Add files using upload-large-folder tool

opinion_split/2009005622_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "ANALYSIS Claims 1-4 The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because Pickering fails to disclose the cited claim limitations [1] and [2] as I See Ethicon, Inc. V. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). referenced above (Br. 10).",
+    "The Appellants also argue that Whisker fails to disclose \"retrieving a time of day\" since it discloses sampling a time such as \"the initialization time of the system\".",
+    "The Appellants further argue that the combined teachings of Pickering, Whisker, and Nakajima fail to teach or suggest the Appellants claimed combination of claim 1 (Br. 11-12).",
+    "Claims 6-10 The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 6 is improper because Pickering fails to disclose the limitation for *storing at least said incremented digit count in said source if another mailpiece is not present\" and that this limitation was not well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art as asserted by the Examiner (Br. 12-13, Reply Br. 2-5).",
+    "Here, the Appellants have argued that Pickering fails to disclose the claim limitation for \"storing at least said incremented digit count in said source if another mailpiece is not present\" (Br. 12)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "In contrast the Examiner has determined that Pickering, Whisker, and Nakajima disclose the cited claim limitations [1] and [2] and that the combination of those references to meet those cited limitations would have been obvious (Ans. 5, 11-12).",
+    "In contrast the Examiner has determined that the cited limitation was well known in the art and that the Appellants failed to properly traverse this assertion during prosecution of this application (Ans. 12-13)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. & 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-10 which are all the claims pending in the application.",
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 6(b) (2002).",
+    "SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM.",
+    "THE INVENTION The Appellants\" claimed invention is directed to a method for providing a unique identifier to a mailpiece that is used for tracking (Spec. [0002]).",
+    "Claim 1, reproduced below with some numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter of appeal.",
+    "1. A method for generating a PLANET service code for a batch of mailpieces with the PLANET service code having assignable digits, said method comprising the steps of: [1] retrieving a time of day from a clock source; [2] prescribing the assignable digits, wherein the assignable digits comprise the retrieved time of day; [3] associating the PLANET service code having the assignable digits with a mailpiece from the batch of mailpieces; determining if another mailpiece is present in said batch of mailpieces; incrementing the assignable digits by a one count if another mailpiece is determined present in said batch of mailpieces; and associating the PLANET service code having the assignable digits incremented by a one count with the another present mailpiece, wherein associating the PLANET service code comprises storing the PLANET service code having the assignable digits in a database in correspondence with a mailpiece.",
+    "THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Whisker US 4,780,828 Oct. 25, 1988 Pickering, Jr. US 6,557,755 B1 May 6, 2003 Nakajima US 6,796,491 B2 Sep. 28, 2004",
+    "The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over Pickering, Whisker, and Nakajima. 2. Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over Pickering.",
+    "THE ISSUES At issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in making the aforementioned rejections.",
+    "With regards to claims 1-4 this issue turns on whether it would have been obvious to combine the references used in the rejection to meet the argued claim limitations.",
+    "With regards to claims 6-10 this issue turns on whether the prior art discloses *storing at least said incremented digit count in said source if another mailpiece is not present\" or if such a modification would have been obvious.",
+    "FINDINGS OF FACT We find the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence: 1 FFI.",
+    "Pickering discloses a system for tracking a mailpiece using a postal service mailpiece code (Title).",
+    "Pickering at Col. 11:54-12:10 discloses that the last four digits of the PLANET code specify a customer ID.",
+    "The last four digits could also be used to specify a sequence number, starting with \"0000, and increasing by one for each mailpiece.",
+    "FF2. Whisker has disclosed a mailing system with a random sampling of postage (Title).",
+    "Whisker at Col. 5:18-62 discloses that a sample may be encrypted.",
+    "A secure seed number may be generated which is random such as using an arbitrary time like the initialization time of the system.",
+    "FF3. Nakajima has disclosed as electronic payment system (Title).",
+    "Nakajima at Col. 18:33-48 discloses that the seed for the random number is given the initial value.",
+    "Claim limitations [1] and [2] require: [1] retrieving a time of day from a clock source and [2] prescribing the assignable digits, wherein the assignable digits comprise the retrieved time of day.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner.",
+    "Pickering discloses a system for tracking a mailpiece in which the last four digits of the PLANET code could also be used to specify a sequence number, starting with \"0000\" and increasing by one for each mailpiece (FF1) which serves to \"prescribe assignable digits\" as claimed.",
+    "Whisker has disclosed that a secure seed number may be generated which is random and provides as an example using an arbitrary time such as the initialization time of the system (FF2) which discloses \"retrieving the time from a clock source\".",
+    "While Whisker discloses using the time of the system and not the time of day, frequently the time of the system is the time of day when running on a computer.",
+    "Regardless, the use of the time of day would be obvious to use as the system time as it is readily ascertained.",
+    "Nakajima has disclosed that the seed for the random number is given the initial value (FF3) in the system.",
+    "Thus, Pickering, Whisker, and Nakajima have disclosed the argued claim limitations [1] and [2].",
+    "The modification of the cited elements of Pickering, Whisker, and Nakajima is considered a predictable combination of familiar elements in order to have a sequence code which could be generated with a readily ascertainable time code in order to start the sequence and to be able to determine at what time the sequence was started.",
+    "For these above reasons the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims which have not been separately argued is sustained.",
+    "However Pickering has disclosed that the last four digits can also be used to specify a sequence number, starting with \"0000\" and increasing by one for each mailpiece (FFI).",
+    "Thus in Pickering inherently the last sequence number must be stored in order to increment the count if necessary, regardless if another mailpiece is found present or not.",
+    "Thus, Pickering has disclosed the cited argued claim limitation.",
+    "Regardless, one of ordinary skill in the art could have readily \"determined that it beneficial to store the last sequence number to backup data files as is conventionally done in many computer processing systems.",
+    "For this reason, the rejection of claim 6 and its dependent claims which have not been separately argued is sustained."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009007353_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "ISSUES Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-24 Appellants argue on pages 5-10 of the Appeal Brief and page 3 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner's s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-24 is in error.",
+    "Appellants argue that neither Owen nor Michener discloses *forwarding the data over the communication link to another one of the nodes on the communication link if the data type does not match a type processed by circuitry associated with the receiving node.",
+    "Claim 7 Appellants argue on pages 7-8 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2-3 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner's s rejection of claim 7 is in error.",
+    "Appellants argue that neither Owen nor Michener discloses a nonvolatile storage which provides the data type identification.",
+    "Claim 15 Appellants argue on page 9 of the Appeal Brief and page 2 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner's s rejection of claim 15 is in error.",
+    "Appellants argue that neither Owen nor Michener discloses that \"the data type identifier identifies a manufacturer.\"",
+    "Appellants argue that Michener teaches routing and processing data within the node rather than forwarding the data to another node.",
+    "Additionally, Appellants argue that Owen does not make up for any of Michener's deficiencies.",
+    "Appellants argue that \"the data [in Michener] is not being sent over the claimed communication link.\"",
+    "Appellants argue that neither Owen nor Michener discloses that the data and data type come from nonvolatile storage.",
+    "Appellants argue that neither of the references discloses this limitation."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-15, 17, 18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Owen in view of Michener.",
+    "The Examiner finds Owen discloses that when a packet is received at a node, if the packet does not contain the appropriate destination address, the packet is then forwarded on to the next node connected in the daisy chain.",
+    "However, the Examiner has provided a secondary reference, Michener, to further support the Examiner's rejection.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Michener indicates what type of data is contained in the packet."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b).",
+    "We affirm-in-part the Examiner' s rejections of these claims.",
+    "Thus, with respect to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-24, Appellants' contention presents us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Owen in view of Michener disclose forwarding data over the communication link to another one of the nodes on the communication link if the data type does not match a type processed by circuitry associated with the receiving node?",
+    "Thus, with respect to claim 7, Appellants' contention presents us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Owen in view of Michener discloses receiving data from an external source where that source is nonvolatile storage associated with a computer system?",
+    "Thus, with respect to claim 15, Appellants' contention presents us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Owen in view of Michener discloses that the data type identifier identifies a manufacturer?",
+    "ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 17-18, and 24 Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner\" s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 17-18, and 24.",
+    "We select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 17- 18, and 24 since Appellants do not separately argue these claims with particularity.",
+    "We disagree.",
+    "Appellants do not provide a specific definition for the term \"data type.\"",
+    "As a result, *data type\" could broadly be interpreted to be the destination address disclosed in Owen.",
+    "Thus, the Examiner finds and we agree that it is the combination of Owen's daisy chain system with Michener' s packet type identification that discloses forwarding the data from one node to another if the data type does not match that which the original receiving node can handle.",
+    "Consequently, we sustain the Examiner's s rejection of claim 1 and claims 3, 5-6, 8-10, 17-18, and 24 that have been grouped with claim 1.",
+    "Claim 2 Appellants' additional argument that neither Owen nor Michener discloses claim 2 is also not persuasive for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1 and for the additional reason discussed below.",
+    "However, as noted above, Michener is used to disclose that packet \"data type\" is known in the art.",
+    "Owen is used to disclose that an incorrectly received packet is transmitted from one node to another node in the daisy chain through the communication link.",
+    "Thus, we sustain the Examiner' s rejection of claim 2.",
+    "Claim 7 Appellants' additional argument that neither Owen nor Michener discloses claim 7 is also not persuasive for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1 and for the additional reason discussed below.",
+    "However, as noted above, while a destination address can be interpreted as a \"data type, the Examiner further provides Michener to disclose that identifying a packet as containing audio, video, or null data, i.e., a data type, is known in the art.",
+    "Thus, it is the combination of Owen with Michener that discloses that data and data type come from nonvolatile storage.",
+    "As a result, we sustain the Examiner' s rejection of claim 7.",
+    "Claims 13-14 and 22-23 Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's s rejection of claims 13-14 and 22-23.",
+    "Appellants' arguments regarding these claims are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.",
+    "Therefore, we sustain the Examiner' is rejection of claims 13-14 and 22-23.",
+    "Claim 15 Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 15.",
+    "The Examiner has not sufficiently disclosed nor do we find where this limitation is disclosed in the references.",
+    "As such, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15.",
+    "For the following reasons, I concur with the result reached by the Majority.",
+    "A. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 24 I disagree with the Majority's s position that the recited \"data type\" reads on the destination address in Owen's packets.",
+    "Instead, I would read the recited \"data type\" on the direction (i.e., upstream or downstream) of Owen's packets, a position that finds support in Appellants' claim 24 (\"The method as recited in claim 1 further comprising forwarding or processing the data according to whether the data is going upstream or downstream over the communication link. \").",
+    "Claim 1 thus reads on blocks 84-92 in Owen's Figure 10 flowchart as follows.",
+    "The recited step of \"forwarding the data over the communication link to another one of the nodes on the communication link if the data type does not match a type processed by circuitry associated with the receiving node\" reads on blocks 84 and 92, wherein the node forwards received packets that are not downstream packets to the next node.",
+    "The recited step of \"processing the data if the data type matches the type processed by circuitry associated with the receiving node\" reads on the processing steps represented by one or more of blocks 86, 88, 90, and 92.",
+    "For these reasons, I would sustain the & 103(a) rejection of claim 1 and the other claims Appellants have grouped therewith (viz., claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 24).",
+    "Michener is therefore cumulative.",
+    "B. Claim 2 I would also sustain the rejection of claim 2 (\"The method as recited in claim 1 further comprising transmitting forwarding the processed data processed by the receiving node over the communication link. \"), which reads on Owen's Figure 10.",
+    "C. Claim 7 I would likewise sustain the rejection of claim 7, which depends on claim 1 through claim 5 and recites that \"the data received from the external source includes the identification of the data type.\"",
+    "This claim reads on the bridge bit in a received packet: The node logic 44 may determine the direction (upstream or downstream) in which the response packet is flowing by examining the state of the bridge bit in bit time 1.",
+    "D. Claims 22, 23, 13, and 14 I would sustain the rejection of independent claim 22 and its dependent claims 13, 14, and 23, which Appellants have grouped therewith, for the same reasons that I would sustain the rejection of claim 1.",
+    "E. Claim 15 For the reasons given by the Majority, I would not sustain the rejection of claim 15, which depends on independent claim 22 and recites that \"the data type identifier identifies a manufacturer.",
+    "F. Claim 21 I would sustain the rejection of independent claim 21 for the same reasons that I would sustain the rejection of claim 1."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009007896_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant argues that the claims 1, 7, 13, and 22 specify that access to a wireless network channel by multiple network nodes is controlled by a particular node, which may then delegate that control to another node. Appeal Brief 7.",
+    "\"It is not merely the ability to access the wireless channel that is being delegated, [sic] it is the ability to control such access by other nodes that is being delegated. \" Appeal Brief 5-6.",
+    "As Appellant points out, Fogle's Figures 5-7 only pertain to a device gaining access to the channel for its own use and only during a contention- based access period. Appeal Brief 9."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 1, 5-7, and 11-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over Odman (U.S. Patent Publication Application 2003/0152059 A1) and Fogle (U.S. Patent Number 6,813,260 B1).",
+    "Claims 2-4 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) over Odman, Fogle and Benveniste (U.S. Patent Publication Application 2004/0095911A1).",
+    "The Examiner relies upon Odman wherein Odman discloses a method of controlling, from a particular node within pluralities of nodes, and assigning the channel from a particular node to a first node in the pluralities of nodes in a wireless network. Answer 4.",
+    "The Examiner asserts that the non-coordinator device 320 recognizes a beacon 510 prior to joining the network 300 and uses the beacon 510 to identify the existing network 300 and to coordinate communication with the network 300. Answer 10-11; Odman, Figures 3, 5, and [0010-0013].",
+    "The Examiner finds Odman teaches individual non-coordinator devices 320 could include the functional elements of a coordinator 310, but not use them, in a sense, functioning as non-coordinator devices. Answer 11.",
+    "The Examiner concludes this shows that Odman clearly indicates each device in the network acts as a coordinator and takes control of access to the channel by others. Id.",
+    "The Examiner concedes that Odman does not disclose delegating control from one node to another but that such delegation of control is obvious if not inherent to Odman's system. Answer 12.",
+    "The Examiner relies upon Fogle to disclose delegating control from one node to another node. Answer 5 and 12.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Fogle discloses systems and methods for providing prioritized access to a shared communication medium that utilizes a contention based access arbitration mechanism and a contention-free arbitration mechanism, including temporarily delegating the controlling from the particular node to a first node in the plurality of nodes. See Answer 5; see also Fogle's Figures 5-7 and column 7, lines 29-61."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b) (2002).",
+    "We reverse.",
+    "However, the Examiner does not address Appellant's argument about Fogle's delegation to accessing the channel for its own use and only during a contention-based period.",
+    "Further, as Appellant pointed out, column 7, lines 29-61 of Fogle pertains to Figure 4 and not Figures 5-7, and the indicated column describes the scenario where various devices try to compete for access to the channel, but there is no indication in column 7 of Fogle delegating control from one node to another. See Appeal Brief 9.",
+    "Neither Odman nor Fogle, individually or in combination, discloses or teaches delegating the access control of a node as claimed.",
