and 9 \u25a0 10 may be considered to be tied to a particular machine or apparatus.",
+    "Furthermore, Appellants' specification further describes use of a particular machine or apparatus to implement a method as claimed in Appellants' claim 1. (Reply Brief 3).",
+    "Appellants thus argue the claims each pass the so-called Bilski test to determine whether a claimed process recites patentable subject matter under \u25cf 101, namely, that the involved subject matter: (1) is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.",
+    "Appellants argue the embodiments \"recite, as taught by Appellants' specification, embodiments in which the system is implemented using hardware, such as on a processor configured to provide the claimed functions and having other physical structure associated therewith for storing the various types of information claimed.\" (Reply Brief 4).",
+    "See, 37 C.F.R. 5 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004), Appellants argue that Hetz does not disclose determining compatibility between a requested service and customer premise equipment because \"Hetz merely discloses determining compatibility between call processing information of a provider and provider equipment processing the call.\" (Appeal Br. 16).",
+    "Appellant also argues the Examiner interpreted the claim language too broadly and failed to consider all the words of claim 1 because the Examiner generalizes the determining claim limitation \"to a general function of determining compatibility\" because the Examiner has equated \"matching\" data records with the claim language (Appeal Br. 15).",
+    "Appellants further argue \"the Examiner is not considering the words *customer premise' in judging the patentability of Appellants' claim 1 against Hetz.",
+    "Rather, the Examiner admits that the Examiner is reading the limitation *customer premise equipment' as *equipment**. (Appeal Br. 17).",
+    "Appellants finally argue the \"Examiner did not interpret the phrase 'customer premise equipment' in a manner consistent with the specification of the application, nor in a manner consistent with an interpretation that would be utilized by those skilled in the art.\" \" (Appeal Br. 18)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Hetz US 5,835,583 Nov. 10, 1998 Jun US 2001/0047379 A1 Nov. 29, 2001 Rigole US 2001/0049632 A1 Dec. 6, 2001",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 and 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. 5 101 as claiming unpatentable subject matter.",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) over Rigole and Hetz.",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) over Rigole, Hetz, and Jun.",
+    "The Examiner rejected method claims 1-7, 9, and 10 on the basis that they failed to \"(1) be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or materials) to a different state or thing.\" (Answer 6).",
+    "Claims 11-16 were rejected as claiming \"various managers and an application engine [that] can be construe[d] to be software, which is not patentable subject matter.\" (Answer 7)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. 5 134 from the Examiner's final of claims 1-7 and 9-20.",
+    "We affirm.",
+    "THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants claim systems and methods for controlling the acquisition of communications and media applications and services and modifying parameters associated with existing applications and services. (Specification 1:6-8).",
+    "Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for controlling acquisition of services, said method comprising the steps of: receiving a request via a centralized interface for at least one service selected from a plurality of available services comprising communication and media services; determining a compatibility of said request with said available services, wherein said step of determining a compatibility comprises determining a compatibility between each of said at least one requested service and customer premise equipment used to receive said at least one requested service; and providing interface capability to compatible available services.",
+    "REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review.",
+    "Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 5 101 as reciting non-patent eligible subject matter because the method is preempted by an abstract idea?",
+    "Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. 5 101 as reciting unpatentable subject matter since according to the Specification the system can be implemented solely as computer program code transmitted over a transmission medium?",
+    "Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as disclosing determining a compatibility between each of said at least one requested service and customer premise equipment used to receive said at least one requested service, since Hetz discloses a comparison of data records between a customer requested telephone call service and records about switches and other network equipment used to provide the service in order to determine compatibility?",
+    "We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.",
+    "1. The Specification does not define or describe the terms centralized interface, interface capability, or interface, or contain the word \"central\" in association therewith.",
+    "2. The Specification uses the term interface in a broad assortment of contexts as \"communications interfaces\" (Specification 2:25), \"various interfaces and media technologies\" (Specification 2:28), \"User Interface\" (Specification 5:3), \"customer care interfaces\" (Specification 7:17), **support system and interface means\" (Specification 9:28), \"interface/protocol\" (Specification 10:8), \"application programming interfaces\" (Specification 10:32), and \"Web-based interface\" (Specification 13:6).",
+    "3. The Specification describes that its system for \"controlling the acquisition of services\" can be used *via any interface technology.\" (Specification 2:4-7),",
+    "4. The ordinary and customary definition of the term interface, as defined by Merriam Webster's s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.), is: \"the place at which independent and often unrelated systems meet and act on or communicate with each other.\" +,",
+    "5. The Specification describes that determining a compatibility between each of said at least one requested service and customer premise equipment used is performed by a comparison of data records, in that the **application engine 12 compares the information contained in the application request (AR) with the information contained in the CRM portion 14 (EU profiles) and the information contained in the SCM portion 16 (services/applications/ASP profiles) via signals 30 and 32, respectively.\" (Specification 8:28-31).",
+    "6. The Specification describes that providing interface capability to compatible available services may involve offering the end user (\"EU\") a business relationship, in that, \"lilf the comparison results in a match between information contained in the AR, information contained in the CRM portion 14, and information contained in the SCM portion 16, an offer for a subscription is provided to the EU.\" (Specification 9:6-8).",
+    "7. The Specification does not describe any requirement for implementation on any specific computer system.",
+    "8. The Specification describes by non-limiting example that the system and method may be implemented as software per se: The system and method for controlling the acquisition of services and applications as described herein may also be embodied in the form of computer program code, for example, whether stored in a storage medium, loaded into and/or executed by a computer, or transmitted over some transmission medium, such as over the electrical wiring or cabling, through fiber optics, or via electromagnetic radiation \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 (Specification 17:11-19).",
+    "9. Hetz discloses determining a compatibility between a request and premise equipment used to receive said service as a comparison of information about a telephone call with information about network equipment to handle the call, in that the \"mediation point then obtains call processing information from a database operated by the provider having control of the call. The mediation point may process the information to insure compatibility with the switch or other network equipment handling the call ... ~ (Col. 8 11. 38-44).",
+    "10. The Specification describes the meaning of customer premise equipment as equipment at the premises of an end user (Specification 9:3-4).",
+    "11. Hetz discloses a software system at its \"mediation point\" which resides in ISCP 25, for receiving a request and for determining a compatibility, in that \"the ISCP 25 mediates queries and responses between the TELCO network components and databases operated by information service providers (ISPs).\" (Col. 11 11. 11-13),",
+    "The rejection is affirmed as to independent claim 1.",
+    "Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patent eligibility of claims 2-7, 9. and 10 that depend from claim 1, which is the sole independent claim among those claims.",
+    "Therefore, we address only claim 1, and claims 2-7, 9, and 10 fall with claim 1.",
+    "In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 961-62 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc).",
+    "However since the filing of the Appeal Brief, the Supreme Court has held that the \"machine-or-transformation may well provide a sufficient basis for evaluating processes similar to those in the Industrial Age---for example, inventions grounded in a physical or other tangible form. \u00b7\u00b7 [but,] it may not make sense to require courts to confine themselves to asking the questions posed by the machine-or-transformation test\".",
+    "Bilski V. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (June 2010).",
+    "Maintaining only that the test is an \"important clue\" or \"an investigative tool\", the Court instead reasoned that claims that explained the basic concept of an activity (hedging) would allow the Appellant to pre-empt the use of this approach in all fields, and would effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea.",
+    "Id. at 3231.",
+    "Thus, our analysis will be constrained by the rule that abstract ideas are not patent eligible.",
+    "Id. at 3225.",
+    "In construing the claim language, we find that the terms central interface and interface capability are not defined in the Specification (FF 1), but the term interface is used in a broad variety of contexts (FF 2), and that the method and system may be used via \"any interface technology\" (FF 3).",
+    "We therefore interpret interface by its usual and customary meaning as the place at which communications takes place (FF 4), and a centralized interface, therefore, as a centrally-located place where communications take place, between two communicating entities.",
+    "We further find that determining a compatibility involves merely making a comparison between a request and data (FF 5) and that providing interface capability may involve the mental concept of offering to establish a business relationship (FF 6).",
+    "In the words of Gottschalk 17. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 72 (CCPA 1972), the claimed method \"would wholly pre-empt the [controlling of acquisition of services] and in practical effect would be a patent on the [concept] itself.\"",
+    "\" For the foregoing reasons, based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to claims 1-7, 9, and 10 as a whole, these claims are held to cover an abstract idea and therefore the rejection as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C & 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 101 is sustained.",
+    "The rejection is affirmed as to independent claim 11.",
+    "Since the arguments to the 35 U.S.C. & 101 rejection are addressed only to claim 11, claims 12-16 fall with claim 11.",
+    "Independent claim 11 recites, in pertinent part, a system comprising a customer relations manager portion comprising information \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 a supply chain manager portion comprising information \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 and an application engine.",
+    "We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because we construe both manager portions to be mere stored information, and find the application engine, though optionally implemented on computer hardware (FF 7), may also be implemented as mere software per se (FF 8).",
+    "\"Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment. \"",
+    "Microsoft Corp. V. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007), and therefore software per se, or a computer program per se, does not fall within a statutory class.",
+    "We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because Appellants argue the content of data in a comparison step not affecting the comparing function.",
+    "We find that the Specification describes that determining a compatibility is accomplished by comparing data records (FF 5).",
+    "We find Hetz discloses a comparison between data records about a requested service at an incoming telephone call, with data records about a switch or other network equipment to handle the call to determine compatibility (FF 9).",
+    "We find that the content of the compared data, such as whether premise equipment means equipment physically located at a customer site (FF 10) or at a provider site, does not affect the function of the comparison, and hence is nonfunctional descriptive material.",
+    "In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004).",
+    "Even still, we find that the claim limitation determining a compatibility between each of said at least one requested service and customer premise equipment used to receive said at least one requested service, is met by Hetz because Hetz discloses making a comparison of data to determine compatibility between a request and equipment to handle the request (FF 9).",
+    "Appellants' arguments directed to deficiencies in Rigole as to this same claim limitation (Appeal Br. 12-14) are not persuasive, because we found that Hetz meets this claim limitation as set forth above.",
+    "We do not find error in the Examiner's rejection, because we find that the Specification describes determining compatibility as a process of comparing data records (FF 5), and hence determining if there is a match (FF 6).",
+    "The Examiner found Hetz compared data records to determine matches for compatibility (Answer 10), and we therefore find that the Examiner properly considered the determining compatibility claim requirement, and did not construe the claim language in an unreasonably broad manner.",
+    "We are not persuaded of error by the Examiner because we find the Examiner considered all the words of the claim in accordance with the weight each was due.",
+    "As set forth above, we find that the specific content of the data does not affect the function of comparison/ matching/ determining, such that the physical location of the premise equipment as at a customer or elsewhere is non-functional descriptive material in that it does not affect the further function of the claim elements.",
+    "That is, because the claim requires comparing data records to ensure compatibility between a request and the equipment to perform the request, and the function of comparison is the same irrespective of the physical location of equipment that may be recorded in the data being compared.",
+    "Notwithstanding, the Examiner found Hetz discloses a comparison of records about network equipment (Answer 10), and articulated that the equipment of Hetz met the claim limitation for customer premise equipment (Answer 10), and thus considered the customer premise language appropriately.",
+    "Our review confirms that Hetz discloses comparison of data records about equipment located somewhere (FF 9), thus meeting the basic content required of the claims, namely comparing data about a piece of equipment with data about a service using that equipment.",
+    "We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.",
+    "We find the Specification describes customer premises equipment as equipment located at an end-user' s premises (FF 10), and, in light of our finding that the content of data does not affect the function of comparison/matching/determing, set forth above, we find the Examiner's interpretation of customer premises equipment as \"a piece of equipment operated by the provider that offers a particular service\" (Answer 10) is appropriate.",
+    "Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 12-16 that depend from claim 11, which is the sole independent claim among those claims.",
+    "Therefore, we address only claim 11, and claims 12-16 fall with claim 11.",
+    "See, 37 C.F.R. \u25cf 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004), Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 11 are substantially identical to those presented at claim 1.",
+    "We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive, because we find while claim 11 requires an application engine with a componentfor for receiving and a component for determining a compatibility, and we find Hetz discloses these system limitations.",
+    "Specifically, Hetz discloses an application engine at ISCP 25 which receives requests (FF 11) and compares records to determine a compatibility between equipment to handle the request and the request (FF 9), thus meeting the claim language.",
+    "With this understanding, as found supra, we find that the functionality of the system elements of claim 11 is fully capable of performing the claimed functions for the same reasons set forth in our analysis of claim 1.",
+    "See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir.1997)",
+    "The rejection is affirmed as to independent claim 17.",
+    "Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 18-20 that depend from claim 17, which is the sole independent claim among those claims.",
+    "Therefore, we address only claim 17, and claims 18-20 fall with claim 17.",
+    "See, 37 C.F.R. \u25cf 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004), Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 17, which recites a computer readable medium with limitations essentially identical to the method steps of claim 1, are substantially identical to those presented at claim 1.",
+    "Therefore, the rejection of claim 11 is affirmed for the same reasons set forth above at claim 1."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010001038_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants' claimed invention is a computer graphics system and method for rendering images of an object on a computer including a graphics processing unit (Spec. 3:14-17)",
+    "1. A method of producing radiance transfer coefficients for a set of points sampled over a modeled object for rendering images of the object on a computer having a graphics processing unit for performing operations over sets of data values contained in textures, the method comprising: creating an object positions texture containing a set of data values representing positions of a set of points sampled over the object mapped into a texture space; creating an object normals texture containing a set of data values representing normals of the set of sampled points mapped into the texture space; iteratively, for each of a set of directions sampled about the object, rendering the object from the direction to produce a shadow buffer representing depth from the object in the direction for the set of points; as a texture-based operation using the graphics processing unit, determining cosine terms of the set of sampled points for the currently iterated direction based on the normals represented in the object normals texture and currently iterated direction; as a texture-based operation using the graphics processing unit, determining shadowing of the set of sampled points for the currently iterated direction based on the depths represented in the shadow buffer and positions represented in the object positions texture; as a texture-based operation using the graphics processing unit, determining radiance transfer contribution of the set of sampled points for the currently iterated direction based on the determined cosine terms and shadowing; and accumulating the radiance transfer contributions of the set of sampled points for the currently iterated direction with that of previously iterated directions; producing a radiance transfer value for each of the sampled points from the accumulated radiance transfer contributions for the iterated directions at the respective sampled points; rendering an image of the object in a lighting environment based on the accumulated radiance transfer contributions; and presenting the image.",
+    "Appellants contend reversing the loops in Sloan as taught by Purcell would not result in Appellants' invention (Br. 11-12).",
+    "Claim 1, along with claims 2 and 3. includes \"producing radiance transfer coefficients for a set of points sampled\" and then \"producing a radiance transfer value for each of the sampled points from the accumulated radiance transfer contributions for the iterated directions at the respective sampled points\" (emphasis added) (Br. 12).",
+    "In contrast, if Sloan' s loops are reversed, Sloan would produce a \"radiance transfer for each direction that integrates contributions over all sampled points\" of an object's surface (emphasis added) (Br. 12).",
+    "As Appellants assert, the resulting quantities are not the same: Appellants' claim produces a radiance transfer value per point; Sloan, as modified, produces a radiance transfer per direction."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) based upon the teachings of various combinations of Sloan (Precomputed Radiance Transfer for Real-Time Rendering in Dynamic, Low-Frequency Lighting Environments, 2002, pp. 527-536), Burke (US 2003/0063096 A1), Purcell (Ray Tracing on Programmable Graphics Hardware, July 2002, pp. 703-712), Arvo (Monte Carlo Ray Tracing, July 29, 2009, pp. 1-5, 13-42), Morioka (US 6,333,742 B1), and Airey ( US 6,650,327 B1)",
+    "The Examiner finds Sloan discloses \"iteratively calculating the radiance for each point for a plurality of directions\" (Ans. 6, 23),",
+    "The Examiner then uses Purcell's nesting loops for modifying Sloan, thus reversing the inner and outer loops of a radiance transfer method and optimizing the speed and efficiency of radiance processing by iteratively calculating the radiance for each direction for each point (Ans. 6, 23, 24),"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.",
+    "We agree with Appellants' assertions that reversing Sloan's loops would not achieve the limitations in Appellants' claims.",
+    "Thus, we agree that modifying Sloan by reversing the values in the outer and inner loops does not produce a **radiance transfer at each point for the iterated directions\" as claimed in independent claims 1-3 and claims 4-20, which depend therefrom (Br. 12).",
+    "The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. S 103."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010001815_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants argue Naoki only teaches the use of alkylene oxide adducts in the disclosed composition. (Br. 6.)",
+    "Appellants contend Naoki's is polyethylene glycol is used solely as a raw material for making the alkylene oxide adducts and is not, itself, an additive. (Id.)",
+    "Appellants, relying on definitions from the IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology (Br., Evidence Appx.), contend the ordinary artisan would understand that Naoki's alkylene oxide adducts do not meet the claim limitations of a \"homopolymer\" and a \"copolymer.\" (See Br. 5-7.)",
+    "Appellants do not dispute the Examiner' s finding that Keiichi discloses a polyolefin composition containing a copolymer comprising polycaprolactone, or the Examiner* S determination that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time of the invention to incorporate Keiichi's copolymer into Naoki's composition (Ans. 5).",
+    "Rather, Appellants contend that the Examiner's s proposed combination would not result in the claimed composition because Keiichi's *copolymer of a polyolefin grafted with polycaprolactone\" is not a **polycaprolactone\" as claimed. (Br. 8.)"
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner finds Naoki discloses a composition \"comprising a dibenzlidenesorbitol [sic, dibenzylidene sorbitol] compound, a polyolefin resin, and polyethyleneglycol (polyethylenoxide).\" (Ans. 3.)",
+    "The Examiner contends the claimed ethylene oxide homopolymer and copolymer read on the polyethyleneglycol component of Naoki's composition. (Ans. 5 (citing Naoki I [0043] ).)",
+    "The Examiner disagrees, contending the \"claims as written do not exclude a polycaprolactone that has been grafted onto a polyolefin.\" (Ans. 5.)"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "The issue we consider with respect to the , 102(b) rejection is: did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that Naoki discloses \"a co-additive of ethylene oxide homopolymer\" as recited in independent claims 8 and 17 and *at least one co-additive selected from the group consisting of copolymers containing segments of ethylene oxide\" as recited in independent claim 13?",
+    "The issue we consider with respect to the $ 103(a) rejection is: did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that the claim 15 limitation \"at least one co-additive selected from the group consisting of polycaprolactone \u25a0 . encompasses a grafted polycapralactone?",
+    "We have reviewed Appellants' Specification and find no basis for interpreting the terms \"homopolymer\" and \"copolymer\" in a manner which is inconsistent with their ordinary meanings.",
+    "In this regard, we note the Examiner has neither challenged Appellants\" definition of these terms nor directed us to evidence to support a broader interpretation of claims 8, 13, and 17 as reading on Naoki's alkylene oxide adducts, i.e., an alkylene oxide attached to a base compound which is an alcohol, a phenol, a polyol partial ester, or a hydrogenated castor oil (see Naoki [0012-0015]).",
+    "Because the Examiner has not identified a teaching of a compound comprising \"a co-additive of ethylene oxide homopolymer\" as recited in independent claims 8 and 17 and \"at least one co-additive selected from the group consisting of copolymers containing segments of ethylene oxide\" as recited in independent claim 13, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8- 14, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. , 102(b) as anticipated by Naoki.",
+    "We thus interpret the language of claim 15 as encompassing a species of the genus described in the Specification, i.e., a composition which does not encompass \"derivatives\" of polycaprolactone.",
+    "We therefore agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in interpreting claim 15 as encompassing a polycaprolactone that has been grafted onto a polyolefin.",
+    "Because the Examiner has not identified a teaching or suggestion of a co-additive as claimed in claim 15, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. , 103(a) as unpatentable over Naoki in view of Keiichi."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010001843_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants do not dispute the Examiner' s finding that Yamazaki '959 or '256 discloses the claimed method of fabricating an electroluminescent (EL) device (the claimed display device), except for employing the claimed Laser Induced Thermal Imaging (LITI) technique to form its organic electroluminescent (EL) layer. (Compare Ans. 4-7 with App. Br. 7-11 and Reply Br. 3-8.)",
+    "Nor do Appellants dispute the Examiner's s finding that Wolk teaches that the LITI technique is a known operable method of forming a thin EL film. (Compare Ans. 4 and 6 with App. Br. 7-11 and Reply Br. 3-8.)",
+    "Rather, Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to employ the LITI method taught by Wolk in forming the thin EL layer of the electroluminescent (EL) device taught by Yamazaki '959 or *256. (See App. Br. 7-11 and Reply Br. 3-8.)",
+    "Appellants also do not dispute the Examiner' is finding that Wolk teaches that: The LITI method was advantageous because of the accuracy and precision that can be achieved [in forming a desired thin layer pattern]. The size and the shape of the transferred pattern can be controlled, for example, by selecting the size of the light beam, the exposure pattern of the light beam, the duration of directed beam contact with the thermal transfer element, and the materials of the thermal transfer element (col. 14, lines 29-45). [(Compare Ans.4 and 6 with App. Br. 7-11 and Reply Br. 3-8.) ]",
+    "Appellants do not dispute the Examiner' s determination that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention \"to have formed the insulating layers of Yamazaki '959 with a rounded edge [as taught by the admitted prior art]\" or \"to have formed the insulating layers of Yamazaki *256 with a rounded edge [as taught by the admitted prior art]. \" (Compare Ans. 9 with App. Br. 14-16 and Reply Br. 11-13.)",
+    "Rather, Appellants reiterate the same arguments advanced in connection with claims 38, 40, 45, 46, 48, 53 through 55, 57, 62 through 64, 66, 71, 72, 74, and 76 through 78 rejected under 35 U.S.C. .5 103discussed supra. (See App. Br. 14-16 and Reply Br. 11-13.)",
+    "Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's determination that claims 38 through 41, 45 through 49, 53 through 58, 62 through 67, 71, 72, and 74 through 78 are not patentably distinct from claims 1 through 11 of copending Application 11/312,547 in view of Yamazaki '959 and Wolk. (Compare Ans. 9-11 with App. Br. 16 and Reply Br. 13.)"