+    "Benveniste does not address the deficiencies of either Odman or Fogle.",
+    "Therefore we will not sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 22, or of dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-21, and 23-26 for the same reasons stated above."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009008316_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants assert that modifying Janonis to monitor the: \"DC bus instead of the AC power source would render it [Janonis's device] incapable of detecting any power irregularities other than a change in voltage, thereby destroying a key element of its functionality. Brief 5.",
+    "Appellants' arguments focus on Janonis's teaching of monitoring AC frequency which Appellants assert would be lost in such a combination. Brief 5, Reply Brief 2."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5, 8 through 14, 17 through 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Janonis in view of Tassitino and Weinstein. Answer 3 through 10.2",
+    "The Examiner has rejected claims 6, 7, 15, 16, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as being unpatentable over Janonis in view of Tassitino, Weinstein and Faria. Answer 10 through 13.",
+    "The Examiner identifies that Janonis teaches that the monitored voltage can be used to activate the backup power supply without a detected change in the AC frequency.",
+    "In other words, the Examiner finds that the voltage and frequency are parameters, each of which may activate the backup power. Answer 5, 14.",
+    "Thus, the Examiner finds that using DC voltage instead of AC voltage is merely another method of measuring the voltage that allows for the detection of a fault in the AC/DC converter. Answer 5."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We affirm.",
+    "ISSUE Appellants' contentions on pages 4 and 5 of the Appeal Brief' present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the skilled artisan would modify Janonis to monitor DC bus voltage instead of AC voltage?",
+    "ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiners' rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred.",
+    "We disagree with Appellants' conclusion.",
+    "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 Appellants' Appeal Brief.",
+    "We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.",
+    "We additionally note that the Examiner' s rejection does not propose modifying Janonis's device to remove the frequency monitoring component. Answer 5.",
+    "Further, claim 1 does not recite a limitation that precludes the monitoring of the AC frequency.",
+    "Such a combination of the references does not preclude also monitoring AC frequency.",
+    "Thus, Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the rejection, and we do not agree with Appellants' conclusion that the combination would destroy the functionality of Janonis's device.",
+    "As this issue is the sole issue argued with respect to the rejections based upon 35 U.S.C. & 103(a), we sustain the rejections of claims 1 through 25."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009008970_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants contend that Eick fails to disclose each and every aspect as recited in the claims (App. Br. 5).",
+    "Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Appellants argue that Eick fails to disclose a device for displaying search results comprising, inter alia, a \"processor being configured to accept search results; a user interface being adapted to apply control signals responsive to user input indicating a first feature of each of said search results; said processor being configured to generate display data including multiple symbols corresponding to respective ones of said search results such that ones of said search results having a same value of said first feature are aggregated such that said ones are displayed as a single symbol\" (App. Br. 7).",
+    "Appellants assert that Eick merely discloses displaying subgroups of a group when the group is selected by a user (App. Br. 7).",
+    "In particular, Appellants argue that, given the example in Eick, the user's s selection of the letter \"N\" is a filter used when performing a search, and is clearly not an aggregation of search results (App. Br. 8).",
+    "For the same reason, Appellants argue further that Eick fails to disclose a device for displaying search results comprising, inter alia, a *user input indicating a first feature of each of said search results and ones of said search results having a same value of said first feature are aggregated such that said ones are displayed as a single symbol,\" as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 8).",
+    "Turning to claim 2, regarding the claim limitations of displaying search results of first and second features on respective first and second axes, Appellants contend that Figure 22 of Eick illustrates filters arranged along a vertical axis, but there are no instances (or subgroups) of the filters displayed along a second axis as required by this claim (App. Br. 10).",
+    "Although the Appellants agree that Figure 23 of Eick includes first and second axes respectively displaying the time and day, Appellants assert further that \"it is clear that symbols and instances of the symbol having a second feature and the same value of the first feature are not displayed along first and second axes, respectively\" (App. Br. 10).",
+    "Finally, with respect to claim 7, Appellants contend that Eick does not disclose aggregating search results about two chosen features (App. Br. 11)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) as being anticipated by Eick.",
+    "Claims 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We affirm.",
+    "Appellants' contentions present us with the following three issues:",
+    "1. Does Eick disclose inter alia \"a processor being configured to accept search results; a user interface being adapted to apply control signals responsive to user input indicating a first feature of each of said search results; said processor being configured to generate display data including multiple symbols corresponding to respective ones of said search results such that ones of said search results having a same value of said first feature are aggregated such that said ones are displayed as a single symbol.\" as recited in claim 12",
+    "2. Does Eick disclose inter alia \"said display data including symbols corresponding to multiple instances of a subset of said search results having a second feature and the same value of said first feature, each of said subset of said search results being selectively displayable by said user interface developed along a second axis of said display area,\" as recited in claim 2?",
+    "3. Does Eick disclose inter alia \"said ones may be selectively aggregated about chosen second features,\" as recited in claim 72",
+    "The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence.",
+    "We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).",
+    "We select claim 1 as representative of this group, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. 5 41.37(c)(1)(vii).",
+    "We agree with the Examiner's s finding that Eick clearly meets the claim limitations, as search results corresponding to a same value of a first feature (beginning with the same first letter) are aggregated such that symbols representing the results are displayed and expandable upon selection by the user (wherein multiple first letters are displayed, and the aggregation of programs beginning with a particular letter are displayed upon user selection) (Ans. 10).",
+    "Specifically, Eick discloses that when the search button 512 shown in Figure 5 is actuated by a user, screen 1600 shown in Fig. 16 is displayed which shows an aggregation of search results, where all titles are sorted by character into groups of five or less (FF 1).",
+    "As shown in Figure 16 below, the double right pointing arrows symbol \">>\" indicates that multiple instances of the displayed string or group exists (FF 2).",
+    "We agree with the Examiner that when the user actuates the search button 512, a broad search of all programs based upon alpha-numeric title search is initiated (Ans. 10; FF 1).",
+    "We find that even though the search result would be to all programs, it remains a search result.",
+    "The central processing unit 34 of the set top box (STB) 12 of the reference generates a broad search of all programs and displays the results on television 10 (FF 3).",
+    "The user selection of a particular symbol, for example, \">>\" associated with a group or string will expand the aggregated search result (FF 4).",
+    "In particular, if the user desired to expand the search results to see the programs titled \"Nova,' the user would select the group that includes \"N\" and then \"No\" until the results for the program \"Nova\" were displayed (FF 5).",
+    "Therefore, we find that Eick discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.",
+    "As a result, we will sustain the Examiner' is \u25cf 102 rejection of representative claim 1, that of independent claims 10 and 15, and dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, and 16-19, which are not argued separately.",
+    "We select claim 2 as representative of this group, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. 5 41.37(c)(1)(vii).",
+    "As noted supra, we have affirmed the rejection of parent claims 1 and 10.",
+    "As reproduced below, Eick discloses display data including symbols corresponding to multiple instances of a subset of the program \"Nova\" having a first feature of time along a first (horizontal) axis and a second feature of day along second (vertical) axis.",
+    "If there are multiple occurrences of the program on a particular time and day, the display data is denoted with an asterisk (*) (FF 6).",
+    "The user may select this logical stack of multiple programs by actuating button 64 of the remote (FF 6).",
+    "Therefore, we find that Eick discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.",
+    "As a result, we will sustain the Examiner's \u25cf 102 rejection of representative claim 2 and that of claims 3, 4, and 11-13, which are not argued separately.",
+    "As noted supra, we have affirmed the rejection of parent claims 1 and 5.",
+    "As discussed supra with reference to claim 2, Figure 23 of Eick clearly discloses the items of the search results are selectively aggregated about a second chosen feature of day or time.",
+    "Therefore, we find that Eick discloses inter alia \"said ones may be selectively aggregated about chosen second features.",
+    "As a result, we will sustain the Examiner's \u25cf 102 rejection of claim 7.",
+    "We therefore sustain pro forma the rejection of claims 15-18 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009009928_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "With respect to independent claims 1, 7, and 12, the Appellants contend that Vickery fails to disclose the feature of transforming an entry to a hidden value (App. Br. 7 and 9).",
+    "According to the Appellants, the logic operator \"and\" is a mathematical function, not a value (Id. 7), and the \"Examiner has mapped \"hidden value' not to a *value that is hidden', but to an *operator that is hidden' ~ (Reply Br. 4)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 7, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. S 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Google, Toolbar, and Vickery.",
+    "Claims 1-3, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Google, Toolbar, yCode, and Vickery.",
+    "The Examiner states that Vickery teaches the argued limitation in Fig. 3 (Ans. 4, 6 and 9).",
+    "The Examiner also states that the \"and\" operator could be read as a hidden value because \"the Examiner holds the position that value as in computer science, is a sequence of bits that is interpreted according to same data type . . . [f]or instance, the value could be an integer or floating point value, or a string.\"",
+    "Id., at 8-9."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Therefore, we look to the Appellants' Brief to show error in the proffered reasoned conclusion.",
+    "The recited limitations, even though different in wording, have the same scope.",
+    "We disagree with the Examiner's s statements.",
+    "We find that the paragraph of the Vickery reference relied upon by the Examiner only discusses recording an entry by a user to a history list displayed later to the user (FF 1).",
+    "We do not find and the Examiner does not indicate where there is any teaching in Vickery for transforming an entry, let alone transforming an entry into a \"hidden value.\"",
+    "\" One ordinary skill in the computer arts would not recognize that a logical operator is a value as the Examiner argued.",
+    "Even if assuming the logical operator \"and\" is a kind of value, the logical operator is clearly not an entry by a user, or transforming this entry to a hidden value, especially in view of the specification.",
+    "Because we agree with at least one of the Appellants' contentions, we find that the Examiner has not made a requisite showing of obviousness as required to teach or fairly suggest the invention as recited in claims 1, 7, and 12 by the combination of Google, Toolbar, yCode, and Vickery.",
+    "The rejection of the dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 10 contains the same deficiency.",
+    "The Appellants, thus, have demonstrated error in the Examiner' s reasoned conclusion for obviousness of the subject matter of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, and 12.",
+    "We, therefore, cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. & 103."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009011279_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants argue Farkas does not disclose *electronically presenting to a customer a benchmarking provider list,\" as recited in claim 5, regardless of Farkas's disclosure that a *user links . \u00b7 \u00b7 from some other Web site to the main page for the welcome center\" (App. Br. 12-13, Farkas I [0057]).",
+    "Appellants also argue the Examiner fails to provide a rationale or extrinsic evidence demonstrating the claimed **electronically presenting\" step is inherent in Farkas's disclosure (App. Br. 13-14),",
+    "Further, Appellants argue Roche does not disclose the claim 5 recitation *one or more measure definitions grouped by each benchmark data provider.\"",
+    "Although Appellants contend the Examiner has not established how one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, Appellants provide no explanation why the Examiner's stated motivation is insufficient (App. Br. 14)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Farkas (US 2003/0208388 A1) and Roche (US 2004/0186755 A1).",
+    "The Examiner finds Farkas discloses a user **clicks a link in a web site that points the browser to the main page of the welcome center\" and, similarly, the \" user links from one of the links in step 11 from some other web site to the main page for the welcome center\" (Ans. 7, Farkas 11 [0056], [0057]).",
+    "The links from the other Web site correspond to the limitation of a benchmarking provider list including a link to the welcome center of Farkas's benchmarking system (Ans. 7).",
+    "As the Examiner points out, Farkas's *at least one link\" to the welcome center meets the limitation of a *benchmarking provider list\" and it is inherent that Farkas's *other web site\" electronically presents at least one link to the user because a link has necessarily been presented to the user once the user clicks the link to reach the welcome center (Ans. 7-8).",
+    "The Examiner finds Roche discloses presenting \"a ranked list of providers,' wherein the ranked list includes \"\"[]he kind of coverage and premium to be paid\" with respect to each provider (Ans, 8; Roche I [0061]).",
+    "The Examiner finds the \"kind of coverage and premium to be paid\" are *measure definitions\" (Ans. 8).",
+    "Thus, the Examiner finds the combination of Farkas and Roche discloses a provider list that includes \"one or more measure definitions grouped by each benchmark data provider.\"",
+    "That is, one skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Farkas to include measure definitions in a provider list in the manner disclosed in Roche, enabling a customer to compare multiple service providers based on the measure definitions and choose the provider that meets his or her needs. (Ans. 8- 9; Roche I [0061])"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We disagree.",
+    "Appellants have not explained why the Examiner is incorrect in finding the links from the other Web site are a **benchmarking provider list\" (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 3-4) (emphasis added.).",
+    "Additionally, it is noted claim 5 only requires the list include *information on one or more benchmark data providers. \"",
+    "Appellants have not provided arguments as to how the Examiner's specific inherency rationale is incorrect (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 3).",
+    "Therefore, as found by the Examiner, Farkas discloses the claimed limitation of *electronically presenting to a customer a benchmarking provider list.\"",
+    "Appellants do not provide reasoning as to why Roche's coverage and premium information associated with the ranked list does not meet the claim term \" one or more measure definitions*** (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 4).",
+    "Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that claims 5 and 7-9, which depend from claim 5, are obvious over Farkas and Roche.",
+    "Appellants provide no additional arguments for claims 10 and 15 (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 4-5).",
+    "Thus, claims 10 and 15, and claims 12-14 and 17-19, which depend therefrom and are not separately argued, are also obvious over Farkas and Roche for the reasons discussed above."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009011781_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants' arguments, with respect to the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 8, focus on the contention that the Examiner has not established a proper basis for the proposed combination of Keronen and Weston.",
+    "According to Appellants, the Examiner has not explained how the contact-less RFID tag teachings of Weston would be applied to Keronen since, by necessity, the smart card 10 of Keronen is required to be inserted into controller I where the controller contacts 7 mate with the smart card contacts 18 (App. Br. 7-14; Reply Br. 4-8).",
+    "In other words, as argued by Appellants, Keronen's smart card 10 and controller 1 are required to be in precise physical contact in order for the touch sensitive membrane 8 to accurately detect the user actuation of the buttons 22 and 24 and the directional controller 20 on the face of the smart card 10."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 1-9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 23-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 8 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keronen in view of Weston.",
+    "Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. S 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keronen in view of Weston and Djuknic.",
+    "Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 8 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keronen in view of Weston and Decombe.",
+    "Claim 13 stands further rejected under 35 U.S.C. a 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keronen in view of Weston and Hayhurst.",
+    "Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 8 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keronen in view of Weston and Lynch.",
+    "Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. , 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keronen in view of Weston and Bloomberg.",
+    "We understand the Examiner's position to be that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify Keronen to provide for contact-less communication between the smart card 10 and the card reader controller 1 to allow freedom of movement of the smart card user as well as permitting the smart card to be used with differently physically configured card readers (Ans. 15-16)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. s 6(b).",