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the Examiner relies on the following documents at pages 3 and 9 of the Answer:",
+    "1. Claims 38 through 41, 45 through 49, 53 through 58, 62 through 67, 71, 72, and 76 through 78 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Yamazaki '959 and Wolk;",
+    "2. Claims 38 through 41, 45 through 49, 53 through 58, 62 through 67, 71, 74, and 76 through 78 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Y Yamazaki *256, Wolk and Yamazaki '959;",
+    "3. Claims 39, 41, 47, 49, 56, 58, 65, and 67 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Yamazaki *256, Wolk, Yamazaki '959, and Yamazaki *125;",
+    "4. Claim 75 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Yamazaki *959, Wolk and the admitted prior art;",
+    "5. Claim 75 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Yamazaki *256, Wolk, Yamazaki '959, and the admitted prior art; and",
+    "6. Claims 38 through 41, 45 through 49, 53 through 58, 62 through 67, 71, 72, and 74 through 78 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as provisionally unpatentable over the claims of copending Application 11/312,547 in view of Yamazaki '959 as explained by Wolk.",
+    "As found by the Examiner at pages 4 and 6 of the Answer, Yamazaki '959 or *256 discloses forming an insulating layer comprising a tapered edge having a thickness of 500 nm or 300 nm over a pixel electrode on a substrate in such a manner to expose a portion of the pixel electrode to form a channel and forming an organic electroluminescent (EL) layer on the exposed portion of the pixel electrode during the fabrication of an EL device.",
+    "Recognizing that Y Yamazaki '959 and *256 do not disclose a particularly arranged insulating layer having a thickness of less than or equal to 200 nm, the Examiner relies on the tapered portion of the particularly arranged insulating layer taught Yamazaki '959 or *256 to meet the required thickness. (See Ans. 14-15.)",
+    "Alternatively, the Examiner relies on Yamazaki '125 to provide a reason or suggestion to employ the claimed thickness for the particular positioned insulating layer of the EL device of the type taught by Yamazaki '959 or *256. (See Ans. 8 and16-17.)",
+    "The Examiner does not rely on Wolk to provide a reason or suggestion to employ the claimed thickness for the particularly positioned insulating layer of Yamazaki '959 and '256. (See Ans. 3-19.)"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Thus, the dispositive question is: Has the Examiner erred in determining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been 1ed to employ the LITI method taught by Wolk in forming the thin EL layer of the electroluminescent (EL) device taught by Yamazaki '959 or *256?",
+    "On this record, we answer this question in the negative.",
+    "As correctly found by the Examiner at pages 4 and 6 of the Answer, Y Yamazaki '959 or *256 broadly teaches or implies that its EL layer can be formed by any conventional thin film forming methods useful for forming thin layers in EL devices. (See Yamazaki *959, para. 0160 and Yamazaki *256, para. 0005.)",
+    "Although Yamazaki '959 or *256 does not specifically mention employing the LITI method for forming its EL layer, Wolk teaches that the LITI method is an operable method of forming a thin EL film as indicated supra.",
+    "We find that Wolk teaches that its LITI method can be substituted for conventional methods for forming and patterning one or more layers on a substrate sequentially or simultaneously, including the use of a mask and etching to form a desired thin layer pattern in an EL device. (See Wolk, col. 1, 11. 15-65.)",
+    "Given the above teachings, we concur with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ the LITI method taught by Wolk in forming the thin EL layer pattern on the electroluminescent (EL) device taught by Yamazaki '959 or *256 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. & 103(a).",
+    "Cf, e.g., KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (stating that *if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill\").",
+    "In reaching this determination, we have carefully considered Appellants' arguments at pages 9-11 of the Appeal Brief and pages 5-8 of the Reply Brief directed to Yamazaki's s disclosure of vacuum evaporation, spin coating, dipping, and ink jet printing as some of the conventional thin film forming methods useful for forming its thin EL film. (See, e.g., Yamazaki '959, para. 0160.)",
+    "However, we are remain unpersuaded that the collective teachings of Yamazaki '959 or *256 and Wolk would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed invention.",
+    "As indicated supra, Yamazaki '959 or *256 is not limited to its examples.",
+    "In re Fracalossi, 691 F.2d 792, 794 n.1 (CCPA 1982) (A prior art reference's s disclosure is not limited to its examples.); In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966) (All of the disclosures in a prior art reference \"must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. \").",
+    "More importantly, as explained in the Answer and above, the collective teachings of Y Yamazaki '959 or *256 and Wolk, as a whole, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 5 103.",
+    "In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (The test for obviousness *is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. .\")",
+    "Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner' s decision rejecting claims 38, 40, 45, 46, 48, 53 through 55, 57, 62 through 64, 66, 71, 72, 74, and 76 through 78 under 35 U.S.C. $103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Yamazaki '959 and Wolk and the combined disclosures of Yamazaki *256, Wolk, and Yamazaki '959.",
+    "Thus, the dispositive question raised by the Examiner and Appellants is: Has the Examiner erred in determining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ the thickness recited in claims 39, 41, 47, 49, 56, 58, 65, and 67 for the particularly arranged insulating layer of the EL device of the type taught by Yamazaki '959 or *256?",
+    "On this record, we answer this question in the affirmative.",
+    "As is apparent from reading dependent claims 39, 41, 47, 49, 56, 58, 65, and 67, the thickness of the particularly arranged insulating layer recited in claims 38, 46, 54, and 63 and their intervening claims are limited to less than 200 nm or to around or between 100 nm and 200 nm.",
+    "The plain language of the claim, as well as the Specification, indicates that the thickness of this particularly arranged insulating layer means the thickness of the entire insulating layer (measured from the planarized layer). (See Spec. 6-8, 11-12, 14, and 16, paras. 0030, 0037, 0044, 0059, 0067, 0078, and 0094, together with Figs. 3-6 and 7B.)",
+    "In this light, interpreting the claimed thickness of this particularly arranged insulating layer as the thickness of a portion of the tapered section thereof is unreasonable and not consistent with the Specification.",
+    "Phillips V. A AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (\"The Specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.\") \")",
+    "Yamazaki '959 and *256, relied upon by the Examiner, also do not identify a tapered portion of their particularly arranged insulating layer as representative of the thickness of the entire layer.",
+    "Yamazaki '959 and *256, like the Specification, describe their particularly arranged insulation layers comprising tapered portions made of a silicon oxide film as having certain thicknesses. (See Yamazaki '959, para. 0107 and Yamazaki *256, para. 0035.)",
+    "However, neither Yamazaki '959 nor Yamazaki *256 teaches that such thicknesses are less than 200 nm or at or between 100 nm and 200 nm.",
+    "Rather, Yamazaki '959 and *256 describe their particularly arranged insulating layers as having thicknesses of 500 nm and 300 nm, respectively.",
+    "Although the Examiner alternatively relies on the disclosure of Yamazaki '125 to remedy the above deficiency, the Examiner has not demonstrated that it provides any reason or suggestion to use the claimed thickness for the particularly arranged insulating layer of the EL device of the type taught by Yamazaki '959 and *256 as modified by Wolk. (See Ans. 8 and16-17.)",
+    "As correctly argued by Appellants at pages 13-14 of the Appeal Brief and pages 9-11 of the Reply Brief, Yamazaki *125, at paragraph 0101, teaches employing a filling-up material and a supporting bank made of an acrylic film having the claimed thickness, together with an appropriately charged controlling bank made of a metal film surrounding the edge portion of a pixel electrode, to form an EL device structurally different from those taught by Yamazaki '959 and *256.",
+    "The use of the combination of the filling material, supporting bank and controlling bank structures in the EL device taught by Yamazaki *125 is to employ a method different from those suggested by the collective teachings of Yamazaki '959 and/or *256 and Wolk. (Compare Yamazaki *125, p. 7, paras. 0100-0101 and p.3, paras. 0046 and 0047 with Yamazaki '959, para. 0107, Yamazaki *256, para. 0035 and Wolk, col. 1, 11. 15-65.)",
+    "Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not adequately explained why the thickness of the filling material and supporting bank made of an acrylic film of the EL device taught by Yamazaki *125, which is to be used together with an appropriately charged controlling bank made of a metal film, is applicable to the formation of the particularly arranged insulating layer in the different method suggested by Yamazaki '959 and/or *256 and Wolk for fabricating an EL device structurally different from that taught by Yamazaki *125.",
+    "Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 39, 41, 47, 49, 56, 58, 65, and 67 under 35 U.S.C. 8103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Yamazaki '959 and Wolk, the combined disclosures of Yamazaki *256, Wolk, and Yamazaki '959, and the combined disclosures of Yamazaki *256, Wolk, Yamazaki '959, and Yamazaki *125.",
+    "Thus, based on the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we affirm the Examiner'. decision rejecting claim 75 under 35 U.S.C. $103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Yamazaki '959, Wolk and the admitted prior art, and the combined disclosures of Yamazaki *256, Wolk, Yamazaki '959, and the admitted prior art.",
+    "Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner's decision provisionally rejecting claims 38 through 41, 45 through 49, 53 through 58, 62 through 67, 71, 72, and 74 through 78 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1 through 11 of copending Application 11/312,547 in view of Yamazaki '959 and Wolk,"
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010002236_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants contend that None of the cited prior art uses pollen from a T/Ro plant transformed with a pharmaceutically active protein to produce protein on a hybrid corn plant.",
+    "The use of pollen to fertilize a hybrid com plant is not part of a breeding effort.",
+    "This is not inbreeding, crossbreeding or crossing.",
+    "In fact, it is antithetical to a breeding program.",
+    "The grain of the hybrid corn plant is grown for use, not as breeding stock, but for producing protein where the isolation process results in the destruction of such grain. (App. Br. 5, footnote omitted.)",
+    "Specifically, Appellants contend that (1) Zhong explicitly disclosed that the To plant was crossed as a female to the untransformed Pioneer inbred, not with pollen as claimed (id. at 7); and (2) Hood did not teach the use of pollen produced by the R, plant (id. at 15).",
+    "As Pixley was not relied upon to supply those deficiencies, Appellants contend the rejections should be reversed."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner'. s position is that Zhong taught producing a pharmaceutically active protein in maize by obtaining a fertile transformed R0 corn plant, crossing to a Pioneer inbred with pollen from the R, corn plant, \"harvesting grain from said plants, and isolating protein from said grain.\" (Ans. 3-4.)",
+    "The Examiner found that Zhong did \"not teach the use of a first set of hybrid corn plants to isolate a pharmaceutically active protein.\" (Id. at 4.)",
+    "Because Pixley taught \"there is no difference in corn plants produced by a single cross (as taught by Zhong et al) and a three-way cross, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that \"corn plants, not limited to a first set of hybrid corn plants, could be used in the method.\" (Id.)",
+    "The Examiner': s findings and conclusion regarding Hood and Pixley were similar. (Id. at 5-7.)"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "After reviewing the Zhong and Hood disclosures, we agree with Appellants that the evidence does not support finding that either reference described step b), \"cross-pollinating a first set of hybrid corn plants with pollen produced by said Ro corn plant.\"",
+    "The Pixley reference did not supply that deficiency.",
+    "Because the rejections did not account for that feature of the invention, we reverse them."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010002547_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Barry and Hintz (App. Br. 7-8).",
+    "Specifically, Appellant argues Barry does not mention load operations of a tablespace in which original data of a table is replaced by replacement data, new data is resumed with existing data of a table, and existing data in one table is not modified when replacing/resuming data of another table as claimed (App. Br. 7).",
+    "Instead, according to Appellant, Barry's process performs unload and load operations in multiple passes through the data, which the present invention seeks to avoid (App. Br. 8).",
+    "Appellant then contends Hintz fails to teach or suggest the missing teachings as Hintz reads data from a tablespace so the information can be sorted and examined, and Hintz does not mention a load operation loading data in a tablespace (id.).",
+    "In addition, Appellant asserts no motivation exists to combine Barry and Hintz (id.).",
+    "Specifically, Appellant argues Barry explicitly avoids using a sort technique and Hintz explicitly uses a sort routine on data read (id.).",
+    "Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Barry and Hintz because Barry does not teach or suggest reclaiming segments directly in a tablespace by reading one or more spacemap pages in that tablespace; instead, Barry writes table data to a buffer skipping empty pages, renames row IDs, makes new spacemap pages, and then writes the table data in order into a new table file allocated for that purpose (App. Br. 9).",
+    "Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Barry and Hintz because Barry does not teach or suggest adding segments at the end of an existing segmented tablespace and instead just reads data from a file to a buffer, opens a new file, and writes the data in a new order into that new file (App. Br. 10)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 1-55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barry and Hintz.",
+    "In addition, the Examiner has set forth a motivation as to why an ordinary artisan would have combined the technique of Hintz into the system of Barry (Ans. 4).",
+    "First, the Examiner is not relying upon Hintz for its sorting operation, but instead relies upon Hintz as teaching or suggesting acts performed in a single pass."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 1. A relational database load operation for a segmented tablespace of a DB2 database environment, the segmented tablespace having a plurality of tables, the load operation comprising: replacing a first table with replacement data; maintaining original data of a second table without resuming or replacing the original data; and resuming the second table with resumed data, wherein the acts of replacing, maintaining, and resuming are performed in a single pass through the segmented tablespace.",
+    "Barry US 5,887,274 Mar. 23, 1999",
+    "Hintz US 6,163,783 Dec. 19, 2000",
+    "Based upon Appellant's s arguments, we select representative claim 1 to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1, 9, 17, 26, 35, 45, and 55. (See App. Br. 6-8 and 10-15).",
+    "Based upon Appellant's arguments, we select representative claim 2 to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 2-6, 10-14, 18-23, 27-32, 36-41, and 46-51. (See App. Br. 9, 12, 15, and 16).",
+    "Based upon Appellant's arguments, we select representative claims 7 and 8 to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 24, 25, 33, 34, 42-44, and 52-54. (See App. Br. 10, 13, and 16).",
+    "We accept Appellant's grouping of the claims.",
+    "We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs.",
+    "Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. \u25cf 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2009).",
+    "35 U.S.C. 5 103(a): claims 1, 9, 17, 26, 35, 45, and 55",
+    "Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Barry and Hintz would have taught or suggested the invention as recited in claim 1?",
+    "We agree with the Examiner' is findings and conclusions (Ans. 3-4 and 23-24).",
+    "Initially we emphasize the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.",
+    "In light of these interpretations, we agree with the Examiner that Barry teaches or suggests \"replacing a first table with replacement data; maintaining original data of a second table without resuming or replacing the original data; and resuming the second table with resumed data\" (Ans. 3-4, 8-7, 10, 13, 16-17, 19-20, and 23-28).",
+    "We additionally highlight that it is apparent from the Examiner's s line of reasoning in the Answer that the basis for the obviousness rejection is the combination of Barry and Hintz.",
+    "Appellant argues Barry's process performs unload and load operations in multiple passes; however, the Examiner is relying upon Hintz as teaching or suggesting the acts are performed in a single pass (Ans. 4 and 23-24).",
+    "Similarly, while Appellant argues Hintz does not teach or suggest a load operation loading data in a tablespace, the Examiner is relying on Barry as teaching or suggesting the loading operation loading data (Ans. 4-5 and 23-24).",
+    "One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).",
+    "Appellant has not set forth any persuasive evidence or argument that Barry does not teach or suggest the limitations found by the Examiner or that Hintz does not teach or suggest performing functions in a single pass.",
+    "It follows, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Barry and Hintz teaches or suggests the present invention as recited in claim 1.",
+    "Although Appellant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the technique of Hintz into the system of Barry (App. Br. 8, 11, 12, and 15), this argument is similarly unpersuasive.",
+    "Therefore, Appellant's argument that Hintz teaches away from Barry is unpersuasive.",
+    "Moreover, even if we were to consider Appellant's s argument, although Barry teaches or suggests reorganizing database data and index files into key order without utilizing conventional sorting procedures (col. 1, 11. 14-20), Appellant has not shown that Hintz uses \"a conventional sorting procedure.'",
+    "As a result, Appellant has not presented any persuasive argument or evidence to show error in the Examiner's s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of Hintz into the system of Barry.",
+    "Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Barry and Hintz would have taught or suggested the invention as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 9. 17, 26, 35, 45, and 55 and concluding one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of Hintz into the system of Barry.",
+    "Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 9. 17, 26, 35, 45, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) for obviousness over Barry and Hintz.",
+    "35 U.S.C. $ 103(a): claims 2-6, 10-14, 18-23, 27-32, 36-41, and 46-51",
+    "Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of Barry and Hintz would have taught or suggested the invention as recited in claim 22",
+    "Initially we note Appellant has not explicitly defined \"reclaimable\" in the Specification.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner's s findings and conclusions and emphasize that Barry teaches free space maps and free pages that are then used - are reclaimed (Ans. 4, 5, 8-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, and 28).",
+    "Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Barry and Hintz would have taught or suggested the invention as recited in claim 2.",
+    "Claims 3-6, 10-14, 18-23, 27-32, 36-41, and 46-51 fall with claim 2.",
+    "Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2-6, 10-14, 18-23, 27-32, 36-41, and 46-51 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) for obviousness over Barry and Hintz.",
+    "35 U.S.C. $ 103(a): claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 24, 25, 33, 34, 42-44, and 52-54",
+    "Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of Barry and Hintz would have taught or suggested \"loading any remaining replacement data\" and \"loading the resumed data\" *into one or more new segments added after an existing end of the segmented tablespace\" as recited in claims 7 and 8?",
+    "We agree with the Examiner's s findings and conclusions (Ans. 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, and 28).",
+    "We further highlight that the Examiner finds Barry teaches an area set up for a buffer having one column with slots for each row and additional slots for each place (Ans. 25, 27, and 28).",
+    "Appellant has not presented any persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's s finding that this is one or more new segments added after an existing end of a segmented tablespace.",
+    "Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Barry and Hintz would have taught or suggested the invention as recited in claims 7 and 8.",
+    "Claims 15, 16, 24, 25, 33, 34, 42-44, and 52-54 fall with claims 7 and 8.",
+    "Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 24, 25, 33, 34, 42-44, and 52-54 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) for obviousness over Barry and Hintz."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010003314_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "The method includes receiving a data packet having data and associating the data with a software application executing on a first device and generating display information for use by a second device. App. Br. 10-11.",
+    "The first and second devices perform wireless transmission to one another through a wireless router using first and second wireless protocols. App. Br. 11.",
+    "1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 8102(e) as anticipated by Lincke because it does not disclose a first device (e.g., web server) that is capable of wireless communications with a second device (e.g., wireless device) or that a wireless communication link is provided between the wireless router (e.g., proxy server) and the first device (web server). App. Br. 30-32.",
+    "2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. 8102(e) on the basis that Lincke does not disclose amplifying a packet. App. Br. 33.",
+    "3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 46 under 35 U.S.C. $102(e) on the basis that Lincke does not disclose a device detecting that the received wireless transmission is adequately strong to reach a known destination. App. Br. 34-35.",
+    "4. Appellants contend that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. $103(a) because *the combination of Gershman and Jones (and additional combination with Dolan) is conclusory, and no articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the combination has been provided.\" (Emphasis in the original) App. Br. 48, 53-54,",
+    "5. Appellants also contend that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. $103(a) because the combination of Gershman and Jones and Dolan fails to disclose using two different wireless protocols. App. Br. 54-57.",
+    "6. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 45 35 U.S.C. 8103(a) on the basis that Jones does not disclose amplifying a packet. App. Br. 58-60.",
+    "7. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 46 35 U.S.C. $103(a) on the basis that Jones does not disclose a device detecting that the received wireless transmission is adequately strong to reach a known destination. App. Br. 60-61."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1-22, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 45 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. $102(e) as being anticipated by Lincke (U.S. 6,397,259 BI, May 28, 2002).",
+    "The Examiner further rejected claims 1-22, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 45 and 46 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 8103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Gershman (U.S. 6,356,905 B1, Mar, 2002) in view of Jones (U.S. 6,108,314, Aug. 22, 2000).2",
+    "As pointed out by the Examiner, Gershman and Jones both address computer communication networks including wireless connectivity of mobile devices. Ans. 4."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. & 6(b).",
+    "We affirm-in-part.",
+    "ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.",
+    "We disagree with Appellants' conclusions in connection with all but the rejection of claim 46 under 35 U.S.C. $103(a).",
+    "In connection with contention 1, we agree with Appellants.",
+    "With reference to Fig. 1 of Lincke, if the claimed wireless router and first and second devices correspond to Proxy Server 180, Web Server 140 and Wireless Communications Device 100 of Lincke, then the reference fails to disclose the claimed first wireless communication link between the wireless router and the first device.",
+    "We therefore conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim I under 35 U.S.C. $102(e).3",
+    "As independent claims 33, 36, 37 and 40 include similar language, the rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. $102(e) is also improper.",
+    "Since we find error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. $102(e), we need not address contentions 2 and 3 in connection with claims 45 and 46 which depend from claim 1.",
+    "Addressing contention 4, we disagree with Appellants.",
+    "We find no error in the Examiner's analysis.",
+    "We additionally find that incorporating the wireless routers of Jones into the network of Gershman provides results that would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.",
+    "\"If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.\" KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).",
+    "The test of non-obviousness is not whether one reference can be bodily inserted into another, but, rather, what the references, when considered together, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981), who is a person of ordinary creativity and not an automaton, KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, and whose inferences and creative steps we may consider, id. at 418.",