+    "We reverse.",
+    "Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 29, 2008), the Answer (mailed Dec. 31, 2008), and the Reply Brief (filed Mar. 2, 2009) for the respective details.",
+    "We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.",
+    "Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived.",
+    "We agree with Appellants.",
+    "Initially, we note that our interpretation of the disclosure of Keronen coincides with that of Appellants, i.e., controller 1 has a touch sensitive surface 8 which detects user input interaction with the smart card 10 when the smart card is inserted into the controller so that corresponding contacts 7/18 on the controller and smart card are in a mating relationship (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 4, 1. 39-col. 5, 1. 27).",
+    "Given this disclosure of Keronen, we find that the Examiner has not satisfactorily explained how and in what manner Keronen would be modified by the contact-less RFID tag teachings of Weston to arrive at the claimed invention.",
+    "We agree with Appellants, however, that modifying Keronen in such a manner would fundamentally alter the principle of operation of Keronen which relies upon precise physical contact between smart card 10 and controller 1 to accurately detect user input (App. Br. 7-14; Reply Br. 4-8).",
+    "Further, although the Examiner asserts (Ans. 16) that Keronen suggests that other user input detection arrangements besides a touch sensitive membrane can be used, we agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 7-8) that Keronen has no disclosure of placing any such user input detection arrangements anywhere but on the controller.",
+    "As previously discussed, since Keronen requires that the smart card 10 and controller 1 be in precise physical contact, to allow Keronen's smart card 10 to freely move inside or outside the controller 1 in a contact-free relationship as suggested by the Examiner would fundamentally alter the primary purpose and operation of Keronen.",
+    "In our view, given the disparity of problems addressed by the applied prior art references, and the differing solutions proposed by them, any attempt to combine them in the manner proposed by the Examiner could only come from Appellants' own disclosure using hindsight reconstruction.",
+    "In view of the above discussion, since we are of the opinion that the proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 8, nor the rejection of claims 2-5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 23-27 dependent thereon.",
+    "We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 10, 13, 15, and 16 in which the Examiner has applied various additional references to the combination of Keronen and Weston.",
+    "We find nothing in these additional references, taken individually or collectively, which overcomes the innate deficiencies of the combination of Keronen and Weston as discussed supra.",
+    "Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 and 23-27 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 8 103(a)."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009012302_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 11-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over McLaughlin *589 and McLaughlin *089. Ans. 5.",
+    "McLaughlin '589 discloses the basic claimed structure but lacks folded gloves.",
+    "McLaughlin *589 Figures 1-3; Ans. 3-5.",
+    "McLaughlin '089 demonstrates that it was known in the art that folding gloves in the manner claimed would conserve space and allow for a compact design.",
+    "Col. 3, 11. 29- 32; Ans. 5-6.",
+    "Thus, the claimed subject matter amounts to applying the technique of McLaughlin '089 to the device of McLaughlin *589 in order to yield the predictable result of conserving space and allowing for a compact design.",
+    "As the Examiner points out, only the third glove must be folded in this format.",
+    "Ans. 6."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We affirm.",
+    "We therefore agree with the Examiner that the subject matter described by claims 11 and 17 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.",
+    "Appellants' argument concerning the claimed *attachment device\" (Br. 12-14) is unpersuasive for several reasons.",
+    "First, claim 11 does not require an actual attachment device.",
+    "Rather, the claim requires a **housing \"configured for cooperating with\" an attachment device.",
+    "We do not interpret this limitation to require any specific structure not present in McLaughlin *589.",
+    "The same structures enabling McLaughlin '589's enclosure 20 to receive rivets 36 and chain 38 could be used to *cooperate with\" an attachment device.",
+    "Second, we agree that it was reasonable for the Examiner to include chain 38 as exemplary of the claimed *attachment device.\"",
+    "It was reasonable for the Examiner to conclude that chain 38 could function to allow the enclosure to be worn on a person.",
+    "Where a functional recitation is relied upon for patentability of an apparatus the relevant question is whether a prior art device is capable of performing the recited function, not how well it would perform that function.",
+    "Contra Br. 13.",
+    "It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.",
+    "See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).",
+    "Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or arguments to establish that the Examiner's finding that chain 38 could serve as the claimed \"attachment device\" is in error.",
+    "See 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. \").",
+    "Third, McLaughlin '589 expressly suggests \"enclosure 20 may be provided with any appropriate hardware of conventional design so as to permit it to be hung on a wall or the like. \"",
+    "Col. 4, II. 42-44.",
+    "We see no distinction between a housing configured for cooperating with an attachment device for hanging it on a wall or on a person.",
+    "See, e.g., Spec. 10, para. [0045] (attachment device allows for cooperation with \"a clip, a hook, [or] a loop\" --all of which may be wall-mounted).",
+    "Appellants' argument that the Examiner's s proposed combination would not function properly because the presence of leaf spring 40 in McLaughlin '589 would prevent the use of folded gloves (Br. 14) is also unpersuasive.",
+    "First, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or technical reasoning to support this position.",
+    "Second, combining the teachings of references does not mandate combination of their specific structures.",
+    "In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973).",
+    "McLaughlin *589 offers sufficient guidance to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether or not to incorporate leaf spring 40 in order to facilitate removal of the last few remaining gloves.",
+    "Col. 4, 11. 52-64.",
+    "Appellants' argument that McLaughlin *089 teaches away from the claimed invention (App. Br. 14-15) is premised upon the notion that the language of claims 11 and 17 excludes the folding technique demonstrated by McLaughlin *089, as opposed to criticizing or discrediting the claimed folding arrangement.",
+    "See, e.g., In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).",
+    "Appellants* underlying contention that it was unreasonable for the Examiner to read the gloves of McLaughlin '089 as: a first glove, a second glove, and a third glove folded in a lapped, superjacent-opposing fold format . \u00b7 \u00b7 wherein the first glove is folded along a first axis to decrease its width and along a second axis decrease its length such that the cuff portion of the first glove is folded over the finger portion of the second glove; and 0 wherein the second glove is folded to decrease its width and folded a second time to decrease its length such that the cuff portion of the second glove is folded over the finger portion of the third glove is also unpersuasive.",
+    "During examination of a patent application pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.",
+    "In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969).",
+    "We agree with the Examiner that clauses 1 and 2 of claims 11 and 17 do not require the overlapping of individual gloves.",
+    "Ans. 6; contra Br. 11.",
+    "A cuff portion of one glove is reasonably read as **folded over\" a finger portion of another non-adjacent glove when a stack of gloves is folded in half to decrease their length as is done by McLaughlin *089.",
+    "We are mindful of the fact that McLaughlin '089 is not entirely clear regarding the position of the glove thumbs.",
+    "It would appear from the figures that all thumbs in the stack are folded toward front wall 28 and all cuffs are folded toward rear wall 22.",
+    "Figs. 1-3.",
+    "This is somewhat different from the Examiner's understanding of McLaughlin '089's folding pattern (Ans. 6-9), but the difference is not sufficient to change our determination that the Examiner properly concluded that McLaughlin *089 teaches the claimed folding arrangement.",
+    "Appellants' Specification provides examples of what is considered a *lapped, superjacent-opposing fold format\" but does not expressly define that term.",
+    "We interpret that term in a manner consistent with the Specification to include at least a glove folded over such that opposing sides of the glove overlie something, to lap or surround it.",
+    "See, e.g., Spec. 4, paras. [0013]-[0014].",
+    "However, the claims do not require any specific portion of one glove to lap or surround any specific portion of any other glove.",
+    "Each of McLaughlin '089's outer gloves are folded over such that opposing sides of the glove overlie another glove to lap or surround it.",
+    "Thus, it was reasonable for the Examiner to conclude at least the outer one of McLaughlin '089's gloves is **folded in lapped, superjacent-opposing fold format.\"",
+    "While the folding pattern depicted in Appellants' preferred embodiment (see Spec. 4; figs. 2A-H) may differ from that of McLaughlin *089, Appellants have chosen to employ language in the claims broader than that used to describe the preferred embodiment.",
+    "It would be improper to read language from the preferred embodiment into the claims.",
+    "See SuperGuide Corp. V. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) (\"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.",
+    "For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. \")"
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009013224_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "ANALYSIS Issue 1- Claims 1-26 Appellants assert that Vanderpool does not \"disclose a process that includes \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 fassociating at least a first compression routine with the first user-defined data type' --- +, (App. Br. 8.)",
+    "Issue 2 \u00b7 Claims 27-37 Appellants assert that *Vanderpool does not disclose a system that includes *a plurality of compression routines to apply respective different compression algorithms,' was . (App. Br. 14.)",
+    "Appellants argue that **Vanderpool only describes a single compression algorithm and thus clearly fails to disclose a plurality of compression routines to apply respective different compression algorithms.\" (Id.)",
+    "Appellants also assert that \"Vanderpool does not disclose a system that includes *a controller adapted to invoke one of plurality of compression routines to compress data stored in the table. .. (App. Br. 14.)",
+    "To support this assertion, Appellants argue only that \"Vanderpool is necessarily precluded from disclosing such a feature because Vanderpool fails to disclose a plurality of compression routines and ~ (Id.)"
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1-37 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 102(b) by Vanderpool (US 5,781,773, July 14, 1998). (Ans. 3-14.)",
+    "The Examiner reasons that Vanderpool discloses compressed image data that *includes at least a first compressed image and a second compressed image of lesser resolution than the first compressed image.\" \" (Ans. 4; see also Ans. 15-16.)"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. .8 6(b).",
+    "We affirm-in-part.",
+    "1. Did the Examiner establish that Vanderpool discloses *associating at least a first compression routine with the first user-defined data type,\" as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in claim 13?",
+    "2. Did the Examiner establish that Vanderpool discloses \"a plurality of compression routines to apply respective different compression algorithms,\" and \"a controller adapted to invoke one of plurality of compression routines to compress data stored in the table,\" as recited in claim 272",
+    "PRINCIPLES OF LA W The Examiner bears an initial burden of factually supporting an articulated rejection.",
+    "\"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under S 102 can be found only if\" \"the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim.\"",
+    "But independent claims 1 and 13 require more; they require associating a first compression routine with a first user-defined data type.",
+    "And the Examiner fails to identify the portions of Vanderpool that disclose this claim limitation. (See Ans. 4, 15-18.)",
+    "Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 13, and claims 2-12 and 14-26 dependent therefrom.",
+    "Contrary to Appellants' argument, however, Vanderpool discloses a first compressed image and a second compressed image of lesser resolution than the first image. (Ans. 13, and 18; accord FF 1 and 2.)",
+    "Accordingly, Vanderpool discloses at least two compression algorithms including one to produce the first compressed image and another to produce the second compressed image of lesser resolution. (See Ans. 18; FF 1 and 2.)",
+    "This argument is not persuasive because as explained supra, Vanderpool does, in fact, disclose at least two compression routines.",
+    "For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 27, as well as the rejections of the claims dependent therefrom (i.e., claims 28-37) because Appellants did not set forth any separate patentability arguments for these dependent claims."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009013518_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "1. A method of operating a kiosk to perform financial services, the method comprising: receiving personal data of a user into the kiosk; verifying an identity of the user based on the personal data; in response to a valid verification of the identity of the user, dispensing a stored-value card from a kiosk wherein the stored-value card is associated with a bank card association and the stored-value card is not associated with a bank account; determining a stored-value account related to the stored- value card for the user of the kiosk; receiving user instructions for a banking transaction using the stored-value account; and processing the user instructions to perform the banking transaction using the stored-value account."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13-18, 20-24, 26-28, 30, 32-36, and 38-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. . 103(a) as unpatentable over Phelan (US Pub. 2003/0200180 A1, pub. Oct. 23, 2003) in view of Maskatiya (US Pat. 6,758,394 B2, iss. Jul. 6, 2004) and Risafi (US Pat. 6,999,569 B2, iss. Feb. 14, 2006); and claims 12, 25, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 6 103(a) as unpatentable over Phelan in view of Maskatiya, Risafi, and Bator (US Pat. 6,575,362 B1, iss. Jun. 10, 2003)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-18, 20-28, 30, and 32-43.",
+    "We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. 56 134 and 6 (2002).",
+    "The claimed invention is directed to systems and methods for implementing banking transactions using a stored-value card (Spec., para. [00021).",
+    "Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.",
+    "ISSUE Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Phelan, Maskatiya, Risafi, and Bator renders obvious the subject matter of claims 1- 3, 5, 7-18, 20-28, 30, and 32-43?",
+    "FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the Examiner* s findings of fact, as set forth on pages 3-16 of the Examiner's Answer.",
+    "ANALYSIS The Appellants' arguments that there is no reason to combine Phelan and Maskatiya in the manner suggested by the Examiner is unconvincing (App. Br. 2-8; Reply Br. 2-7).",
+    "In response to Appellants' arguments, we incorporate herein the Examiner' s responses as set forth on pages 9-16 of the Examiner's Answer.",
+    "Specifically, the fact that the money card of Phelan cannot be used as a form of identification in the verification system of Maskatiya (App. Br. 5) does not mean that another form of identification cannot be used to transfer monetary value from another financial instrument to the money card.",
+    "Furthermore, the fact that the identification verification system may be cumbersome to some users who lack identification does not mean the combination would not be obvious (App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-7).",
+    "First of all, there are still other \"underbanked\" or \"self-banked\" individuals with identification who could take advantage of the combined system.",
+    "Moreover, Appellants appear to be confusing whether a business would find it profitable to combine the systems with whether such a combination would have been obvious.",
+    "Even if such a combination may not be profitable, if the combination was within the technical capabilities of one of ordinary skill, i.e., if one of ordinary skill would know how to add the identification system of Maskatiya to the ATM-based money-card system of Phelan, for any reason, the combination is obvious.",
+    "To that end, the Examiner has provided an adequate reason: to prevent fraud."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009013998_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant contends that Turner does not teach a first contact pillar extending substantially to a bottom surface of the first metal layer within the trench. Br. 11.",
+    "In particular, Appellant contends that the element 68 of Turner cannot be a first metal layer because element 68 is part of a capacitor, and the capacitor is a separately claimed element from the first metal layer in claim 49. Br. 12.",
+    "Appellant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Turner to include a trench. Br. 13.",
+    "Appellant contends that Turner teaches a trench capacitor, and Kurosawa teaches a stacked capacitor.",
+    "Appellant concludes that Kurosawa's teachings cannot be applied to the teachings of Turner. Br. 12-13.",
+    "Appellants contend that the combination of Turner and Kurosawa does not teach a second contact pillar extending substantially to a bottom surface of the first metal layer within the trench. Br. 13-14.",
+    "Appellants contend that the combination of Turner and Kurosawa does not teach that the capacitor is formed in the trench overlying the first contact pillar that extends substantially to the first metal layer and the capacitor comprises a storage element of the memory cell. Br. 15-16.",
+    "Appellants contend that the combination of Turner and Kurosawa does not teach that a storage node comprises the first contact pillar that extends substantially to the first metal layer. Br. 17-18.",
+    "Appellant contends that Turner does not teach a conducting layer lining the side of the first contact pillar that extends to a bottom surface of the first metal layer within the trench. Br. 21."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 49-52 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. .5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Turner and Kurosawa.",
+    "Claim 53 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over Turner, Kurosawa, and Fisher.",
+    "The Examiner finds that contact pillar 64 of Turner is within a trench. Ans. 3.",
+    "Further, the Examiner finds that including a trench that does not extend beyond a top surface of a substrate as taught by Kurosawa aids in providing high integration density. Ans. 4.",
+    "The Examiner finds that the combination of Turner and Kurosawa teaches this limitation. Ans. 4.",
+    "The Examiner finds that the Abstract of Turner teaches this limitation. Ans. 4.",
+    "However, the Examiner relies on Fisher to teach this limitation. Ans. 8.",
+    "Rather, the Examiner finds that a bit line contact pillar that is substantially the same height as the first contact pillar is not recited in claim 54. Ans. 8."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 6(b).",
+    "We affirm-in-part.",
+    "Appellant's argument is inconsistent with Appellant's statement in the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter section of the Brief, identifying, inter alia, element 1375 of Fig. 23 as a first metal layer, and element 1375 as part of the capacitor. Br. 7.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner' s finding.",
+    "The area that contains pillar 64 is a \"trench\" within the meaning of claim 49.",
+    "We find that the trench containing pillar 64 does not extend below the top surface of substrate 10. See Figs. 9 and 10 of Turner.",
+    "Therefore, Turner alone teaches the contact pillar within the trench.",
+    "However, Appellant has not presented evidence or persuasive argument to rebut the Examiner' s finding.",
+    "It is well settled that mere lawyer' s arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).",
+    "Attorney argument is not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).",
+    "Nor can it take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner V. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977).",
+    "We sustain the rejection of claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. & 103.",
+    "However, Figure 9 of Turner shows a second contact pillar 62 in the trench.",
+    "We sustain the rejection of claim 50 under 35 U.S.C. & 103.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner.",
+    "Both Turner and Kurosawa teach that the capacitor is a storage element of the memory cell. See Turner, Abstract; Kurosawa, Abstract.",
+    "We sustain the rejection of claim 51 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner.",
+    "We sustain the rejection of claim 52 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103.",
+    "We sustain the rejection of claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. & 103.",
+    "The Examiner has not addressed these limitations of claim 54.",
+    "We disagree with the Examiner.",
+    "We do not sustain the rejection of claim 54 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009014397_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants contend [T]he passage in Daniell that the Examiner cites [(Daniell I [0036], 11. 19-23)] . \u00b7 . makes no mention of any choice to replace each of the features of the electronic document that include undesired executable coding.",
+    ". . Daniell eliminates all offending embedded code and allows a user an option to either view the original unmodified document or the subsequently modified document. (App. Br. 10).",
+    "**Appellant[s*] claimed invention claims the [sic] producing an alternate source code of said electronic document, which eliminates said undesired executable coding \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 to replace said original source code with said alternate source code for each of said features? * (App. Br. 11)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 1-4, 8-11, 18-23, 25, 34-38, 42-44, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 102(e) as anticipated by Daniell.",
+    "2 Claims 5 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over Daniell in view of Carpenter.",
+    "Claims 6-7 and 40-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable over Daniell in view of Carpenter and Crosbie.",
+    "Claims 24 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. .8 103(a) as unpatentable over Daniell in view of Official Notice.",
+    "Claims 13-17, 26-30, 32, and 47- 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as unpatentable over Daniell in view of Pennell.",
+    "Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over Daniell in view of Pennell and Corboy.",
+    "Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over Daniell in view of Pennell and Carpenter.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Daniell discloses the allowing step at paragraph [0036] (Ans. 4), which states that \"the system may be adapted to provide the option of viewing the original message having the embedded functions, or \u25a0 \u25a0 the modified message without the embedded functions\" (Daniell I [0036], 11. 19-23).",
+    "The Examiner further explains: By eliminating all offending embedded code (based on a user's choice, see par. [0036]) Daniell eliminates each instance of offending embedded code and thus anticipates the claims (see e.g. par. [0028], [0054] and [0036]).",
+    ". Specifically while the claim recites replacing code for each feature, it contains no indication that this is done in an iterative process (e.g. detecting a first undesired executable coding, asking the user if it should be replaced and repeating the process for each subsequent detected undesired executable coding).",
+    "Thus while Daniell only discloses consulting the user once and replacing or leaving each of the features as a single unit based on the consultation, this still meets the broad claim language. (Ans. 18-19)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention \"relates to computer technology, and more particularly to buffering systems which provide security in accessing/ viewing electronic documents and web pages.\" (Spec. I [0001]).",
+    "An electronic document received by a client computer from a host computer may be a web page, an electronic mail message, an electronic mail attachment, a note in a hypertext format, a text document, a text file, or an application-specific electronic document.",
+    "The invention determines whether the original source code of the electronic document includes executable source coding that, when executed by the client computer, causes the client computer to perform undesired operations, and produces an alternate source code of the electronic document that eliminates the undesired operations. (Abstract).",
+    "Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: 1. A method of buffering an electronic document containing features received from a sender, said method comprising: determining whether an original source code associated with one of said features of said electronic document includes undesired executable coding which, when executed by a client computer, causes said client computer to perform undesired operations; if said original source code includes said undesired executable coding, producing an alternate source code of said electronic document, which eliminates said undesired executable coding, wherein said undesired operations are characterized as undesirable based on predetermined settings established by said client computer; and allowing said client computer a choice of whether to replace said original source code with said alternate source code for each of said features.",
+    "The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Pennell US 2003/0098883 A1 May 29, 2003 Daniell US 2004/0068695 A1 Apr. 8, 2004 Carpenter US 6,986,062 B2 Jan. 10, 2006 (filed Feb. 5, 2004) Corboy US 7,284,187 B1 Oct. 16, 2007 (filed May 30, 1997) Crosbie et al., Defending a Computer System Using Autonomous Agents, Technical Report No. 95-022, Dept. of Comp. Sciences, Purdue University, March 1996, available at [aphilinavaringesbabubabteffunatina.lonfin]",
+    "3 Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the Briefs (App. Br. filed Feb. 2, 2009; Reply Br. filed July 24, 2009) for the positions of Appellants and the Final Rejection (Fin. Rej. mailed Sept. 3, 2008) and Answer (Ans. mailed June 24, 2009) for the positions of the Examiner.",
+    "ISSUE The dispositive issue\" presented by Appellants' arguments is: Does Daniell disclose \"allowing said client computer a choice of whether to replace said original source code with said alternate source code for each of said features\" (hereinafter the \"allowing step\"), as recited in claim 12",
+    "Claim construction is an issue of law that we review de novo.",
+    "Cordis Corp. 17. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).",
+    "Claims are not to be read in a vacuum, but must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by ordinary artisans.",
+    "Phillips 12. A WH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).",
+    "\"[Cllaims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.\"",
+    "\" Bicon, Inc. 12. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006).",
+    "We find that the Examiner has erred in construing the allowing step.",
+    "The Examiner'. s proposed claim construction (see Ans. 19), which would encompass a method that only allows the client computer to make a single choice to replace all of the original source code with alternate source code, as disclosed by Daniell (I [0036]), would read the phrase *for each of said features\" out of the claim.",
+    "See Bicon, 441 F.3d at 950.",
+    "The definition of \"each\" is *adj. 1. every one of two or more considered individually or one by one \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 pron. 2. each one.\"",
+    "The Random House College DICTIONARY 414 (rev. ed. 1980).",
+    "We conclude that the plain and ordinary meaning, and broadest reasonable interpretation, of the allowing step recited in claim 1 is that for each one of the **features** the client computer is allowed to make an individual choice (i.e., one by one) between original source code and alternate source code for that feature.",
+    "The passages of Daniell cited and described by the Examiner (see Ans. 3-4, 17-21) disclose allowing the client computer to make a single choice as to whether to replace the entire original source code of an electronic document having the source code of the \"features\" with an alternate source code having the source code of the \"features\" removed.",
+    "Daniell does not disclose allowing a client computer to make a choice for each \"feature\" as to whether to replace an original source code of the \"feature\" with an alternate source code for the **feature,\" as recited in the allowing step of claim 1.",
+    "We find that the allowing step, as properly construed, does not read on the cited passages of Daniell.",
+    "Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of (1) claim 1; (2) claims 18, 19, and 35, which recite limitations substantially similar to the allowing step; (3) claims 2-11 and13-17 which depend from claim 1; and (4) claims 20-33 and 36-51, which depend from claims 19 and 35 respectively.",
+    "We note that the Examiner has suggested that the combination of Daniell and Carpenter \"would have made the narrower interpretation [argued by the Appellants] obvious.\" (Ans. 19).",
+    "However, the rejection before us is the rejection for anticipation by Daniell under 35 U.S.C. & 102(e), not a potential rejection for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a).",
+    "We leave to the Examiner for the instant application to determine if a further rejection under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) should be entered."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009014636_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "The Appellants argue that Nakamae, Mayer *794, Weitzel *224, Weitzel '978 and Mayer '078 do not disclose a polyvinyl alcohol having an ethylene unit content of 1-12 mol% (Br. 8; Reply Br. 3-4).",
+    "Regarding claims 32-39 the Appellants argue that Nakamae, Mayer *794, Weitzel *224, Weitzel '978 and Mayer '078 do not disclose a polyvinyl alcohol having a 1,2-glycol bond content of at least 1.9 mol% (Br. 8; Reply Br. 4).",
+    "The Appellants argue that \"[the second PVA of Nakamae '903 must be different from the first PVA because the first PVA includes a mercapto group (see column 1, lines 48-59)\" (Reply Br. 3), and that Mayer *794, Weitzel *224, Weitzel '978 and Mayer '078 do not disclose the Appellants' polyvinyl alcohol (B) (Reply Br. 3-4)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner argues that the Appellants' claim requirement that the polyvinyl alcohol has an ethylene unit content of 1-12 mol% is met by Nakamae's polyvinyl alcohol having an ethylene unit content of preferably 5 mol% or less (col. 3, 11. 10-12, 34-35) (Ans. 3-4).",
+    "The Examiner argues that Mayer *794, Weitzel *224, Weitzel '978 and Mayer *078 disclose a polyvinyl alcohol having up to 10 mol% of units from a hydrophobic monomer such as ethylene which, the Examiner argues, meets the Appellants' claim requirement of an ethylene unit content of 1-12 mol% (Ans. 4-5).",
+    "The Examiner argues that \"it is reasonable that the polyvinyl alcohol of [each reference] would possess the presently claimed amounts [of] 1,2- glycol bonds since the composition of the polyvinyl alcohol in [each reference], based on it's [sic] composition, is essentially the same as in the claimed composition and the USPTO does not have at its disposal the tools or facilities deemed necessary to make physical determinations of the sort\" (Ans. 7, 8, 10 and 12).",
+    "Regarding the rejection over Nakamae the Examiner argues that \"it is reasonable that a PVA having the same ethylene content as the first PVA would be using [sic] as the second added PV a for the purpose of simplicity\" (Ans. 6).",
+    "With respect to the rejections over Mayer *794, Weitzel *224, Weitzel '978 and Mayer *078 the Examiner argues that although the references do not disclose the ethylene content of the polyvinyl alcohol atomization aid, it is clear to the Examiner that the polyvinyl alcohol used as the atomization aid is the same as that used as the protective colloid and, therefore, has an ethylene unit content of 0.1-10 wt% (Ans. 7-9, 11)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b).",
+    "We reverse the rejections.",
+    "The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation by pointing out where all of the claim limitations appear in a single reference.",
+    "The overlap between the ethylene unit contents of Nakamae and the Appellants is evidence of prima facie obviousness of the Appellants' ethylene unit content.",
+    "Nakamae's 's range having an endpoint of 5 mo1% within the Appellants' range is not an anticipatory disclosure, however, because \"the disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.\"",
+    "The Examiner* s argument that Mayer *794, Weitzel *224, Weitzel '978 and Mayer *078 disclose a polyvinyl alcohol having up to 10 mo1% of units from a hydrophobic monomer such as ethylene is incorrect.",
+    "The Examiner has not established that Mayer *794, Weitzel *224, Weitzel '978 or Mayer *078 discloses an ethylene content within the Appellants' 1-12 mol% range.",
+    "Hence, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation by those references.",
+    "Conclusion of Law The Appellants have indicated reversible error in the Examiner's s determination that Nakamae, Mayer *794, Weitzel *224, Weitzel '978 or Mayer '078 discloses forming a polymer emulsion (A) comprising a dispersant and a dispersoid, wherein the dispersant has an ethylene unit content of from 1 to 12 mol%.",
+    "As discussed above regarding the rejections of claims 40-45 and 47- 58 the Examiner has not established that Nakamae, Mayer *794, Weitzel *224, Weitzel '978 or Mayer '078 discloses a polyvinyl alcohol having an ethylene unit content within the Appellants' range of 1-12 mol%.",
+    "Hence, the Examiner has not established a prima facia case of anticipation of the powders claimed in the Appellants' claims 15-20 and 22-31.",
+    "The Examiner has not provided evidence or reasoning which shows that the polyvinyl alcohols of the references and the Appellants' polyvinyl alcohol having a 1,2-glycol bond content of at least 1.9 mol% are essentially the same.",
+    "Nor has the Examiner provided any reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the references' polyvinyl alcohols such that they have a 1,2-glycol bond content of at least 1.9 mol%.",
+    "Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness of the powders claimed in the Appellants' claims 32-39.",
+    "The disclosure of the use of the polyvinyl alcohols having a mercapto group at an end thereof in combination with other polyvinyl alcohols appears to indicate that the other polyvinyl alcohols are not the same as the one having a mercapto group at an end thereof.",
+    "Thus, the Examiner's argument that \"it is reasonable that a PV a having the same ethylene content as the first PVA would be using [sic] as the second added PVA for the purpose of simplicity\" (Ans. 6) does not appear to follow from Nakamae's s disclosure.",
+    "As for the Examiner's s argument that it is clear that the polyvinyl alcohol atomization aids of Mayer *794, Weitzel *224, Weitzel '978 and Mayer *078 are the same as the polyvinyl alcohol protective colloid (Ans. 7- 9, 11), the Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in those references or provided any technical reasoning as to why that is so.",
+    "The Examiner's mere speculation is not sufficient for providing a prima facie case of unpatentability.",
+    "Conclusion of Law The Appellants have indicated reversible error in the Examiner's s determination that Nakamae, Mayer *794, Weitzel *224, Weitzel '978 or Mayer *078 discloses, or would have rendered prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, 1) forming a polymer emulsion (A) comprising a dispersant and a dispersoid, and mixing the polymer emulsion (A) with a polyvinyl alcohol (B) having an ethylene unit content of from 1 to 12 mo1% (claim 15), and 2) forming a polymer emulsion (A) comprising a dispersant and a dispersoid, and mixing the polymer emulsion (A) with a polyvinyl alcohol (D) having a 1,2-glycol bond content of at least 1.9 mo1% (claim 32).",
+    "I respectfully dissent from the majority's s opinion.",
+    "The initial inquiry into the propriety of the Examiner's 's & 102 or \u25cf 103(a) rejections requires the determination of the scope of the claims on appeal.",
+    "The determination of the scope of the claims on appeal via claim interpretation is a question of law which I must review de novo.",
+    "As correctly pointed out by Appellants at page 5 of their Appeal Brief, claims 40 and 15 are written in a product-by-process format.",
+    "When product claims are drafted in a product-by-process format, i.e., a product defined by a process limitation, the *determination of patentability is based on the product itself.\"",
+    "\"If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even thought the prior art product was made by a different process.\"",
+    "By virtue of using the transition term \"comprising,\" the claimed polymer emulsion is open to the presence of other additional ingredients which are not specifically recited.",
+    "According to claim 40 and pages 3 and 9 of the Specification, the dispersant can be a polyvinyl alcohol having an ethylene unit content of from 1 to 12 mol%, which is identical to the polyvinyl alcohol subsequently added.",
+    "By virtue of using the transition term \"comprising,\" the claimed polymer emulsion is open to the presence of other additional ingredients which are not specifically recited.",
+    "It follows that claims 15, like claim 40, recite a synthetic resin emulsion powder obtained by drying a polymer emulsion comprising a polyvinyl alcohol having an ethylene unit content of from 1 to 12 mol% and a polymer having one or more ethylenic unsaturated monomers and dienic monomers.",
+    "According to pages 3 and 4 of the Specification, a polyvinyl alcohol having an ethylene unit content of from 1 to 12 mol% can be added as part of an original polymer emulsion or added subsequently to the polymer emulsion containing the same to form a polymer emulsion containing the same.",
+    "Having interpreted claims 40 and 15 in the above manner, I compare the claimed invention with the content of the applied prior art, in particular Nakamae.",