+    "In connection with contention 5, we find that the claims do not require that the first wireless protocol be different from the second wireless protocol.",
+    "Accordingly, we need not decide whether the combination of Gershman and Jones (and Dolan) discloses using two different wireless protocols.",
+    "In connection with contention 6, we agree with Appellants that Jones does not explicitly disclose that the packets are amplified in hac verba.",
+    "However, we find that amplification of the packets is an inherent feature of the devices detailed in the cited portion of Jones.",
+    "As such, we find no merit with this contention of error.",
+    "Finally, in connection with contention 7, we agree with Appellants that the portion of Jones cited by the Examiner in rejecting claim 46 does not disclose detecting that a wireless transmission received from a first device is adequately strong to reach a second device and not amplifying the transmission before transmitting it to the second device.",
+    "Accordingly, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 46 under 35 U.S.C. $103(a)."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010003520_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend that the Examiner has relied upon paragraphs [0034] and [0035] of the Peterson reference regarding transverse distortion in which the width of the data track changes as well as the spacing between the data tracks.",
+    "Appellants contend that transverse distortion of a tape is different from identifying a built-in error of the storage medium that comprises noise written into the servo track during a servo write operation as required by independent claim 1. (Reply Brief 1-2).",
+    "Appellants maintain that the relied upon portions of the Peterson reference referred to determining the transverse distortion and using the measure of transverse distortion to determine which data read elements to use in reading a data track. (App. Br. 6)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Peterson US Pat. App. Pub. No.: 2002/0163752 AI Nov. 7, 2002",
+    "Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 16, 18-22, and 26-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C $102(b) as being anticipated by Peterson.",
+    "The Examiner relies upon pages 2-3 of Appellants' Specification which provides a definition of \"built-in error\" which allows \"transverse distortion\" to fall within the scope of \"built-in error. \" (Ans. 5; see also Reply Br. 2).",
+    "In the statement of the rejection, the Examiner relies upon a mere statement of \"noise\" and \"signal-to-noise\" in paragraph [0035] of the Peterson reference for \"identifying a built-in error, such as lateral or traverse movement of the tape (abstract), tenting of the tape and noise with reading of the signals, paragraph [0035].\" (Ans. 3)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. 6 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 16, 18-22, and 26-30.",
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b).",
+    "We affirm-in-part.",
+    "The claims are directed to identifying error built into a medium.",
+    "Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: measuring position signals by at least two spaced apart servo read elements that read servo information on a servo track of a storage medium; determining a difference of the position signals; identifying built-in error of the storage medium associated with the servo track of the storage medium based on the difference, wherein the built-in error comprises noise written into the servo track during a servo write operation; and identifying measurement noise associated with reading the servo data.",
+    "We disagree with the Examiner's reliance upon the definition of \"built-in error\" which allows \"transverse distortion\" to fall within the scope of the claim terminology.",
+    "Clearly, the claim further limits \"built-in error\" to be limited to \"wherein the built-in error comprises noise written into the servo track during a servo write operation\" and to not encompass transverse distortion.",
+    "Therefore, the Examiner's showing of \"transverse distortion\" in the teaching of the Peterson reference is not relevant to the claimed \"the built-in error comprises noise written into the servo track during a servo write operation.\" \"",
+    "Peterson states in paragraph [0035] that \"[sjimilarly, the quality of signals produced by read elements 48, such as may be caused by tenting of tape 24, noise, debris on tape 24, and the like, may be precharacterized and stored in memory 68.\"",
+    "We agree with Appellants.",
+    "While we agree with the Examiner that paragraph [0034] appears to indicate that \"tape system 20 determines a measure of the transverse distortion based on reading at least one servo track 30,\" Peterson does not expressly describe that the \"built-in error comprises noise written into the servo track during a servo write operation\" as recited in independent claim 1.",
+    "Additionally, we agree with Examiner that paragraph [0040] appears to describe that \"[t]he amount of tape azimuth may be determined by several methods. One method employs at least one servo track 30 and corresponding servo read elements 50 accessing servo track 30. Typically, one servo read element 50 from each module 38, 40 is used for each servo track 30 read, \" but Peterson does not expressly describe that the \"built-in error comprises noise written into the servo track during a servo write operation\" as recited in independent claim 1.",
+    "Therefore, we cannot agree with the Examiner that Peterson necessarily describes the invention as recited in independent claim 1.",
+    "Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 5, and 10.",
+    "With respect to independent claim 16. Appellants' rely upon the similar arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1, but independent claim 16 does not similarly recite a limitation regarding noise written into the servo track during a servo write operation upon which Appellants' rely to distinguish over the Examiner's showing in Peterson of transverse distortion being a built-in error.",
+    "Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive with respect to independent claim 16. (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3).",
+    "We agree with the Examiner that the Peterson reference describes built-in error based on transverse distortion and the amount of tape azimuth or tilt from at least one servo track. (Peterson paragraphs [0034] and [0040]).",
+    "Therefore, Appellants' arguments do not show error in the Examiner's showing of anticipation of independent claim 16.",
+    "With respect to independent claim 18, we find limitations similar to independent claim 1 which we found the Examiner's showing of anticipation to be deficient.",
+    "Therefore, we similarly cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 18 and dependent claims 19-22, 26, and 27.",
+    "With respect to independent claim 28, we find the limitations similar to independent claim 16 which we found Appellants' arguments to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's showing of anticipation.",
+    "Therefore, we similarly sustain the rejection of independent claim 28 and dependent claims 29 and 30.",
+    "The Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 18 based upon anticipation.",
+    "The Examiner did not err in rejecting independent claims 16 and 28 based upon anticipation."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010004095_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant asserts that the Examiner* s position is that Lattner's controller \"must be reprogrammed, or reconfigured, in some way before it can carry out the recited function of the claimed structure.' (App. Br. 6.)",
+    "Appellant asserts that *once reprogrammed as the Examiner proposes, Lattner's controller 36 would become a different structure.\" (Id. at 5)(citing In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1398-1400 (CCPA 1969) and WMS Gaming V. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).",
+    "According to Appellant, \"reprogramming a processor does indeed result in a change of structure.\" (Id. at 6.)",
+    "Regarding claims 8 and 18, Appellant further asserts that while Lattner disclosed some embodiments of its invention may use a sensor to provide a variety of signals to the controller, \"there is no indication that, in response to a non-stationary signal detected by such a sensor, the controller will cause an actuator to mechanically stimulate the vestibular signal in a way that causes the generation of a stationary nerve signal.\" (App. Br. 8.)",
+    "According to Appellant, Lattner only discloses one system that mechanically stimulates the vestibular system, which embodiment is not depicted or described as using a sensor. (Id.)(citing Lattner Fig. 8 and col. 19, 1. 62; col. 7, 11. 24-27.)",
+    "Appellant asserts that it is not enough that Lattner disclosed the individual pieces of the invention, when those pieces are not arranged as recited in claims. (Id. at 9.)",
+    "Regarding claims 9 and 19, Appellant further asserts that while Lattner disclosed that pressure cuffs 88, 92 stimulate a signal on the nerve, there is no disclosure that this signal is either a pulse train or sinusoidal signal, as required by the claims. (Id.)",
+    "Regarding claim 12, Appellant further asserts that Lattner's s pressure cuffs, 88, 92 do not displace the semi-circular canal of the vestibular system, as recited by the claim. (Id. at 10.)",
+    "According to Appellant, inwardly directed radial force applied by each cuff would result in \"no net force for displacing the canal.\" (Id.)",
+    "Moreover, Appellant asserts that structure 90 is made of bone and a skilled artisan would \"have understood that bone does not deform when one applies an inwardly radial force, such as that applied by cuffs 88, 92.\" (Reply Br. 4.)",
+    "Regarding claims 5 and 16, Appellant further asserts that \"[the Examiner's position is that Lattner's pressure cuffs in FIG. 8 are balloons and that balloons are elastic. \" (App. Br. 11.)",
+    "According to Appellant, \"there are many examples of balloons made of inelastic materials.",
+    "For example, Mylar balloons do not comprise an elastic membrane.\" (Id.)",
+    "Appellant does not raise separate arguments for the obviousness rejection of claims 3, 4, 14, and 15, but instead relies on the arguments set forth in connection with the anticipation rejection of the parent claims. (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 5.)",
+    "Regarding independent claim 1, Appellant asserts that the Examiner* s rejection requires Lattner's controller to be *reprogrammed, or reconfigured.\" (See App. Br. 6.)",
+    "With respect to claim 9, Appellant asserts in the Reply Brief that *[s]timulation with a constant pulse rate will not cause a rocking sensation. \" (Reply Br. 1.)",
+    "According to Appellant, when the pulse repetition frequency (PRF) is constant, the brain perceives no motion.",
+    "It is only by varying the PRF that the brain can be made to perceive motion,\" i.e., a rocking sensation. (Id.)",
+    "Appellant asserts that Lattner' s disclosure of producing a rocking sensation *says nothing about applying a stationary signal to the vestibular nerve. +, (Id. at 2.)",
+    "According to Appellant, Lattner's procedure *is guaranteed to apply a non-stationary signal to the vestibular nerve. . (Id.)",
+    "Further, regarding claims 9 and 19, Appellant asserts that Lattner did not disclose a stationary signal including either a pulse train or sinusoidal signal, as required by the claims. (App. Br. 9.)",
+    "In the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts that \"signal 159 is a square wave, not a pulse train.\" (Reply Br. 2.)",
+    "Additionally, Appellant asserts that \"[a]s for the sinusoidal signal 158, it is not possible to determine whether that signal is stationary or non-stationary because only one complete period of the signal is shown.\" \" (Id. at 3.)",
+    "Regarding claims 8 and 18, Appellant asserts that Lattner did not disclose using a sensor with its system that mechanically stimulates the vestibular system because, with respect to Figure 8, a sensor is not depicted or described. (See App. Br. 8.)",
+    "In the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts that Lattner did not describe whether its sleep sensor detects a non-stationary signal. (Reply Br. 3.)",
+    "Also in the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts that \"[w]hen the sleep sensor detects the patient is awake, it causes the controller to stop causing a rocking sensation,\" rather than acting \"as a trigger that causes stimulation. \" (Reply Br. 4)",
+    "Regarding claim 12, Appellant asserts that Lattner' s pressure cuffs, 88, 92 do not displace the semi-circular canal of the vestibular system. (App. Br. 10.)",
+    "According to Appellant, inwardly directed radial force applied by each cuff on the canal, as with a blood pressure cuff on an arm, would result in \"no net force for displacing the canal.\" (Id.)",
+    "Appellant also asserts that structure 90 is made of bone and a skilled artisan would \"have understood that bone does not deform when one applies an inwardly radial force, such as that applied by cuffs 88, 92.\" (Reply Br. 4.)",
+    "Regarding claims 5 and 16, Appellant asserts that \"[the Examiner's position is that Lattner's pressure cuffs in FIG. 8 are balloons and that balloons are elastic.\" (App. Br. 11.)",
+    "According to Appellant, \"there are many examples of balloons made of inelastic materials. For example, Mylar balloons do not comprise an elastic membrane.\" (Id.)"
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    ". claims 1, 2, 5-13, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. $102(e) as anticipated by Lattner;",
+    ". claims 3, 4,3 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over Lattner and Zarowski.\"",
+    "For both the anticipation and obviousness rejections, the Examiner* s position is that Lattner taught an apparatus and method for stimulating the vestibular system. (Ans. 3.)",
+    "The Examiner found that Lattner disclosed an actuator to mechanically stimulate the vestibular system and a control module electrically coupled to the actuator that provides a control signal that causes the actuator to stimulate the generation of a stationary nerve signal by the vestibular system. (Id.)",
+    "The Examiner also found that Lattner taught that the control module may be configured to generate the control signal in response to a non-stationary signal detected by a sensor. (Id.)",
+    "Additionally, the Examiner found that Lattner disclosed that the actuator may comprise either a balloon, which the Examiner interpreted as an \"elastic membrane being configured to expand,\" or a pressure cuff for carrying an inflating fluid. (Id.)",
+    "Rather, the Examiner found that Lattner' s controller, i.e., control module, is configured to provide a control signal that causes the actuator to stimulate the generation of a stationary nerve signal by the vestibular system. (Ans. 3, 4.)",
+    "According to the Examiner, the Specification describes that \"a stationary nerve signal can be generated in the vestibular system by stimulating the vestibular system with a control signal having a constant frequency and amplitude (Page 5, lines 8 \u00b7 12).\" (Id. at 5.)",
+    "The Examiner explained that Lattner disclosed that \"its controller is configured to provide a control signal with any timing, level, pattern, and/or frequency to achieve a desired physiological function (See Abstract; Col. 7, lines 20-24).\" (Ans. 4-5.)",
+    "In particular the Examiner's s position is that Lattner disclosed that its control module (36) is capable of delivering a control signal to the actuator with a constant frequency and amplitude, i.e., level, that includes a constant pulse rate. (Id.)",
+    "According to the Examiner, \"[w ]hen creating a rocking sensation. \u00b7\u00b7 the control module causes the actuator to stimulate the vestibular system at a constant pulse rate.\" (Id.)",
+    "In the Response to Argument, the Examiner explained that Lattner disclosed \"the controller being capable of creating a constant pulse rate (159) and a sinusoidal signal (158).\" (Ans. 5.)"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Therefore, we consider the anticipation and obviousness rejections together.",
+    "1. We agree with the Examiner's s explicit findings regarding the scope and content of Lattner. (Ans. 3-5.)",
+    "After considering all the evidence and arguments, we conclude that the record supports the Examiner': s findings and conclusions.",
+    "However, the record does not support this assertion.",
+    "We find that the Examiner' s reasoning is sound and supported by the record evidence.",
+    "We are not persuaded by this argument.",
+    "As the Examiner correctly explained, Lattner disclosed inducing a rocking sensation by alternatively actuating first and second stimulation elements 88 and 92. (FF-2.)",
+    "The Examiner provided sound reasoning for finding that when this frequency is constant, it causes the vestibular system to generate a stationary signal. (See Ans. 5)(citing Spec. 20.)",
+    "Appellant has not established otherwise with persuasive evidence.",
+    "We are not persuaded that Lattner's s sinusoidal signal was not a stationary signal as we have previously found that the Examiner provided sound reasoning for finding that Lattner' s controller provides a control signal that causes the generation of a stationary nerve signal.",
+    "As the Examiner correctly explained, when discussing the embodiment depicted in Figure 8, Lattner disclosed using any one of the variety of known techniques, e.g., a sensor, to detect when the patient is asleep. (Ans. 5)(citing Lattner col. 20, 1. 61- col. 21, 1. 26); (FF-6.)",
+    "We disagree.",
+    "In other words, Lattner disclosed using a sensor that detects a non-stationary signal, as the Examiner found. (Ans. 3.)",
+    "We do not find this disclosure in Lattner.",
+    "Thus, Lattner' s sleep sensor acted as a trigger that caused stimulation, contrary to Appellant's s assertion.",
+    "We disagree as Lattner does not disclose that a \"net force\" results from pressure applied by its cuffs.",
+    "However, claim 12 does not recite or otherwise require deforming the semi-circular canal, rather it requires displacing it.",
+    "We are not persuaded by this argument.",
+    "The Examiner correctly found that Lattner disclosed that its mechanical stimulation device, i.e., actuator, may be an inflatable balloon or pressure cuff. (Ans. 3; Lattner col. 8, 11. 31-40.)",
+    "While Appellant asserts that not all balloons are made of elastic material, we find that a skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have understood Lattner's s disclosure of inflatable balloons necessarily included balloons comprising an elastic membrane, as inflatable balloons were commonly known to comprise such material.",
+    "Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner' s rejection of claims 1-7, 9-17, 19 and 20, and we reverse the rejection of claims 8 and 18.",
+    "Lattner disclosed the claimed invention."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010004124_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants present arguments addressing the cited references individually contending that certain references fail to disclose certain limitations when, in fact, the reference argued was not relied on by the Examiner for that particular teaching (App. Br. 13, 14, Reply Br. 13, 14).",
+    "For example, Appellants contend that Sladky's \"housing 4 is not a chamber and does not function like a vapour chamber\" when Sladky's housing 4 was not relied upon by the Examiner for teaching a vapour chamber (Ans. 6).",
+    "Appellants also contend that Beaton's funnel 23 (i.e. restriction part) *is separate from the sleeve 21\" and therefore \"funnel 23 is not connected to the sleeve 21 as required by the claim\" (App. Br. 14, Reply Br. 14).",
+    "Appellants explain that these two chambers are threaded together via a collar and do not form a single unitary structure (Spec. 20:24-30, see also 21:22-24 (\"This is achieved by unscrewing the collar 22 and removing the vapour chamber from the bait chamber\")).",
+    "Hence, Appellants usage of this term encompasses a joining of separable components.",
+    "Appellants also \"traverses the assertion that Sladky discloses a diaphragm\" because there *is no indication that the opening 8 or any portion of the cover 3 function as a diaphragm\" (App. Br. 13, Reply Br. 13).",
+    "Appellants address Rorant's diaphragm stating that it is \"pure speculation as to the shape of the Rorant diaphragm during use\" (App. Br. 15, Reply Br. 15).",
+    "Regarding the Examiner's s alternative domed teaching of Burki, Appellants contend that the *opening direction of the Burki diaphragm is completely opposite the opening direction of Appellant's diaphragm\" (App. Br. 15, Reply Br. 15).",
+    "Appellants also state that \"Burki is not directed to a wasp trap or to any kind of insect trap\" and hence there is no reason one skilled in the art would \"turn to the diaphragm of Burki when faced with the problem of designing a diaphragm to more easily open toward the interior of the collection chamber\" (App. Br. 15, Reply Br. 15).",
+    "Appellants contend that this opaque material serves the purpose of delaying passage of the wasps into the collection chamber because wasps \"have a natural tendency to fly towards light\" (i.e., away from the opaque material) (App. Br. 16, Reply Br. 16, Spec. 7:29-30).",
+    "Further, once in the collection chamber, this opaque exit helps retain the wasps in the collection chamber by *encouraging wasps to fly away from the exit\" (App. Br. 16, Reply Br. 16, both referencing Spec 7:29 to 8:10).",
+    "Appellants' Specification explains the desire to keep wasps flying in the vapour chamber, rather than quickly funneling them to the collection chamber because \"[w]asps from different nests become distressed when in close proximity and release chemical messngers [sic.] to both warn and call more wasps for assistance\" (Spec. 3:23-26).",
+    "Consequently, there is a desire to have the wasps fly for as long as possible in the vapour chamber thereby attracting more wasps due to their emission of distress pheromones *until they tire and fall into the funnel\" and hence into the collection chamber (Spec. 21:8-11).",
+    "Appellants initially contend that there is \"no disclosure that the ring 12 is rotatably mounted on conduit 10\" (i.e. the vapour chamber) since Dowd's \"ring 12 could be non-rotatably fixed on conduit 10\" (App. Br. 17, Reply Br. 17).",
+    "Appellants contend that Schaeppi' s entrances are all at the same level and hence \"there is no vertically uppermost entrance\" (App. Br. 18, Reply Br. 18).",
+    "Appellants dispute that Beaton and Rorant teach a vapour chamber and also contend that neither Beaton nor Martin disclose an uppermost wasp entrance that is spaced from the top of the chamber as claimed (App. Br. 19, 20, Reply Br. 19, 20).",
+    "Appellants also repeat their contentions made earlier (App. Br. 22, Reply Br. 22).",
+    "Appellants contend that \"Dowd does not indicate that affixation of the funnel 5 to the conduit 10 can be by any means\" and that instead, the passage in Dowd cited by the Examiner \"indicates that the chamber 1 can be affixed to the conduit 10 by any means, \" not the restricting funnel (App. Br. 25, Reply Br. 24).",
+    "Appellants repeat their contention that Beaton does not disclose a vapour chamber as discussed above with respect to claim 64.",
+    "Appellants repeat their contentions made earlier with respect to claims 60 and 66 regarding a rotatably mounted collar (App. Br. 30, Reply Br. 29).",
+    "Appellants repeat their contentions in this matter (App. Br. 31, Reply Br. 29, 30) but for the reasons previously stated, they are not persuasive.",
+    "Appellants further contend that there are \"secondary factors\" that further evidence the nonobviousness of the claimed invention (App. Br. 12, Reply Br. 12 and 16)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 59 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. .5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schaeppi, Beaton, Sladky, Rorant (or in the alternative, and further in view of Burki) (Ans. 5).",
+    "Claims 60 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. .5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schaeppi, Beaton, Sladky, Rorant (or in the alternative, and further in view of Burki) as applied to claim 59 and further in view of Dowd (Ans. 8).",
+    "Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schaeppi, Beaton, Sladky, Rorant (or in the alternative, and further in view of Burki) as applied to claim 59 above and further in view of Martin (Ans. 9).",
+    "Claims 64, 65 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beaton, Rorant, Martin, and Schaeppi (Ans. 10).",
+    "Claims 66 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. .5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beaton, Rorant, Martin and Schaeppi as applied to claim 64 above and further in view of Dowd (Ans. 12).",
+    "Claims 69 \u25a0 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beaton, Rorant, Martin and Dowd (Ans. 13).",
+    "Claims 74 and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. .5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beaton and Rorant (Ans. 16).",
+    "Claims 75 and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. .5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beaton and Rorant as applied to claim 74 above and further in view of Dowd (Ans. 17).",
+    "Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beaton and Rorant as applied to claim 74 above, and further in view of Martin and Schaeppi (Ans. 18).",
+    "Claims 59 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. .5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beaton, Sladky, Rorant and Burki (Ans. 19).",
+    "Claims 60 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. .5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beaton, Sladky, Rorant, and Burki as applied to claim 59 above and further in view of Dowd (Ans. 22).",
+    "Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beaton, Sladky, Rorant, and Burki as applied to claim 59 above and further in view of Martin and Schaeppi (Ans. 23).",
+    "The Examiner relies on the primary reference of Schaeppi for disclosing vapour chamber 9 as well as other claim limitations (Ans. 6, see also 24).",
+    "Sladky and Beaton are both relied on for disclosing a restriction part and Sladky and Rorant are both relied on for disclosing a resilient diaphragm (Ans. 6, 7, see also 24).",
+    "The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Schaeppi to include the teachings of Sladky and Rorant to funnel \"flying insects downward towards the collection chamber and trap them as taught by Beaton (col 3, lines 5-20)\" (Ans. 7, see also 25).",
+    "The Examiner reasons that all the structural parts are known and that \"it would in fact be obvious to combine known elements from analogous art utilizing known techniques as set forth in Sladky, Rorant and Beaton where Beaton provides the specific motivation\" for doing so (Ans. 25).",
+    "Hence, as broadly construed and consistent with Appellants' Specification, the Examiner finds that Beaton's part 23 \"is connected to the vapour chamber\" (Ans. 7).",
+    "Regarding the domed shape of Sladky's or Rorant' s diaphragm, the Examiner asserts that it is \"doomed [sic.] shaped during use or inherently doom [sic.] shaped after a single use to some degree\" and, in the alternative, the Examiner relies on Figures 7-11 of Burki for disclosing the domed shape of the diaphragm (Ans. 7-8, 24).",
+    "The Examiner finds the selection of an opaque material to be a \"matter of design choice\" for \"aesthetic appeal\" and also \"in order to hide the caught wasps\" (Ans. 8, 28).",
+    "The Examiner further relies on Dowd as disclosing a collar 12 that is rotatably coupled to a vapor chamber \"or could be fastened by any suitable means (figure 1, col 3, lines 5-10)* (Ans. 8, see also 28).",
+    "The Examiner states that it would have been obvious \"to modify Schaeppi to comprise of a collar rotatably coupled to the chambers to provide for an easily accessible exterior fastener for purposes of decoupling the chambers\" (Ans. 9).",
+    "The Examiner further find that \"Dowd at least 'suggests' that the screw ring (12) is rotatable about both elements (10) and (2)\" and further that \"chambers (10) and (2) both are 'capable' to function\" as claimed (Ans. 28).",
+    "The Examiner further relies on Schaeppi for teaching a wasp entrance \"spaced from the top of the vapor chamber by at least 1/3 (fig. 1)\" (Ans. 9, see also 29).",
+    "Here, the Examiner relies on Beaton for disclosing \"a vapour chamber (21)\" and on Schaeppi for teaching wasp entrances *spaced from the top of the vapour chamber by at least 1/3 (fig 1)\" (Ans. 10-11, see also 31).",