+    "Since there is a substantial overlap between the ethylene unit contents of Nakamae's s polyvinyl alcohol dispersant and the claimed polyvinyl alcohol, I concur with the Examiner that the claimed synthetic resin emulsion powder would have been readily envisaged by one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b).",
+    "Appellants' reliance on a showing of unexpected result cannot rebut the prima facie case of anticipation established by the Examiner.",
+    "Accordingly, I would affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 40-45 and 47-58 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 102(b) as anticipated by Nakamae",
+    "Although the claims require further adding a polyvinyl alcohol having an ethylene unit content of from 1 to 12 mol% to a polymer emulsion containing the same to form a polymer emulsion, the Examiner has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed and prior art synthetic resin emulsion powders are identical or substantially identical since they both are obtained by drying polymer emulsions containing the same ingredients.",
+    "On this record, Appellants have not shown that the claimed mixing sequence, i.e., further adding a polyvinyl alcohol having an ethylene unit content of from 1 to 12 mol% to a polymer emulsion containing the same to form a polymer emulsion, renders the claimed synthetic resin emulsion powder patentably different from that taught by Nakamae.",
+    "Accordingly, I would also affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15-17, 19, 20 and 22-39 under 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. & 103 as unpatentable over Nakamae."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009014788_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Specifically, Appellants contend that \"numerous examples of third party teachings\" (App. Br. 14) establish that *[t]ransdermal drug delivery is a very complex and delicate art\" and \"the identification of specific permeation or penetration enhancers for specific active agents is an extremely difficult and complicated challenge\" (id. at 13), difficult to predict, and \"must be carefully analyzed and demonstrated by empirical work\" (id. at 17).",
+    "Appellants contend that Venkateshwaran \"provides extremely limited teachings or correlation of specific active agents with specific permeation enhancers and provides no teaching correlating fatty acid esters of lauryl alcohol with antiparkinsonism drugs, let alone huperzine\" (id. at 13).",
+    "Appellants contend that, \"based on the knowledge in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had reason to combine the cited references nor would they have had reasonable expectations of success in forming such a combination\" (id. at 16)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable over Hwang* and Venkateshwaran.",
+    "The Examiner acknowledges that Hwang does not explicitly teach *the blood plasma levels of huperzine provided by the transdermal system\" (Ans. 4) or the \"specific permeation enhancer as instantly claimed\" (id.), but notes that [Hwang] disclosed the amount of the drug used in the transdermal patch in acrylate adhesive is . a 2.25% (table 2), and applicants disclosed 1-20% huperzine in their formulations (examples).",
+    "Therefore, [Hwang] teaches the same claimed adhesive, same drug in the same amount, and further teaches permeation enhancer. . . .",
+    "Further applicants disclosed in pages 21-23 that the claimed plasma level is achieved by permeation rate of huperzine to the skin between 0.01 to 15 ug/cm2/hr, and the reference teaches effective permeation rate more than 1.46 ug/cm2/hr \u00b7 . (id. at 6-7).",
+    "The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious \"to provide a transdermal drug delivery system to deliver huperzine to treat patients suffering from [Alzheimer's disease] wherein the system comprises polyacrylate adhesive and . . \u00b7 [a] permeation enhancer as disclosed by [Hwang]\" (Ans. 5).",
+    "The Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious to use a fatty acid ester of lactic acid as the permeation enhancer because Venkateshwaran describes an **adhesive matrix [which] comprises acrylic . \u00b7 \u00b7 adhesive[ ] and permeation enhancer including fatty acid esters including lauryl lactate\" (id. at 4)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "The claims have not been argued separately, therefore, we select claim 81 as representative, and the remaining claims will stand or fall according to claim 81. 37 C.F.R. 5 41.37(c)(1)(vii).",
+    "5 We affirm.",
+    "10. Hwang's **adhesive-type transdermal drug delivery device\" is a *matrix patch,\" as that term is defined in the present Specification (compare FF2, FF8, and FF9).",
+    "In addition, Hwang teaches that \"`[The permeation rate required to achieve the therapeutic levels of [huperzine] by transdermal delivery is calculated to be 4.2 ug/cm2/hr if a 10 cm2 patch is used\" (FF12), which is well within the \"about 0.01 ug/cm2/hr to about 15 ug/cm2/hr\" therapeutic range disclosed in Appellants' Specification (FF7), and Hwang further teaches that a permeation enhancer can be used to increase the skin permeability of huperizine to therapeutic levels if desired (FF12).",
+    "The Examiner's conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the prior art is supported by the evidence of record, and we are not persuaded otherwise by Appellants' arguments.",
+    "We have carefully considered Appellants' arguments, but are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of skill in the art.",
+    "While the evidence of record generally supports Appellants' assertion that it is not predictable ahead of time which, if any, permeation enhancers would be compatible with Hwang's huperzine/polyacrylate matrix patch, the evidence of record also shows that it was considered routine in the art to identify compatible combinations and relative amounts of permeation enhancers empirically (FF15-16).",
+    "Moreover, Hwang suggests that a permeation enhancer can be included in the transdermal formulation to achieve a therapeutic dosage, and Hwang's disclosed therapeutic dosage is within the range asserted in the present Specification to be therapeutic (FF7, FF11, FF12).",
+    "In any case, even if we accept for the sake of argument that identifying a permeation enhancer ideally suited for Hwang's matrix patch would have required evaluating a large number of candidates, that doesn't 't mean that one of ordinary skill in the art wouldn't 't have had a reasonable expectation of identifying a compatible permeation enhancer through routine, empirical experimentation.",
+    "By the same token, it doesn't mean that the identity of a permeation enhancer identified by such routine experimentation would have been in any way unexpected or surprising - especially as Venkateshwaran shows that acrylate polymer adhesives are conventionally combined with permeation enhancers like lauryl lactate (FF13-14).",
+    "Nor is there anything in Appellants' Specification that indicates otherwise \u00b7 indeed, Appellants' Specification teaches on one hand that \"[a] wide range of known permeation enhancers have been found to enhance the delivery of huperzine\" (FF5) and, and on the other hand, that \"no enhancer is necessary in order to achieve the desired blood plasma levels in many instances,' thus, a transdermal formulation may \"consist essentially of an amount of huperzine sufficient to achieve a huperzine blood plasma level of from about 0.1 to about 30 ng/ml admixed with an inert carrier\" (FF6)."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2009015334_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Although Appellants admit that \"Yuknewicz discloses methods for retrieving and manipulating data using parameterized queries\" (App. Br. 10), Appellants contend that \"a requirement placed on an input of a query is not the same as requesting a predefined desired results characteristic\" (App. Br. 11).",
+    "Although Appellants admit that \"Dettinger discloses methods for modifying elements of a query to produce a desired result size\" (App. Br. 10), Appellants contend that \"Dettinger does not disclose query modification comprising removing the at least one condition (of the parameterized query) comprising the parameter marker, whereby the parameterized query is transformed into a non-parameterized executable query\" (App. Br. 11).",
+    "Appellants also contend that the Examiner relies on Dettinger to disclose \"modifying the query\" but relies on Curtis to disclose \"if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker,\" and thus, such \"parsing of the claims elements by the Examiner is improper\" (App. Br. 12)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "However, the Examiner finds that \"Yuknewicz discloses requesting a predefined result characteristic by selecting a query\" wherein \"the user is requesting that the results of the executed query, in this instance, be characterized by value entered into the parameter '@ZipCode' in the shown query\" (Ans. 18).",
+    "The Examiner explains that \"the user is selecting before the query is executed, and before a value is assigned to the query parameter, that the results of the query be determined \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 based on a yet to be assigned zip code\" and \"[]hus the desired result characteristic is predefined\" (Ans. 18-19).",
+    "The Examiner also finds that Dettinger discloses that \"the query can [be] modified by changing the value of a condition\" (Ans. 20) wherein \"a parameterized query, i.e. a modifiable abstract query, is transformed into a non-parameterized, i.e. a concrete, executable query\" (Ans. 21).",
+    "The Examiner also explains that \"Curtis is not solely referenced to simply disclose 'if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker' as Appellant appears to be arguing\" but rather \"Curtis discloses every limitation element \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 except for the element 'the modification comprising removing the at least one condition comprising the parameter marker** (App. Br. 22-23).",
+    "As the Examiner explains, \"Curtis is not solely referenced to simply disclose 'if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker' as Appellant appears to be arguing\" (Ans. 22-23).",
+    "As the Examiner finds, the references \"are in the field of endeavor relating to modification of a query\" (Ans. 25)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. & 6(b).",
+    "We affirm.",
+    "The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the combination of Yuknewicz, Dettinger, and Curtis teaches or would have suggested \"requesting a predefined desired results characteristic without specifying a value for the parameter marker\" and, *if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker, modifying the query \u00b7 \u00b7, the modification comprising removing the at least one condition comprising the parameter marker, whereby the parameterized query is transformed into a non-parameterized executable query\" (claim 1)?",
+    "The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence.",
+    "By arguing what Yuknewicz and Dettinger do not teach (App. Br. 10- 11), Appellants appear to be arguing that the references do not individually anticipate the claimed invention.",
+    "However, since the Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over the combined teachings of Yuknewicz, Dettinger, and Curtis, the test for obviousness is not what each reference shows but what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.",
+    "See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).",
+    "We find Yuknewicz to disclose or at the least suggest \"requesting a predefined desired results characteristic without specifying a value for the parameter marker,\" as required by claim 1.",
+    "That is, we find no error in the Examiner's finding that Yuknewicz discloses \"the results of the query be determined \u00b7- based on a yet to be assigned zip code\" and \"[thus the desired result characteristic is predefined\" (Ans. 18-19).",
+    "Thus, we find Yuknewicz also discloses or would have suggested \"modifying the query\" wherein \"the modification comprising removing the at least one condition comprising the parameter marker, whereby the parameterized query is transformed into a non-parameterized executable query\" as required by claim 1.",
+    "Thus, we find Dettinger also discloses or would have suggested \"modifying the query\" wherein \"the modification comprising removing the at least one condition, \" whereby the query is transformed, as required by claim 1.",
+    "We find Dettinger to also disclose or would have suggested *requesting a predefined desired results characteristic without specifying a value,\" as required by claim 1.",
+    "Thus, the combination of Yuknewicz in view of Dettinger teaches or at the least would have suggested requesting a predefined results characteristic without specifying a value and modifying a parameterized query to transform it into a non-parameterized query.",
+    "We find that the only feature of Appellants' invention missing from the combined teachings of Yuknewicz and Dettinger is an explicit teaching that the modification of the parameterized query transforms the parameterized query into a non- parameterized query \"if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker\" (claim 1).",
+    "We find \"requesting a predefined desired results characteristic without specifying a value for the parameter marker\" (claim 1) to read on Curtis's s request in the event that no values are passed, and we find \"if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker, modifying the query -- whereby the parameterized query is transformed into a non-parameterized executable query\" (claim 1) to read on Curtis's modification of the query to a default value when no values are passed.",
+    "Although Appellants contend that relying on Dettinger to disclose \"modifying the query\" but on Curtis to disclose *if the selection does not specify a value for the parameter marker\" is \"improper\" (App. Br. 12) and that \"Dettinger and Curtis are incompatible and cannot be combined\" (App. Br. 13), Appellants are viewing the references from a different perspective than the Examiner.",
+    "Further, the issue is not whether the system of Dettinger can be combined with the system of Curtis.",
+    "That is, the issue here is whether a person of ordinary skill, upon reading Curtis's teaching of modifying a query to provide a default value when no value is being specified in query modification, would be discouraged from providing a default value when no value is being specified to the query modification that the combined teachings of Yuknewicz and Dettinger teach or suggest.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner that Curtis's teaching would not have been discouraged the artisan from combining the references.",
+    "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.",
+    "KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).",
+    "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.\"",
+    "Id. at 420-21.",
+    "Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over Yuknewicz, Dettinger and Curtis.",
+    "Since Appellants do not provide arguments for independent claim 23 and claims 2-4, 7-9 and 24, respectively depending from claims 1 and 23, separate from those of claim 1 (App. Br. 11-14), we also find that Appellants have not shown Examiner error in rejecting claims 2-4, 7-9, 23, and 24 over Yuknewicz, Dettinger and Curtis.",
+    "As discussed above with respect to claim 1 (and thus claim 23), we find no error with the Examiner's rejection over Yuknewicz, Dettinger and Curtis.",
+    "Accordingly, we find no Examiner error in rejecting claim 6 over Yuknewicz, Dettinger, and Curtis in further view of ASP FAQ and in rejecting claim 25 over Yuknewicz, Dettinger, and Curtis in further view of Antoshenkov."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010000005_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "With respect to independent claims 1 and 3, Appellant argues that the combination of Otake and Badehi does not teach or suggest \"a microcontroller\" because the Examiner improperly interpreted this claim term. (App. Br. 7, 12-14.)",
+    "With respect to independent claims 1 and 3, Appellant argues that Ostler does not teach or suggest \"the microcontroller having an n-bit data bus; and up to n-pins electrically coupled to the microcontroller.\" (App. Br. 16, 20-24.)",
+    "In particular, Appellant argues that Ostler does not teach that the number of external pins is a result-effective variable (App. Br. 20-21) and reducing the number of pins of a microcontroller (App. Br. 21-24)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner found that the claimed \"microcontroller\" corresponds to the \"microcomputer'' of Otake. (Ans. A-3.)",
+    "The Examiner cited Badehi as evidence that a \"microcontroller\" is equivalent to a \"microcomputer.\" (Ans. 8, A-4.)",
+    "The Examiner argues that Ling provides evidence to support the position that a \"microcontroller\" is equivalent to a \"microcomputer.\" (Ans. 8.)",
+    "The Examiner acknowledged that Ostler does not teach or suggest \"the microcontroller having an n-bit data bus; and up to n-pins electrically coupled to the microcontroller.\" (See Ans. A-5.)",
+    "However, the Examiner concluded that this claim feature would have been obvious because **claiming the specific reduction in pins to be up to the number of pins in the data bus is merely a result effective variable that follows from optimizing the reduction of the number of pins at the explicit suggestion in Ostler to reduce the number of pins.\" (Ans. A-5.)",
+    "In the alternative, the Examiner relied upon Otake, for its teaching of \"the microcontroller having an n-bit data bus; and up to n-pins electrically coupled to the microcontroller.' (Ans. A-7.)"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance of the evidence.",
+    "With respect to the first issue, we are convinced by Appellant's argument (App. Br. 7, 12-14) that the combination of Otake and Badehi does not teach or suggest \"a microcontroller, as recited in claims 1 and 3.",
+    "We do not agree.",
+    "Thus, the \"microcomputer\" of Otake is not a \"microcontroller\" because it does not include a memory. (See FF 1.)",
+    "Thus, in comparing Figure 1 of Otake with Figure 20.2 of Tietze/Schenk, the \"microcomputer\" of Otake is a \"CPU\" rather than a \"microcontroller.\" (See FF 2, 4.)",
+    "Badehi, which was relied upon by the Examiner for its teaching of integrated circuit packaging (Ans. A-4; FF 9), does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Otake.",
+    "As discussed previously, the \"microcomputer\" of Otake is a CPU and does not have all the functions of a complete computer.",
+    "Therefore, the Examiner has erred in finding the combination of Otake and Badehi teaches or suggests \"a microcontroller,\" as recited in claims 1 and 3.",
+    "We conclude that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being obvious over Otake and Badehi.",
+    "With respect to the second issue, we are convinced by Appellant's argument (App. Br. 16, 20-24) that Ostler does not teach or suggest \"the microcontroller having an n-bit data bus; and up to n-pins electrically coupled to the microcontroller\" as recited in independent claims 1 and 3.",
+    "We do not agree.",
+    "In other words, Ostler teaches that instead of increasing the number of external pins to accommodate the special function circuits, each of the existing external pins has the additional capability of transmitting address/data signals and special I/O signals from special function circuits. (See FF 6-7.)",
+    "Thus, Ostler does not teach or suggest reducing the total number of external pins, but instead maintains the existing number of external pins. (See FF 5.)",
+    "Furthermore, Ostler does not provide any recognition that the number of pins 111 is a result-effective variable (i.e., varying the number of pins 111 achieves a recognized result).",
+    "Therefore, the number of pins 111 in Ostler has not been shown to be a parameter subject to optimization.",
+    "Therefore, the Examiner has erred in finding that Ostler teaches or suggests \"the microcontroller having an n-bit data bus; and up to n-pins electrically coupled to the microcontroller,' as recited in claims 1 and 3.",
+    "However, Otake does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Ostler because, as discussed previously, Otake does not teach or suggest a \"microcontroller.\" \" but instead relates to a microcomputer in which a **built-in ROM is not needed\" (FF 3).",
+    "We conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being obvious over Ostler or over Ostler and Otake.",
+    "Claims 2 and 4 depend from independent claims 1 and 3, and we likewise conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as being obvious over Ostler or over Ostler and Otake for the reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1 and 3.",
+    "We conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting this claim, as well as claims 6-15, which depend from claim 5, for the reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1 and 3.",
+    "The Philips-NE Data Sheet, which was relied upon by the Examiner for its teaching of \"an integrated circuit package comprising a left side and a right side\" and \"a plurality of pins extending from said left side and said right side of said integrated circuit package\" (Ans. A-8; FF 10), does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Ostler.",
+    "Otake also does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Ostler for the reasons previously discussed.",
+    "Claim 16 indirectly depends from independent claim 5 and the Examiner has erred in rejecting this claim for the reasons discussed previously with respect to independent claim 5.",
+    "Hall, which was relied upon by the Examiner for its teaching of \"wherein said memory device is a SRAM, DRAM, EPROM, EEPROM, ROM, PROM or a logic device\" (Ans. A-13 to -14; FF 11), does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Ostler.",
+    "Otake also does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Ostler for the reasons previously discussed.",
+    "Claims 17 and 18 indirectly depend from independent claim 5 and the Examiner has erred in rejecting these claims for the reasons discussed previously with respect to independent claim 5.",
+    "The APA, which was relied upon by the Examiner for its teaching of \"a bi-directional I/O port unit\" and \"a serial programming unit\" (Ans. A-14 to -15), does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Ostler.",
+    "Otake also does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Ostler for the reasons previously discussed."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010000800_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant contends that (1) \"Clark is directed to a template; i.e., array 12, and not a molecular switch\" (App. Br. 6); (2) \"the array 12 is removed from the final product\" (id.); and (3) Clark's structure is \"used for incorporating active biomolecules 36 in nanometer dimensioned holes 16,\" but when the array which is used to form the holes is removed, projections are left as rows of islands as shown in Clark's s Fig. 7C (id. at 7.)",
+    "According to Appellant, Clark did not disclose the claimed arrangement of layers directly under other layers in the working device because Clark' s layers are removed. (Id. at 7-8.)",
+    "Concerning the substitution of Kossovsky' s cytochrome c for Clark's protein, Appellant contends that it would be incongruous to use Kossovsky'. is \"electronically active\" biochemical in conjunction with Clark's \"template.\" (Id. at 8-9.)",
+    "Even if such a substitution were made, \"the combination still would not result in a biomolecular electronic switch, as claimed in independent claims 10, 11, 12 and 15.\" (Id. at 9.)",
+    "Regarding claims 18 and 19, Appellant additionally argues that both claims recite a monolayer of globular protein 20-40 A thick, but \"[n]either Clark nor Kossovsky disclose the concept of a single monolayer.\" (Id. at 24.)",
+    "Finally, Appellant argues that Clark did not disclose the arrangement of layers recited in claims 10 and 11. (App. Br. 12.)",
+    "Appellant argues that Clark does not disclose the arrangement of layers as instantly claimed. (App. Br. 12.)",
+    "Appellant argues that Clark did not disclose a switch. (App. Br. 13.)",
+    "Appellant argues that Clark's disclosure described only templates or masking, and not functional switching devices having a monolayer of protein. (App. Br. 13.)",
+    "Clark taught that cytochrome oxidase could be used (FF 1), but Appellant argues that there is no reason why cytochrome c could be substituted for cytochrome oxidase (App. Br. 16).",
+    "Appellant's argument is apparently based on a general definition of oxidase.",
+    "Appellant argues that Clark did not disclose an arrangement having a monolayer of protein directly under a layer of electrode, or sandwiched between contacts, purportedly because the protein layer in Clark's device was placed in an open hole, not directly under a layer nor sandwiched between layers. (App. Br. 14.)",
+    "Appellant contends that Clark removed array 12 from the final product, pointing to Clark's Figs. 6A-6H and 8A-8E.",
+    "Appellant acknowledges the Examiner* s case for substituting Kossovsky's 's cytochrome c into Clark's device but argues that it would have been incongruous to make the substitution \"[i]nasmuch as the 2-dimensional array of film layers (12) in Clark function as a template and not as *improved semiconductor [materials] for use in electronic switching devices.\" (App. Br. 8-9.)",
+    "Appellant argues that \"[nJeither Clark alone or modified in view of Kossovsky disclose an electronic switch wherein at least one of the first and second contacts is a wire.\" (App. Br. 17.)",
+    "Appellant reiterates arguments about the Clark and Kossovsky disclosures (App. Br. 20-24) that we again find unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 10-19 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) in view of Clark' and Kossovsky. 2",
+    "The Examiner* s position is that Clark described a biomolecular device having all the features of Appellant's device except for \"globular protein or cytochrome c as the protein layer.\" (Ans. 4.)",
+    "The Examiner found that Kossovsky taught similar but \"improved\" bio-electronic devices with cytochrome c as the protein layer having semiconductor properties. (Id. at 5.)",
+    "The Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to use cytochrome c for Clark's two-dimensional protein layer because Kossovsky taught that cytochrome c \"provides improved semiconductor properties for use in electronic switching devices.\" thus providing the switch or device Appellant now claims. (Id.)",
+    "First, the Examiner found that Clark did not \"expressly teach the use of a globular protein\" as the protein layer in the device. (Ans. 4.)",
+    "Second, the Examiner found that Clark's device comprised the layers recited in claims 10 and 11. (Ans. 7-8.)",
+    "The Examiner cited Clark at col. 3 for a silicon substrate coated with silicone dioxide, and at col. 8 for overlayers comprised of titanium and aluminum. (Ans. 4.)"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "The issues with respect to this appeal are: did Clark disclose a switch; did Clark disclose an arrangement having a monolayer of protein directly under a layer of electrode, or sandwiched between contacts; did Clark or Kossovsky disclose the concept of a single monolayer of protein; and did Clark disclose the layers as recited in claims 10 and 11?",
+    "1. We adopt the Examiner* s findings concerning the scope and content of the Clark and Kossovsky disclosures, with two exceptions.",
+    "We find to the contrary that Clark taught using *hemocyanin, cytochrome oxidase, porin, ... acetyleholine[sterase]. \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 rhodopsin\" (Clark, col. 4, 11. 23-27), \"bacteriorhodopsin\" (id. at col. 4, 1. 64), \"lysozyme,\" \"hemoglobin\" (id. at col. 5, 1. 32), or \"ferritin\" (id. at col. 15, 11. 11- 13), each of which is a globular protein.",
+    "For the reasons explained below, we find the evidence does not support that finding.",
+    "8. We find that Clark's embodiments having sensor molecules, i.e., proteins, occupying sites between the perforated metal film and the conductive substrate were embodiments in which the protein layer was directly underneath the perforated metal layer, and sandwiched between the perforated metal layer and the conductive substrate. (Id. at Figs. 61 and 8E.)",
+    "We agree that Clark taught several ways of arranging various materials as the layers. (FF 11 and 12.)",
+    "However, we find no evidence that Clark taught seven layers ordered as claimed.",
+    "The rejection does not present a case for why the claimed arrangement would have been obvious.",
+    "We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 10 and 11.",
+    "We disagree.",
+    "Clark explicitly taught a switching embodiment using bacteriorhodopsin, and further taught that any protein having multiple states would work in a switching device. (FF 10.)",
+    "We disagree.",
+    "Clark expressly taught devices having a monolayer of protein and functioning as switches and memory devices. (FF 8 and 10.)",
+    "We agree with the Examiner' s explanation for substituting Kossovsky's 's cytochrome c into Clark's device. (Ans. 5.)",
+    "Appellant has not produced evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have doubted Clark's teaching that cytochrome oxidase would work in a switching device, or Kossovsky's teaching that cytochrome c would work in a switching device.",
+    "We disagree.",
+    "Clark explicitly described protein array 12 between conductors (FF 8) and illustrated several such embodiments (FF 4 and 9).",
+    "We agree that Clark did describe one embodiment that involved placing functional material into an **open hole\" and removing a layer to leave an array of islands (Clark, col. 2, 11. 42-55; Fig. 7C), but that was only one embodiment among several Clark taught.",
+    "Appellant is mistaken.",
+    "Figs. 6A-6H and 8A-8E show layer 12 being perforated, not removed.",
+    "In Clark's finished products, layer 12 is still present, and still present between other layers, and is expressly labeled in the finished products. (FF 9.)",
+    "We also disagree with Appellant's argument that Clark's is layers 14 and 12 \"are merely templates or masks, \" not present in Clark's 's finished devices.",
+    "While portions of these layers may be removed to form patterns of holes or pits, layers 14 and 12 are present in Clark's functioning switches and other devices as shown in Figs. 5, 61 and 8E, all of which Clark described as **finished** devices. (FF 4 and 9.)",
+    "The evidence contradicts Appellant\". s argument that these layers are merely temporary templates.",
+    "The facts do not support this argument.",
+    "Clark described protein layer 12 as a functioning part of the switch.",
+    "Clark explicitly instructed that \"any protein having multiple states with different dipole or charge distributions\" could be used for the switch. (FF 10.)",
+    "Based on Kossovsky': s disclosure, a monolayer of cytochrome c would have been expected to meet that requirement.",
+    "Appellant's s arguments about the importance of the claims' preamble term \"biomolecular electronic switch\" are premised on a mistaken reading of the prior art that overlooks Clark's description of a biomolecular electronic switch.",
+    "The Examiner found that Clark taught a monolayer of protein between 1-50 nanometers in thickness, i.e., 10-500 A, and we agree the evidence supports that finding.",
+    "We have agreed with the Examiner that using Kossovsky' s cytochrome c for Clark' is protein monolayer would have been obvious.",
+    "The fact that the monolayer would have a thickness of 40 A as recited in claim 14 is a result of using the obvious cytochrome c in a monolayer. (Ans. 10.)",
+    "Similarly, the **high dipole moment\" of claim 15, the **programmable\" feature recited in claim 16, and the \"resistance\" recited in claim 17 reasonably appear to be properties of the obvious cytcochrome c monolayer. (Ans. 10.)",
+    "The rejection does not present a case for why the claimed arrangement would have been obvious.",
+    "We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 13.",
+    "On this record, Appellant and the Examiner have not provided an analysis of Clark's 's bacterorhodopsin switch.",
+    "However, for the reasons explained above, we agreed with the Examiner that the evidence supports a conclusion that it would have been obvious to use Kossovsky' cytochrome c in Clark's switch.",
+    "See discussion of claims 12-17, above.",
+    "Appellant provided no argument or evidence to persuade us that Clark's switch, made with cytochrome c, would not have had the properties that Appellant attributes to its own switch made with cytochrome c.",
+    "Under these circumstances, we think the Examiner'. s evidence was sufficient to shift the burden to Appellant to show that the obvious cytochrome c switch would not have had the same properties.",
+    "See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (\"the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product\")."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010001033_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant's invention is directed to a method for storing one or more search parameters from a user as a preconfigured search. See Spec. 13, Abstract of the Disclosure.",
+    "Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method comprising: accepting at least one entry from a user for at least one of a plurality of search parameters; receiving a selection of one of a plurality of storage classes; and storing the at least one entry as a preconfigured search according to the selected storage class, wherein the selected storage class limits an availability of the preconfigured search to the user.",
+    "Appellant argues that nothing in Coiera discloses that the selection of a particular storage class limits the availability of the preconfigured search to the user. App. Br. 6."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Coiera US 2005/0086204 A1 Apr. 21, 2005 Bradburn US 6,745,188 B2 Jun. 1, 2004",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. $102(e) as anticipated by Coiera. Ans. 3-4.1 I",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. $103(a) as unpatentable over Coiera and Bradburn. Ans. 4-6.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Coiera discloses the selection of various search parameters, including a search profile that delimits the search according to a number of parameters, including selection of one of a plurality of storage classes. Ans. 6-7.",
+    "Thereafter the Examiner concludes that a failure of the user to select a particular storage class will limit the availability of that preconfigured search to the user. Id. at 7."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by Appellant and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issue to be dispositive of the claims on appeal: Under S 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5 by finding that Coiera discloses accepting a plurality of search parameters and a selection of one of a plurality of storage classes and then storing the preconfigured search wherein the selected storage class limits an availability of the preconfigured search to the user?",
+    "We find Appellant's arguments persuasive.",
+    "We find that the Examiner' s arguments would have been persuasive if Appellant's claim 1 had read \"wherein the storage class limits an availability of the preconfigured search.\" \"",
+    "However, Appellant's claims require the \"selected storage class\" to limit availability of the preconfigured search to the user, rendering the Examiner's hypothetical limitation based upon non-selection of a storage class irrelevant to our conclusion."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010001888_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants state that claims 21 and 25 are patentable over Roberts and Pook for \"at least reasons similar to the reasons stated herein with regard to independent claim 1.\" App. Br. 8-9.",
+    "Appellants argue that the combination of Roberts and Pook does not teach a layout component that displays a detailed subset of information, comprising textual information, within the area defined by the lens component based upon the search result, the detailed subset of information is animated to enlarge in size as compared to the amount of information associated with the at least one other search result displayed outside the lens region. App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 3-6.",
+    "Appellants argue that each reference individually fails to teach a system where a detailed subset of information is animated to enlarge in size and to include additional textual information that is selected from the at least one search result for insertion into the detailed subset of information based in part on a query associated with the at least one search result.",
+    "Appellants argue that Roberts's S 3, I 5, teaches a system in which, as the focus view changes, any additional information is located in a new focus view window.",
+    "Appellants argue that Roberts fails to teach a system in which the detailed subset of information is animated to enlarge in size and to include additional textual information that is selected from the at least one search result for insertion into the detailed subset of information.",
+    "Appellants also argue that Roberts teaches a system in which the additional information is not located in the focus view.",
+    "Appellants cite as support for this argument the fact that each of the SRE's are stored in a list that can be visualized on demand. Reply Br. 5-6 (citing Roberts & 2.1, I 2).",
+    "Appellants argue that Szabo teaches neither progressively inserting additional information related to a search result nor progressively inserting additional information based on the amount of time the mouse hovers over a search result. App. Br. 10-11."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1-12, 15-17, and 19-27 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roberts in view of Pook. Ans. 5-14.3",
+    "The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. .5 103(a) as unpatentable over Roberts, Pook, and Wolton. Ans. 14.",
+    "The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over Roberts, Pook, and Montague. Ans. 15.",
+    "The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over Roberts, Pook, and Szabo. Ans. 16.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Roberts discloses every feature of claim 1 including a layout component that displays a detailed subset of information, comprising textual information, within the area defined by the lens component based upon the search result. Ans. 18-19.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Roberts does not disclose that the detailed subset of information is animated to enlarge in size as compared to the amount of information associated with the at least one other search result displayed outside the lens region.",
+    "The Examiner cites Pook as teaching this feature. Ans. 20.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Roberts discloses a layout component that displays a detailed subset of information, comprising textual information, within the area defined by the lens component based upon the search result. Ans. 19.",
+    "Specifically, the Examiner finds that Roberts's Figure 1 describes a web search results page in which more detailed information is displayed for search results in the focus view as opposed to search results in the context view.",
+    "The Examiner also finds that Roberts teaches a system in which more detailed information, such as text snippets, is displayed when a SRE is moved into the focus view. Ans. 19.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Roberts does not disclose that the detailed subset of information is animated to enlarge in size as compared to the amount of information associated with the at least one other search result displayed outside the lens region.",
+    "The Examiner cites Pook as teaching this feature. Ans. 20-21.",