+    "Regarding whether Beaton discloses a vapour chamber, the Examiner states that Beaton's \"chamber (21) is capable to function as a vapor chamber if desired\" and that Beaton's Figure 3 discloses dead insects 25 in the bottom chamber and that \"some form of odor or scent will travel from the collection chamber to the vapor chamber, thus making chamber 21 an active vapor chamber during use\" (Ans. 31).",
+    "As above with respect to claim 60, the Examiner further relies on Dowd for disclosing a collar 12 that is rotatably coupled to a vapor chamber \"or could be fastened by any suitable means (figure 1, col 3, lines 5-10)\" (Ans. 12, see also 33).",
+    "The Examiner relies on Dowd for disclosing that \"the vapor chamber is affixed to the restriction by any convention means (col 3, lines 3-7)\" (Ans. 14).",
+    "The Examiner states that it would have been obvious \"to have the vapor chamber integrally attached to the restriction as a matter of design choice as taught by Dowd\" since it has been held that \"forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art\" (Ans. 14 citing Howard V. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893)).",
+    "Independent claim 74 requires \"a vapour chamber\" and the Examiner relies on Beaton for disclosing such structure (Ans. 16).",
+    "As before regarding this additional limitation, the Examiner relied on Dowd and specifically Dowd's teaching that collar 12 is rotatably coupled to a vapor chamber \"or could be fastened by any suitable means (figure 1, col 3, lines 5-10)* (Ans. 17).",
+    "As above, the Examiner relies on Schaeppi for teaching this claim limitation (Ans. 18, 39).",
+    "The Examiner states that the website referred to for further consideration \"failed to establish a nexus between the CLAIMED invention and evidence offered\" (Ans. 45)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b).",
+    "We AFFIRM-IN PART.",
+    "Accordingly, these contentions are not persuasive.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner's s determination and are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that **connected\" cannot be between separate components (App. Br. 14, Reply Br. 14).",
+    "Hence, as broadly construed, we agree with the Examiner that Sladky discloses \"a diaphragm (3) with elements\" (Ans. 6).",
+    "Appellants fail to address the Examiner's additional reference to Sladky's 's diaphragm 3 which is shown projecting into the collection chamber as claimed (Sladky Fig. 1; Ans. 6, 24).",
+    "Appellants do not state why Sladky' s disclosure of a domed shaped diaphragm and, more generally, a diaphragm that is domed shaped during use is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.",
+    "We disagree with Appellants' assessment of Burki's Figures 7-11, referenced by the Examiner.",
+    "This is similar, if not identical, to the problem addressed by Appellants in the design of their diaphragm (see Spec 10:15-20).",
+    "Burki teaches deflection of the domed diaphragm in the direction of product flow (Burki 1:77-78, see also 2:125-129) which is consistent with the flow of wasps into Appellants' collection chamber.",
+    "In view of Appellants' arguments presented above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner'. rationale for combining the references is in error or that Burki's s alternate teachings are not applicable to Schaeppi as modified (Ans. 8, see also 27).",
+    "Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner' s rejection of claim 59.",
+    "The Examiner does not indicate where such opaque material for the restriction part is shown or suggested in the cited art.",
+    "Accordingly, because Appellants have shown that an opaque restriction part functions differently from transparent parts which pass more light, we do not consider the selection of an opaque material to be simply an obvious matter of design choice as stated by the Examiner.",
+    "We reverse the Examiner' s rejection of Claim 61.",
+    "Appellants also argue that Dowd fails to teach a vapour chamber or a collection chamber but Dowd was relied on by the Examiner for teaching a connection between chambers, not for teaching the chambers themselves and as such this latter argument is not persuasive (App. Br. 17, Reply Br. 18; Ans. 8, see also 28).",
+    "We thus agree with the Examiner that Dowd at least suggests that the screw ring is capable of being rotatably mounted on the conduit and Appellants have not indicated that doing so is beyond the talent of one skilled in the art or that such a screw top ring is incapable of being rotatably connected to the vapour chamber.",
+    "Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner': s rejection of claim 60.",
+    "Appellants do not present arguments regarding claim 63 (which also depends from claim 59) and accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 63.",
+    "This contention is not persuasive because the simple fact that Schaeppi discloses all wasp entrances at the same elevation (Fig. 1) does not detract from Schaeppi' s teaching that they are spaced from the top by \"at least a third of the height of the vapour chamber\" as claimed.",
+    "Appellants also contend that Martin does not disclose this one-third spatial limitation but the Examiner did not rely on Martin for this limitation (App. Br. 18, Reply Br. 18, Ans. 10).",
+    "The Arguments presented by Appellants are not persuasive and accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 62.",
+    "Regarding the spacing of the wasp entrances, the Examiner relies on Schaeppi for this teaching, not Beaton or Martin, and thus this assertion by Appellants is not persuasive (Ans. 11, see also 31).",
+    "Further, the Examiner relies on Beaton for disclosing a vapour chamber, not Rorant, and hence that assertion is likewise not persuasive (Ans. 10).",
+    "Appellants have not provided evidence that vapors from Beaton's bottom chamber do not travel into upper chamber 21 nor have Appellants shown that Beaton's 's upper chamber 21 is incapable of acting as a vapour chamber.",
+    "Accordingly, in view of Appellants' arguments, we do not find fault with the Examiner's s reasoning and consequently, we sustain the Examiner* s rejection of claim 64.",
+    "We do not sustain the rejection of claim 67 for the same reasons that we did not sustain the rejection of claim 61.",
+    "Appellants do not present arguments regarding dependent claim 65 and accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 65.",
+    "As before, we do not find Appellants contentions persuasive and accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 66.",
+    "Appellants do not present arguments regarding claim 68 and accordingly, we sustain the Examiner\" s rejection of claim 68.",
+    "We previously indicated that the claim term \"connected\" when used alone encompasses a joining of separable components.",
+    "For us to interpret the claim term \"integrally connected\" the same as \"connected\" is to ignore Appellants' additional term \"integrally.\"",
+    "We thus understand that in accordance with Appellants Specification, and as \"integrally connected\" would be understood by one skilled in the art (i.e., Dowd), the claim term \"integrally connected\" is directed to a single unitary construction and not a joining of separable components.",
+    "We have reviewed the portion of Dowd cited by the Examiner, but agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not identified where Dowd teaches the funnel being \"integrally connected\" to the vapour chamber as claimed (App. Br. 25, Reply Br. 24).",
+    "Lacking articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness, we reverse the Examiner' s rejection of independent claim 69 and its dependent claims 70-73.",
+    "Appellants also repeat their contention that \"Rorant does not teach a vapour chamber\" but the Examiner does not rely on Rorant for this teaching (App. Br. 28, Reply Br. 27; Ans. 16).",
+    "Appellants' contentions are not persuasive for the reasons previously stated and accordingly, we sustain the Examiner' s rejection of claim 74.",
+    "As previously discussed with respect to claims 61 and 67, we are not persuaded by the Examiner' s rejection based on design choice in view of Appellants arguments to the contrary.",
+    "Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner' s rejection of claim 76.",
+    "As before, we do not find Appellants contentions persuasive and accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 75.",
+    "Appellants do not present arguments regarding claim 78 and accordingly, we sustain the Examiner' s rejection of claim 78.",
+    "Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner': is rejection of claim 77.",
+    "The rejection of claim 59 has been affirmed above and, according to 37 C.F.R. \u25cf 41.50 (a)(1), once a rejection of that claim has been affirmed, such rejection constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the Examiner on that claim.",
+    "Accordingly, any further assessments of the rejection of this claim under a different combination of prior art is moot.",
+    "The rejection of claim 61, however, was not sustained above because the Examiner's s contention of an opaque restriction part being a matter of design choice was not persuasive.",
+    "This newly cited combination of references does not alleviate the discrepancies noted above and accordingly, we reverse the Examiner' s rejection of claim 61.",
+    "The rejection of these claims was affirmed above which makes moot the further assessment of these same claims under the above cited combinations (see 37 C.F.R. & 41.50 (a)(1)).",
+    "We are also mindful that objective evidence of non-obviousness in any given case may be entitled to more or less weight depending on its nature and its relationship with the merits of the claimed subject matter.",
+    "We are also instructed that \"objective evidence of secondary considerations to be accorded substantial weight, its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention\" (Wyers V. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted)).",
+    "Here, we agree with the Examiner that the website identified by Appellants discussing the product's history and development are insufficient and fail to establish the required nexus (Ans. 45).",
+    "Accordingly, these additional factors are not persuasive.",
+    "Even if Appellants' evidence was entitled to any weight, we conclude that the Examiner's s evidence supporting the conclusion of obviousness outweighs Appellants' objective evidence."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010004398_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants' invention relates to a method and system for selecting multiple sets of data in an application (see Spec. 3:8-20).",
+    "Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: 1.",
+    "A method for selecting multiple sets of data in an application, comprising the steps of: selecting a first set of data within the application; and selecting a second set of data within the application, wherein the first set of data remains selected during the selection of the second set of data, wherein the method is adapted to allow selecting of the second set of data anywhere within the application irrespective of a location of the first set of data, wherein the method is adapted to allow selection of the second set of data that overlaps the first set of data.",
+    "With respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 9, Appellants do not dispute the teachings of Fleming and Hussam and merely contend that the data sets of Hussam *are not overlapping, i.e., they do not each have portions that are outside of the other\" (Br. 5).",
+    "Appellants assert that Hussam discloses a data set that is entirely within the other set (id.)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fleming (US 5,664,210) and Hussam (WO 01/29709 A1).1",
+    "As stated by the Examiner (Ans. 7), Hussam's second set of selected data that exists entirely within a first set of selected data, indicates the second set to be overlapped by the first set of data."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims as being obvious over Fleming and Hussam because the references do not teach or suggest \"selection of the second set of data that overlaps the first set of data, as recited in claims 1 and 92",
+    "We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred.",
+    "We disagree with Appellants' conclusions.",
+    "In other words, while one set completely overlaps the other set, the second set is still considered to overlap the first set because complete overlap is not precluded by the claims.",
+    "This characterization is consistent with Appellants' Specification which describes examples of two overlapping sets wherein one set completely overlaps a second set (see Spec. 11:9 - 12:6).",
+    "Therefore, we agree with the Examiner' s finding that \"one set of data that is entirely within another set of selected data\" disclosed by Hussam, meets the claimed \"selection of a second set of data that overlaps a first selected set of data\" (see Ans. 7).",
+    "Furthermore, nothing in the record suggests that the Examiner's interpretation of \"overlapping sets of data\" is unreasonable, overly broad, or inconsistent with Appellants' Specification."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010004619_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "ISSUES Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 8, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 112, first and second paragraphs, because the Examiner did not consider the disclosure of U.S. Patent No. 5,862,260 [hereinafter *260 patent]?",
+    "Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 to 14 and 91 to 94 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) because Van Wie is not prior art?",
+    "Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 26 to 29 under 35 U.S.C. & 102(e) and claims 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) because Daniele provides no relevant teachings regarding altering music signals to insert bits of data therein?",
+    "Appellant argues that the *260 patent has been incorporated by reference on page 40 of Appellant's Specification.",
+    "Appellant asserts that the *260 patent was incorporated by reference at page 40 of the Specification.",
+    "Rather, Appellant argues that Van Wie has a priority filing date of August 1996, whereas the claims have priority support at least as early as May 1996 as a result of the priority to the *260 patent.",
+    "Appellant argues that priority was accorded or should have been accorded in 2005.",
+    "Appellant concludes that Van Wie is not prior art."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "ANALYSIS Written description The Examiner found that Appellant's s Specification as originally filed contains no support for \"the imperceptible modification adaptively changing values of the perceptible parts of the visual or audio signals by a varying amount that depends on the values of the perceptible parts\" as is recited in claim 1 (Answer 3).",
+    "Indefiniteness The Examiner found that it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what is meant by: \"the imperceptible modification adaptively changing values of the perceptible parts of the visual or audio signals by a varying amount that depends on the values of the perceptible parts\", which is recited in claim 1 (Answer 4).",
+    "The Examiner argues that no priority was accorded and that no priority will be accorded because in the Examiner's view, the instant application was not copending with the application that matured into the *260 patent."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Daniele does not disclose a method of altering a music signal.",