+    "The Examiner finds that it would be obvious to modify the system of Roberts so that the text in the focus view is animated to enlarge in size as suggested by Pook. Id.",
+    "The Examiner finds that the combination of Roberts, Pook, and Szabo teaches a computer-implemented interface for data presentation embodied on a computer-readable storage medium in which a dynamic information view is coordinated with an amount of information to progressively insert additional information associated with the at least one search result into the detailed subset of information according to an amount of time a mouse hovers over the at least one search result. Ans. 16, 26-27.",
+    "The Examiner relies upon Pook for teaching the progressive insertion of information. Ans. 16.",
+    "The Examiner relies upon Szabo for teaching the use of the mouse hovering technique to initiate the progressive insertion of information taught by Pook. Id."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Although Appellants nominally argue independent claims 1, 21, and 25 separately in the Appeal Brief, we will group the claims and treat claim 1 as representative of the group.",
+    "Any additional argument with respect to claims 21 and 25 is either a mere assertion that Roberts and Pook do not teach what the claims recite or a discussion of where the claimed subject matter is supported in the Specification or Figures.",
+    "The discussion includes text copied from the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter. Id.",
+    "Accordingly, we will select claim 1 as representative and decide the appeal with respect to the group on the basis of claim 1 alone.",
+    "Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner's s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1.",
+    "This finding is supported by evidence in Roberts that describes additional information that could be associated with a SRE and returned by a search engine. FF 3.",
+    "We therefore agree with the Examiner that Roberts teaches a layout component that displays a detailed subset of information, comprising textual information, within the area defined by the lens component based upon the search result.",
+    "Based on our review, we agree that Pook teaches enlarging a section of a view that a user finds interesting. FF 4.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner that this modification would be obvious.",
+    "Our conclusion of obviousness is also supported by additional evidence in the record.",
+    "Before discussing the merits of Appellants' arguments in their Appeal Brief, we will first summarize them.",
+    "Appellants first discuss claim 1 in view of the Specification. App. Br. 6.",
+    "Appellants then repeat the limitation of claim 1 at issue and assert that Roberts and Pook, either alone or in combination, do not teach it. Id.",
+    "This assertion is followed by a discussion of each reference individually. App. Br. 6-7.",
+    "Appellants then copy their discussion of claim 1 from the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter into their arguments. App. Br. 7-8.",
+    "Appellants then conclude with another discussion of claimed subject matter in view of their Specification. App. Br. 8.",
+    "Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief have not persuaded us of reversible error in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a).",
+    "Where Appellants discuss the claimed subject matter in view of their Specification, we fail to see how this discussion identifies an error in the rejection.",
+    "Where Appellants provide specific arguments with respect to Pook and Roberts, Appellants only address the references individually and do not address the combination set forth by the Examiner.",
+    "We agree with Appellants that neither reference alone teaches both including additional textual information and then animating to enlarge in size that additional text.",
+    "The Examiner, however, relies upon the combination of the two references to teach both features and does not rely upon a single reference.",
+    "Since Appellants' specific arguments with respect to the individual references do not identify an error in the combination, we do not find them persuasive.",
+    "Where Appellants argue the combination, it is merely an assertion without any supporting reasoning.",
+    "Given the evidence in the record supporting the Examiner* s rejection, we are not persuaded of error in that rejection based upon Appellants' mere assertion.",
+    "Accordingly, Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief have failed to persuade us of reversible error.",
+    "Appellants' arguments in the Reply Brief have not persuaded us of reversible error in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a).",
+    "We fail to see how this paragraph of Roberts teaches what Appellants assert.",
+    "Appellants may be referring to Roberts's Figure 5, which shows a multiple view variant where the full SRE information for a search result is displayed in a different window.",
+    "Roberts's Figures 1 and 4, however, show examples where the detailed SRE information is displayed in the same window.",
+    "The Examiner, however, relies upon the combination of Roberts and Pook to teach both features and does not rely solely upon Roberts.",
+    "Since Appellants' argument only addresses a single reference and does not identify an error in the combination, we do not find the argument persuasive.",
+    "Appellants appear to be arguing that since the SRE information is stored in a list to be visualized on demand, SRE information is not automatically displayed when a user changes the focus view.",
+    "We fail to see persuasive evidence in Roberts supporting the argument that additional user interaction is required in order to display SRE information.",
+    "In fact, we only see persuasive evidence that no additional interaction is required.",
+    "Roberts's discussion of the sliding window methodology describes the only user interaction required to display the SRE information -- the user sliding the focus view. Roberts & 3, I 5.",
+    "However, Figure 4 shows no other button or GUI element that would allow a user to demand the details from a SRE.",
+    "The weight of the evidence indicates Appellants are not correctly interpreting the language *on demand.\"",
+    "The \"demand\" to display SRE information is the user' s sliding of the focus view and does not require some additional interaction.",
+    "We therefore do not find Appellants' argument persuasive and we affirm the rejection of independent claims 1, 20, 21, and 25, and dependent claims 2- 12, 15-17, 19, 22-24, 26, and 27.",
+    "Although Appellants nominally argue claim 13 separately in the Appeal Brief, they merely: (1) incorporate their arguments with respect to claim 1; (2) provide a statement that Wolton does not cure the deficiencies identified with respect to claim 1; and (3) provide a general characterization of Wolton. App. Br. 9-10.",
+    "In the Reply Brief, Appellants merely argue that Wolton fails to cure the deficiencies of Roberts and Pook with respect to claim 1 and then incorporate their arguments from the Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 6.",
+    "Since the Examiner does not rely upon any teaching from Wolton in the rejection of claim 1 and Appellants have not provided arguments for the separate patentability of claim 13, we affirm the rejection of claim 13 as well.",
+    "Although Appellants nominally argue claim 14 separately in the Appeal Brief, they merely: (1) incorporate their arguments with respect to claim 1; (2) provide a statement that Montague does not cure the deficiencies identified with respect to claim 1; and (3) provide a general characterization of Montague. App. Br. 10.",
+    "In the Reply Brief, Appellants merely argue that Montague fails to cure the deficiencies of Roberts and Pook with respect to claim 1 and then incorporate their arguments from the Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 6-7.",
+    "Since the Examiner does not rely upon any teaching from Montague in the rejection of claim 1 and Appellants have not provided arguments for the separate patentability of claim 14, we affirm the rejection of claim 14 as well.",
+    "The issue before us, then, is as follows:",
+    "Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief have not persuaded us of reversible error in the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a).",
+    "Where Appellants discuss the claimed subject matter in view of their Specification, we fail to see how this discussion identifies an error in the rejection.",
+    "Where Appellants provide specific arguments with respect to Szabo, Appellants only address Szabo individually and do not address the combination set forth by the Examiner.",
+    "Since Appellants have not provided specific arguments with respect to all of the references, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection.",
+    "\"[O]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).",
+    "Where Appellants assert that the combination of Roberts, Pook, and Szabo does not teach the limitation at issue, Appellants provide no supporting rationale.",
+    "A general allegation of patentability does not convince us of reversible error in the rejection of claim 18.",
+    "Appellants' arguments in the Reply Brief have not persuaded us of reversible error in the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a).",
+    "Appellants merely argue that Szabo fails to cure the deficiencies of Roberts and Pook with respect to claim 1 and then incorporate their arguments from the Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 7.",
+    "Given our discussion of claims 1 and 18 above, we are not persuaded that the arguments in the Reply Brief have identified reversible error."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010003000_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "The Appellants contend that the 9 Specification fully describes this limitation, network resources have been in 10 existence as described by the prior art, and a person with ordinary skill in the 11 art would have understood what was being claimed. App. Br. 10-13 and 12 Reply Br. 7-8.",
+    "The Appellants first contend that (1) Saylor fails to describe network 4 resources can be contributed to a network by one or more contributing 5 computer systems, as per claim 22, App. Br. 2-4 and Reply Br. 1-2.",
+    "The Appellants also argue 18 that the claimed invention is distinguished from the prior art because the 19 claimed invention keeps track of which users provide resources, content, and 20 indexing services within the network. App. Br. 3.",
+    "The Appellants also contend that (2) Saylor fails to describe earning 24 credits by contributing network resources to a network, as per claim 22. 25 App. Br. 4-5 and Reply Br. 2-3.",
+    "The Appellants 10 further argue that Saylor fails to describes the network resources include any 11 of disk space, bandwidth, or CPU cycles. App. Br. 4.",
+    "The Appellants further contend that (3) Saylor fails to describe a 17 distributed system for publishing and retrieving content, as per claim 22, 18 App. Br. 5-6 and Reply Br. 3-4,",
+    "The Appellants specifically argue that the 19 Specification defines a distributed system to consist of a group of non-alike 20 computers that are connected together by a network and equipped with 21 corresponding software so that the computers can coordinate their activities 22 in a common scheme. App. Br. 5.",
+    "The Appellants additionally contend that (4) Saylor fails to describe 4 publishing and retrieving content via peer-to-peer interactions and (5) Saylor 5 fails to describe agent applications distributed across the network, as per 6 claim 22. App. Br. 6-7 and Reply Br. 4-5.",
+    "The Appellants specifically 7 argue that a user must access some server to access a desired VPage and 8 therefore Saylor must be using a client-server model instead of a peer-to- 9 peer model. App. Br. 6.",
+    "The Appellants further contend that (6) the Examiner has failed to set 21 forth any evidence of a motivation to modify Saylor and (7) there is no 22 motivation to modify Saylor. App. Br. 8-10 and Reply Br. 6-7."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner found that the limitation \"having characterizing network 7 resources including... \" is vague and indefinite because the claim 22 fails to 8 define this limitation. Ans. 3 and 10."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We agree with the Appellants.",
+    "The test for definiteness 13 under 35 U.S.C. I 112, second paragraph, is whether \"those skilled in the art 14 would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the 15 specification.\" Orthokinetics, Inc. V. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 16 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986)(citations omitted).",
+    "Claim 22 specifically recites 17 that characterizing network resources includes any disk space, bandwidth, 18 and CPU cycles for performing peer-to-peer interactions across the network.",
+    "As such, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have understood what 20 was being claimed since the claim language itself provides an adequate 21 description of what is being claimed.",
+    "The Examiner failed to set forth any 22 specific rationale that illustrates why this limitation is vague and indefinite.",
+    "As such, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22 under 35 24 U.S.C. , 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.",
+    "We 6 disagree with the Appellants.",
+    "Saylor describes a system where a user can 7 access content that is provided by a content provider. FF 02.",
+    "The system 8 includes users, voice network access providers (VNAPs), VPage server 9 systems, and a VCode registration system that are all connected over a 10 communications network. FF 01.",
+    "The VCode registration system maintains 11 the address of the content and users can access the content from either 12 VNAP databases or from VPage server systems of the content providers. FF 13 01-02.",
+    "Since the content can be accessed by a server system provided by the 14 content providers that are independent of the VNAPs, the content providers 15 are contributing these server systems, the disk space required to store the 16 content, and the bandwidth to transfer the content to the VNAP network.",
+    "As 17 such, Saylor describes this limitation of claim 1.",
+    "However, claim 22 does 21 not require these limitations and therefore this argument is not found to be 22 persuasive.",
+    "We disagree with the Appellants.",
+    "The plain 26 and ordinary definition of the term \"credit\" encompasses any benefit, 1 compensation, or acknowledgement for the performance of a task.",
+    "Saylor 2 describes various fee generating and billing methodologies may be 3 implemented for the system. FF 03.",
+    "The VNAP charges the user for the 4 content and shares a proportion of the revenue generated with the display 5 host. FF 04.",
+    "In situations where the display host and the content providers 6 are the same entity, content provider receives a share proportional to its 7 contribution to the system. FF 04.",
+    "As such, the content providers are 8 compensated for their contributions to the system and therefore are receiving 9 or earning credits for their contributions to the network.",
+    "However, as 12 discussed supra, Saylor describes that a content provider contributes VPage 13 server systems that provide content to the users and therefore contribute the 14 disk space to store the content and the bandwidth to transfer the content to 15 the user.",
+    "We disagree with the Appellants.",
+    "As 23 discussed supra, Saylor describes a system that includes users, voice 24 network access providers (VNAPs), VPage server systems, and a VCode 25 registration system that are all connected over a communications network. 26 FF 01.",
+    "Each computer in this system includes software that enables a user to 1 access content. FF 01-04.",
+    "As such, Saylor describes a distributed system, 2 even as defined by the Appellants.",
+    "We disagree with the Appellants.",
+    "Saylor describes 10 that the address of a VPage is returned based on a submitted VCode. FF 02.",
+    "A VCode can be a multi-level VCode, where the registry can resolve the 12 various portions of the VCode to identify the content. FF 02.",
+    "Since content 13 is distributed amongst several servers and a user accesses content by 14 accessing specific portions of the content on different servers, Saylor 15 describes a peer-to-peer model and the use of agent applications to publish 16 and retrieve content from the network.",
+    "Although a user connects to a server 17 to find the address of a VPage and that model resembles a client-server 18 model, the access of content where the content is distributed in portions 19 across several machines is descriptive of a peer-to-peer model.",
+    "We 23 disagree with the Appellants.",
+    "As discussed supra, Saylor suggests that 24 content providers are compensated for their contributions of disk space 25 (storage of content) and bandwidth (access to content) to the VNAP 26 network.",
+    "Saylor is concerned with distributing revenue generated by the 1 VNAP and collected from users to display hosts and content providers for 2 their contributions to the network. FF 04.",
+    "Therefore, it would have been 3 obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to measure contributions by 4 disk space, bandwidth, or CPU cycles since such metrics are commonly used 5 in the computer networking arts.",
+    "Saylor suggests a content provider 6 contributes at least one of disk space, bandwidth, or CPU cycles and a 7 person with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious compensate 8 content providers based on any of these metrics in order to fairly distribute 9 revenue.",
+    "As such, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have found it 10 obvious to modify Saylor to include these features."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010003102_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants contend that Mikurak does not disclose a proposed standard that relates to one or more actions required to be enforced by an organization (Br. 7:2-24); and that the other references do not teach the features that are missing in Mikurak.",
+    "Although Appellants agree that Mikurak teaches security standards and that procedures should be developed and implemented, they contend that Mikurak does not teach a standard that \"relates to one or more actions required to be enforced by an organization based on a rule applicable to the organization,\" with particular emphasis on the required implementation of the standard.",
+    "Appellants agree that Tracy teaches a predefined standard, but contends that Tracy does not teach scoring the standard or scoring the specific features as arranged and recited in the claim.",
+    "Appellants contend that Mikurak paragraph 1184 does not teach linking a proposed standard and a proposed procedure.",
+    "Appellants argue that claim 25 uses permissible means-plus-function language to recite the structure of their apparatus and that their Specification describes various structures for performing the functions recited in claim 25, including hardware.",
+    "Appellants describe that the term, \"module,\" can correspond to a software application."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner finds that Mikurak teaches every recited feature of representative claim 1 except for a module for scoring the proposed standard; a module for scoring the proposed procedure; a module linking the proposed standard to the rule and linking the proposed procedure to the proposed standard; and a database configured for storing the at least one standard and the at least one procedure such that the standard and procedure are linked to one another.",
+    "The Examiner finds that the secondary references teach the features that Mikurak does not teach and that it would have been obvious to combine the references to obtain the claimed device.",