+    "We agree with Appellant that this subject matter is contained in the disclosure of the *260 patent as detailed above.",
+    "As such, we will not sustain this rejection of the Examiner.",
+    "We agree with Appellant that this subject matter is clearly explained in the *260 patent as detailed above.",
+    "We have not found nor we have not been directed to any indication in the record that the requested priority filing date has been accorded.",
+    "As such, on the record before us, the instant application has not been accorded the filing date of the *260 patent.",
+    "Therefore, Van Wie is prior art.",
+    "Prior art rejections based on the Daniele reference We will not sustain the Examiner' s rejections of the claims based on the Daniele reference because we agree with the Appellant that the Daniele disclosure is directed to glyphs and other two dimensional encoded marks which encode a document, but does not disclose a method of altering music signals.",
+    "While these documents can take the form of a page of music, Daniele does not disclose altering a music signal by inserting the glyphs."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010004704_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant contends that Das fails to teach a mapper, mapping signaling for each terminal to at least one segment among a plurality of segments of a signaling channel, and a multiplexer operative to multiplex the output data for each segment onto system resources allocated for the segment. App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2-3.",
+    "Appellant contends that Das does not teach or suggest the use of a mapper because (1) although Das teaches message formats for signaling messages having information, it fails to teach or suggest a methodology for constructing the signaling messages; and (2) it fails to illustrate hardware for a mapper, a flowchart describing how messages are generated, and the hardware used for constructing signaling messages. App. Br. 7:1-8.",
+    "Appellant contends that Das does not teach a plurality of segments of a signaling channel because Das uses the term \"segment\" to describe a sub- section of a message, instead of portion of a shared signaling channel. App. Br. 7:11-8:2; Reply Br. 2:25-26; 3:6-7.",
+    "Appellant contends that Das does not teach this limitation because Das does not teach a mapper. App. Br. 8:10-14; Reply Br. 3:6-9."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner finds that Das teaches the **mapper* and \"multiplexer\" limitations in representative claim 1. Ans. 3-4, 12.",
+    "Das teaches a HS-SCCH (High-Speed Shared Control Channel) that is \"used for transmitting signaling information that is needed for the UE [(user equipment)] to process the corresponding data transmission.\" Das I 0004, 11. 1-2.",
+    "The Examiner finds that the HS-SCCH \"read[s] on a mapper which is hardware for constructing signaling messages.\" Ans. 4:1-2.",
+    "However, the Examiner further finds that the HS-SCCH reads on a mapper because it is used to transport signaling information for a plurality of UE and that the hardware for constructing the signaling is inherent. Ans. 12:2-6.",
+    "Das's discussion of its Figure 5(a) states that its Part 1 message portion includes channelization code, modulation, and UE ID information for all UEs receiving a transmission. Das I 0026, 11. 3-5.",
+    "More specifically, Figure 5(a) includes UE ID segments 510 and 530, as well as channelization and modulation code segments 520 and 540. Das I 0027, 11. 1-3; Fig. 5(a).",
+    "The Examiner finds that Das's composite signaling message including at least two segments providing information on a control channel to a different UE reads on multiplexing. Ans. 4:6-9.",
+    "The Examiner also finds that because multiplexing data is inherent in wireless communication, the segments of the signaling channel shown in Das's Figure 2 are multiplexed by a multiplexer. Ans. 12:17-19.",
+    "The Examiner also finds that Das teaches multiplexing because it states that signaling messages are generated for transmission over one or more shared control channels. Ans. 12:19-21.2"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's s invention involves a shared signaling channel capable of carrying various types of signaling for terminals in a multiple-access communication system.",
+    "The shared signaling channel has multiple segments.",
+    "Each terminal is mapped to one or more segments and signaling messages for the terminal are sent on the segments.",
+    "A mapper receives messages to be sent on the shared signaling channel, identifies the recipient terminals, and determines the segment in which to send the message.",
+    "See generally Spec. II 0007, 0027, 0048; Figs. 2, 3.",
+    "Independent claim 1 is illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. An apparatus in a multiple-access communication system, comprising: a mapper operative to receive signaling for a plurality of terminals and to map signaling for each terminal to at least one segment among a plurality of segments of a signaling channel; a processor operative to process signaling mapped to each segment and to generate output data for the segment; and a multiplexer operative to multiplex the output data for each segment onto system resources allocated for the segment.",
+    "THE CONTENTIONS",
+    "ISSUES",
+    "Under S 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Das teaches: (1) a mapper operative to receive signaling for a plurality of terminals and to map signaling for each terminal to at least one segment among a plurality of segments of a signaling channel?",
+    "(2) a multiplexer operative to multiplex the output data for each segment onto system resources allocated for the segment?",
+    "ANALYSIS WHETHER DAS TEACHES A MAPPER",
+    "Appellant's Reply Brief does not contest these further findings, which are consistent with Appellant's s explanation that his mapper identifies a recipient terminal of a message, determines the segment in which to send the message based on the recipient terminal, and forwards the message. Spec. I 0048, 11. 6-8.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner.",
+    "Appellant's s arguments are not persuasive because an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that Das uses hardware or software of some kind to create and transmit messages and signaling information, as disclosed in Das.",
+    "Moreover, if Appellant is suggesting that Das is not enabled, the suggestion is not persuasive because materials in patents and in non-patent publications are presumptively enabling barring any showing to the contrary by a patent applicant. In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2012).",
+    "Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Das teaches a mapper.",
+    "WHETHER DAS TEACHES A MAPPER OPERATIVE TO MAP SIGNALING FOR EACH TERMINAL TO AT LEAST ONE SEGMENT AMONG A PLURALITY OF SEGMENTS OF A SIGNALING CHANNEL",
+    "We begin by construing claim I's recitation of \"a signaling channel.\"",
+    "Appellant describes his signaling channel as a channel that may carry various types of signaling such as resource/channel assignments and access grants (indicating grant of system access for a terminal). Spec. I 0073, 11. 1- 2, 10.",
+    "A resource/channel assignment message contains a channel identifier for each assigned physical channel and modulation scheme to use for data transmission. Spec. I 0076, 11. 6-10.",
+    "With this construction, we find no error in the Examiner's s reliance on Das': paragraph 0026 and Figure 5(a) to teach mapping to each segment and segments of a signaling channel which are mapped for each UE. Ans. 4:3-5; 12:9-10.",
+    "Appellant's argument is not persuasive because, as indicated above, the device in Das's Figure 5(a) transmits more than just message information and performs many of the same functions as Appellant's signaling channel.",
+    "Compare Das's channelization code with Appellant's channel identifier; Das's modulation information with Appellant's modulation scheme; and Das's UE ID information with Appellant's access grants indicating grant of system access for a terminal.",
+    "Moreover, claim 1 does not require that the signal channel be shared (see App. Br. 7), and the recited phrase, \"at least one segment among a plurality of segments of a signaling channel\" as broadly as recited, can include all segments of signal channel.",
+    "Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner than Das teaches mapping signaling for each terminal to at least one segment among a plurality of segments of a signaling channel.",
+    "WHETHER DAS TEACHES A PROCESSOR OPERATIVE TO PROCESS SIGNALING MAPPED TO EACH SEGEMNT AND TO GENERATE OUTPUT DATA FOR THE SEGMENT.",
+    "This argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above regarding Das's mapper.",
+    "WHETHER DAS TEACHES A MULTIPLEXER OPERATIVE TO MULTIPLEX THE OUTPUT DATA FOR EACH SEGMENT ONTO SYSTEM RESOURCES ALLOCATED FOR THE SEGMENT",
+    "Appellant's s nominal assertions that Das does not teach multiplexing (App. Br. 9:7-8; Reply Br. 3:6-8) are not persuasive because Appellant has not presented evidence that rebuts the Examiner's findings.",
+    "Appellant's additional assertion (App. Br. 9:10-12) that Das does not teach Appellant's 's multiplexing because Appellant claims multiplexing output data which comprises information fields and a CRC field is not persuasive because the claims do not contain such recitations.",
+    "APPELLANT'S DISCUSSION OF SUZUKI",
+    "Appellant's discussion of Suzuki is also not persuasive because Appellant argues Suzuki individually. App. Br. 9:14-15; Reply Br. 3:10.",
+    "One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).",
+    "We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) representative claim 1; (2) claims 12, 19, 24, 28, and 32 for similar reasons; and (3) claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20-23, 25-27, 29-31, and 33-35 not separately argued with particularity.",
+    "Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner* s rejection of claims 1-35."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010004813_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants' arguments are directed to the patentability of only claim 1, and Appellants contest the rejections relying on Gentile, Hall, and Pettengill by relying on those arguments.",
+    "Appellants contend that a proper prima facie case was not made because the combined teachings of Lentini, Farrell and Guilbeaux \"fail[] to disclose a first component in a dispersed phase capable of chemically reacting with a second component and wherein both the first and second components are contained in the first chamber. (i.e., a single chamber). \" (App. Br. 7.)",
+    "As Appellants interpret Lentini, Lentini's components are \"maintained in separate containers or separate compartments in the same container\" (id. at 7), and Lentini's s \"sachet\" should be understood to have physically separate packages or chambers (id. at 8).",
+    "Appellants find that Farrell teaches that the blend of bicarbonate and acid *must be an anhydrous dry powder ostensibly to avoid any premature reaction prior to the user applying the later wetted wiping article to the skin (col. 1, lines 40-41)\" (id. at 8), and \"teaches away from reducing the degree of intimate contact of the dry reactive materials by suspending them in the anhydrous carrier required in instant claim 1(c)\" for \"the production of 'copious' lather\" (id.)",
+    "Appellants contend that \"the skilled person would not combine Farrell, et al. is teaching of an intimate quick reacting mixture with Guilbeaux's s organic clays for the reasons stated above regarding quick reaction to produce copious lather. +, (Id.)",
+    "Appellants argue that a person of ordinary skill would have understood sachet to be a unitary package with chambers separately containing each of the acid and bicarbonate, not one chamber containing both reactants.",
+    "Appellants argue that \"the skilled person would not have been motivated to reduce the intimate contact of the dry powder in Farrell \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 by suspending such powder in an inert medium.\" ~ (App. Br. 8.)"
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    ". claims 1-4, 12, 14, 15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable over Lentini,\" Farrell3 and Guilbeaux*; . claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over Lentini, Farrell, Guilbeaux and Gentile*; . claims 5, 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over Lentini, Farrell, Guilbeaux and Hall*; and . claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as unpatentable over Lentini, Farrell, Guilbeaux and Pettengill\".",
+    "The Examiner's position is that Lentini described a self-foaming skin cleansing system with anhydrous bicarbonate and acid compositions dispensed from separate packages or chambers, and added to water to produce an effervescent composition. (Ans. 4.)",
+    "Farrell described an effervescent skin cleansing mixture of bicarbonate and acid in intimate contact. (Id.)",
+    "The Examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious to combine Lentini's anhydrous bicarbonate and acid in the same chamber because Farrell disclosed that the two components do not react in a dry, i.e. anhydrous, state. (Id. at 6.)",
+    "The Examiner also reasoned that it would have  been obvious to add Guilbeaux's organophilic clays to provide thickening, i.e. superior rheological properties, and biocidal activities that could be **tailored to the desired level for a given organic composition.\" , (Ans. 5.)"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We select claim 1 as representative for deciding this appeal.",
+    "The issues with respect to this appeal are: does the combination of Lentini, Farrell, and Guilbeaux disclose or suggest a first component in a dispersed phase capable of chemically reacting with a second component, with both the first and second components contained in a first chamber; did Farrell \"teach away\" from using Lentini's carrier; and did Farrell \"teach away\" from adding Guilbeaux's is organic clays?",
+    "We adopt the Examiner* s findings.",
+    "First, we agree with the Examiner that Lentini taught dispersing the bicarbonate and the acid component in non-aqueous solutions for use in anhydrous products, see Ans. 5, citing col. 3, 11. 38-53, and we agree the evidence supports that finding.",
+    "Even if the skilled person reading only Lentini would have had that understanding. we agree with the Examiner that Farrell's is disclosure of a single pouch containing both reactants in anhydrous form suggested combining both anhydrous formulations in one chamber.",
+    "Next, we do not agree that Farrell taught away from using Lentini's s anhydrous carrier.",
+    "Appellants provide no evidence to support the argument, and we see none in our review of Farrell.",
+    "We find that Farrell did not discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art from mixing the reactive components and dispersing them in an anhydrous continuous phase.",
+    "For the same reasons, we find that Farrell did not \"teach away\" from adding Guilbeaux' organic clays, and we agree with the Examiner that the thickening and biocidal activity could have been adjusted by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201."
+  ]
+}