+    "In any event, the Examiner finds that Mikurak I 2583 teaches this limitation.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Mikurak teaches standards, that Tracy teaches scoring a proposed standard, and that it would have been obvious to combine the Tracy teaching in the Mikurak system because it would allow enhancement of fine tuning the system.",
+    "The Examiner finds that the combination of Tracy and Blom teach this limitation and that it would have been obvious to combine the Blom teaching in the Mikurak system because it would allow for improvement of the invention by incorporating proposed procedures.",
+    "The Examiner finds that the combination of Mikurak and Tracy teach this limitation and that it would have been obvious to combine the Tracy teaching in the Mikurak system because it would allow enhancement of fine tuning the system.",
+    "The Examiner, however, finds that this limitation is taught by paragraph 1184's discussion of matching.",
+    "The Examiner concludes that because claim 25 does not recite any hardware components, claim 25 is software per se.",
+    "Alternatively, the Examiner concludes that Appellants' Specification states that propagation discussed in paragraph 31 of the disclosure is not limited to a computer medium."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Because the referenced recitation is in claim I's preamble and does not appear elsewhere in claim 1, the recitation concerning the standard relating to one or more actions required to be enforced by an organization is entitled to little weight because it recites an intended use.",
+    "Here, the claim is directed to a standard and a system (including modules, memory, and database) for rationalizing the standard.",
+    "The intended use of the standard (actions required to be enforced) is of no significance to the claimed standard and system because the body of the claim does not act on the actions required to be enforced, such that the preambular limitation to the \"actions\" is essential to understanding the recitations in the claim body.",
+    "In addition, deletion of the disputed limitation would not affect the claimed structure.",
+    "We therefore conclude that the disputed phrase merely recites an intended use and that Mikurak is capable of having a standard that relates to an action required to be enforced by an organization.",
+    "Appellants do not respond or rebut this finding.",
+    "We find that the Examiner's finding is reasonable and we agree with the Examiner.",
+    "Appellants' argument is not persuasive because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.",
+    "Appellants' arguments (Br. 9:1-16) are not persuasive because they have argued the references individually, rather than arguing the combination relied upon by the Examiner.",
+    "A DATABASE CONFIGURED FOR STORING THE AT LEAST ONE STANDARD AND THE AT LEAST ONE PROCEDURE SUCH THAT THE STANDARD AND PROCEDURE ARE LINKED TO ONE ANOTHER",
+    "Appellants do not respond to the Examiner's s finding.",
+    "In addition, Appellants argue the references individually, rather than arguing the combination relied upon by the Examiner.",
+    "Consequently, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive.",
+    "We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) representative claim 1; (2) independent claims 9 and 25 for similar reasons; and (3) claims 6, 10-14, 20, 21, 23, and 24 not separately argued with particularity.",
+    "Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6, 9-14, 20, 21, and 23-25.",
+    "We will also sustain the rejections of claims 2-5, 7, 8, 15-19, and 22 which have been rejected as obvious over Mikurak, Tracy, Blom, and various additional references because the references have been argued individually and the claims have not been argued separately with particularity.",
+    "We find that 35 U.S.C. & 112, I 6 has been invoked with respect to claim 25.",
+    "As such, the means-plus-function limitations in claim 25 must be construed by \"lookling] to the specification and interpret[ing] that language in light of the corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification provides such disclosure.\"",
+    "Similarly, we find that these \"means for\" limitations in claim 25 can broadly, but reasonably correspond to modules or are software application.",
+    "Yet, in light of the disclosure, the breadth of the term, **apparatus\" includes a computer usable or readable storage medium including program instructions (i.e., the \"means for\" limitations.\"",
+    "This paragraph of the Specification describes these implementations in the alternative.",
+    "Thus, the stream of information as well as the electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, and infrared propagation medium are all alternatives to computer hardware.",
+    "The clear import of this discussion is that the invention, including the broadly recited, **apparatus,\" can exist solely as signals, which are not patentable subject matter under & 101.",
+    "Reading independent claim 25 in light of the Specification, the recited **apparatus\" encompasses a signal that performs the recited operations.",
+    "Therefore, when read in light of the Specification, claim 25 includes both statutory subject matter (means-plus-function limitations stored on a diskette) and non-statutory subject matter (means-plus-function limitations conveyed by a signal).",
+    "According to USPTO guidelines, such claims must be amended to recite solely statutory subject matter.",
+    "\") For the foregoing reasons, independent claim 25 does not recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 5 101.",
+    "Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's \u25cf 101 rejection of independent claim 25."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010003152_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Rather, Appellant argues that, in light of the description in the Specification that the intermediary playing card receiver may be a carousel 210, 212 or equivalent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret Grauzer's roller* as corresponding to an intermediary playing card receiver.",
+    "Appellant asserts that the Examiner' s claim construction is overbroad in that it would cover perhaps every component of Grauzer' s shuffler as facilitating shuffling.",
+    "Appellant also argues that there is no rational basis for construing some of Grauzer's rollers as corresponding to the transport path and other rollers as corresponding to the intermediary playing card receiver.",
+    "Appellant argues that Grauzer's elevator platform 512, flip-up cover 502, and arm extension 514 cannot be construed as corresponding to the claimed playing card output receiver for several reasons.",
+    "First, Appellant argues that when Grauzer's playing card support surface (elevator platform 512) is below the \"cover-contact level, ..8 it moves independently of the ceiling (flip-up cover 502), while the playing card support surface and ceiling of claim 1 move together.",
+    "Second, Appellant asserts that Grauzer' is arm extension 514 \"merely contacts or presses against the underside of the *flip-up cover\"\" when elevator platform 512 is at or above the \"cover contact level\" and does not contact the flip-up cover during shuffling.",
+    "Third, Appellant argues that the member of claim 1 extends to the playing card support surface, while Grauzer's s arm extension 514 is \"to a side of the unlabeled top surface (playing card support surface) of the elevator platform.\"",
+    "Appellant contends that Grauzer's s nip rollers insert cards into the stack of cards carried by the elevator platform in the same order which the playing cards were inserted into the card accepting area, and thus Grauzer does not perform the identical function specified in claim 5 in substantially the same way.",
+    "Appellant concedes that in the \"cover-contact position,\" Grauzer's s device is configured as two horizontal surfaces (elevator platform 512 and section 504 of flip-up cover 502) and a vertical member (arm extension 514)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner found that Grauzer's roller 6702 corresponds to the intermediary playing card receiver of claim 1 because it is positioned and functions as called for in claim 1.3 Ans. 9-11.",
+    "The Examiner found that Grauzer discloses at least one member (arm extension 514) physically extending from the ceiling (flip-up cover 502) to the playing card support surface (elevator platform 512) for movement therewith. Ans. 3.",
+    "The Examiner found that the Specification describes that rollers are a \"means for providing,\" as called for in claim 1, and that Grauzer's s rollers 146 perform the identical function in substantially the same way by providing cards in \"an order\" to the output receiver (elevator platform 156). Ans. 3, 8, 14-15 (citing Spec. 46, 1. 15).",
+    "The Examiner found that Grauzer's section 606 of flip-up cover 602 locks and unlocks elevator platform 512 in the lowered position as called for in claim 7, because section 606 restricts access to area 682 so that the unshuffled cards may not be too readily accessed. 11 Ans. 16.",
+    "The Examiner found that Grauzer discloses a playing card output receiver (section 504 of flip-up cover 502) comprising a playing card support surface (elevator platform 512). Ans. 5-6.",
+    "The Examiner also found that Grauzer's s elevator (elevator platform 512) is an equivalent device to the ordering means of claim 19. Ans. 19.",
+    "The Examiner found that Grauzer' s apparatus provides the cards in a different order to the playing card support surface of the playing card output receiver (elevator platform 512). Ans. 3, 6, 20."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b).",
+    "We affirm-in-part.",
+    "Independent claim 1 Appellant argues claims 1-4, 6, and 14-16 as a group, and we select claim 1 as representative.",
+    "Appellant separately argues claims 5, 7, and 17.",
+    "Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's s finding that Grauzer's roller 670 is positioned and functions as called for in claim 1.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 10-11) that a carousel is but one example (Spec. 10:15-20) of an embodiment of an intermediary playing card receiver, and because the language of claim 1 is broader than this example, it is not imported as a limitation into claim 1.",
+    "See SuperGuide Corp. V. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (\"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 [A] particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. \").",
+    "Thus, Appellant's argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with claim 1.",
+    "This argument is unpersuasive because the Specification, like Grauzer, refers to the intermediary playing card receiver 122 as facilitating shuffling for the apparatus as a whole (handling system 110).",
+    "The Examiner's is rejection is not erroneous simply because similar elements of the prior art (rollers) have been interpreted as corresponding to different elements of claim 1.",
+    "The proper inquiry is whether Grauzer's s roller 670 corresponds to an intermediary playing card receiver as called for in claim 1.",
+    "We interpret the claim and then look to the prior art.",
+    "Therefore, a receiver receives and grasps something by some physical means.",
+    "We discern nothing in the Specification inconsistent with this ordinary meaning.",
+    "Thus, we interpret claim 1 as requiring the intermediary playing card receiver to receive and grasp playing cards by some physical means.",
+    "Therefore, Grauzer's roller 670 receives and grasps the playing card by some physical means (the surface of the roller).",
+    "Appellant failed to demonstrate error in the Examiner's s finding that Grauzer discloses an intermediary playing card receiver (roller 670).",
+    "This argument concedes that when Grauzer's elevator platform 512 is above the *cover-contact level,\" the playing card support surface (elevator platform 512) and ceiling (flip-up cover 502) move together.' 9",
+    "Thus, Appellant's argument is premised on a claim construction that claim 1 calls for the member to physically extend from the ceiling to the playing card support surface for movement therewith at all times.",
+    "Claim 1 contains no such limitation.",
+    "Further, we cannot find, nor has Appellant identified, a portion of the Specification necessitating such a claim interpretation.",
+    "However, such assertion is unpersuasive because claim 1 does not call for the member to physically extend from the ceiling during shuffling.",
+    "To the contrary, Grauzer's 's member (arm extension 514) physically extends from the playing card support surface (elevator platform 512), as called for in claim 1.",
+    "Appellant failed to demonstrate error in the Examiner's 's finding that Grauzer discloses a ceiling as called for in claim 1.",
+    "As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, and 14-16.",
+    "The rejection is deficient on its face in that it finds that Grauzer's is device provides playing cards to the playing card output receiver in \"an order\" rather than in a sorted or a random order as called for in claim 5. 10",
+    "Thus, off-set rollers 146 do not provide playing cards in a sorted or a random order to elevator platform 156; rather, the combination of off-set rollers 146, separation element 154, and elevator platform 154 places the playing cards in a sorted or random order.",
+    "As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 5.",
+    "Appellant argues, and we agree, that the Examiner': s rejection is in error because claim 7 does not call for restricting access to the unshuffled cards.",
+    "Claim 7 calls for selectively locking and unlocking the playing card output receiver in the lowered position, and the Examiner made no finding that Grauzer discloses such limitation.",
+    "As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 7 and its dependent claims 8-13.",
+    "Such configuration is a rectangular box that is open on three sides.",
+    "Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that Grauzer discloses a rectangular box open on one side.",
+    "As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 17.",
+    "Appellant argues, and we agree, that Grauzer's s elevator platform 512 cannot correspond to both the playing card support surface of the playing card output receiver and the ordering means because claim 19 calls for the ordering means to provide the playing cards to the playing card output receiver, and elevator platform 512 cannot provide the cards to itself.",
+    "As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 19 and its dependent claims 20-31.",
+    "Appellant argues, and we agree, that Grauzer's playing card handling system does not provide playing cards to the elevator platform 512 in an order different from the order of the playing cards in the playing card input receiver because Grauzer' is nip rollers insert cards into the stack of cards carried by the elevator platform in the same order which the playing cards were inserted into the card accepting area.",
+    "As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 32 and its dependent claims 33-40."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010004005_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant argues that figure 2 of Pase suggests that there would be no room to put flexible members in the apparatus of Pase. App. Br. 10.",
+    "Appellant argues that Clements does not disclose a frame assembly with upper and lower portions each having an opening through which the material may pass. App. Br. 11, 21."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) claims 1-5, 7-16, 18, and 19 as unpatentable over Pase (US 3,528,570, iss. Sep. 15, 1970) and Clements (US 4,275,869, iss. Jun. 30, 1981); claims 1-5, 7-12, and 19 as unpatentable over Pase, Clements, and Mills (US 4,461,455, iss. Jul. 24, 1984); claims 13-16 and 18 as unpatentable over Pase and Mills; and claim 19 as unpatentable over Pase, Clements, and Emrey (US 5,542,500, iss. Aug. 6, 1996).",
+    "The Examiner found that Pase's apparatus includes a generally rectangular frame assembly having an upper portion and a lower portion generally coextensive with one another. Ans. 3-4; Pase, fig. 8 (depicting upper H-frame 21 and lower frame comprising pivot shafts 48, 48' and stringers 52).",
+    "As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 4), Clements teaches a plurality of spaced apart air cushions used as a stable elevating means of an upper portion without any other structural attachments between the upper load member and lower (base) surface. Fig. 8."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. .5 6(b).",
+    "We AFFIRM.",
+    "For each of the rejections involved in this appeal, the issue raised is whether the combined teachings of the applied references would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Pase unloading apparatus by replacing the elevating mechanism of Pase (lifting arms 44, 46, 44' 46', pivot shafts 48, 48'. crank arms 56, 56' pneumatic power cylinder 60, etc.) with inflatable flexible lifting members disposed at or adjacent each of said four corners of said frame assembly and around openings in the upper and lower frame members to permit passage of bulk material, as called for in independent claims 1, 13, and 19.",
+    "Each of Clements, Mills, and Emrey evidences that inflatable air cushions or bellows were well known mechanisms for elevating a load at the time of Appellant's invention.",
+    "Accordingly, the modification of Pase to provide a plurality of inflatable flexible members between the upper frame and lower frame at spaced locations around the openings therein including at or adjacent the four corners thereof, for elevating the upper frame and flexible boot 14 supported thereon, as proposed by the Examiner (Ans. 4, 8, 10, 11), is nothing more than the simple substitution of one known elevating mechanism for another known elevating mechanism to yield the predictable result of a simple, stable, and relatively inexpensive lifting mechanism.",
+    "\"[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.\" KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).",
+    "Thus, the Examiner did not err in determining that the modification would have been obvious.",
+    "We have considered the arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, but we do not find them persuasive.",
+    "For purposes of showing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. .5 103(a), \"[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.\" In other words, **familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.\" In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).",
+    "Inasmuch as Appellant's invention and each of the cited references (Pase, Clements, Mills, and Emrey) deals with the problem of elevating a load, each of the references applied by the Examiner is reasonably pertinent to Appellant's invention.",
+    "Any suggestion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been expected to look to these references for a solution to problems facing Appellant (i.e., that these references are not analogous art), is not persuasive. See App. Br. 13-16 (discussing \"the analogous-art test*); Reply Br. 2 (suggesting that the prior art references combined in the rejections in this case may not be \"closely related\").",
+    "Appellant's arguments directed to the age of the Pase reference and the long-known use of inflatable flexible members for lifting (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 3) do not point to the nonobviousness of the claimed invention.",
+    "Absent a showing of long-felt need or the failure of others, the mere passage of time without the claimed invention is not evidence of nonobviousness. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. 17. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2004).",
+    "It is well established that the mere age of the references is not persuasive of the unobviousness of the combination of their teachings, absent evidence that, notwithstanding knowledge of the references, the art tried and failed to solve the problem. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977).",
+    "Appellant has not pointed to any evidence in the record that there was a long-felt need in the art that others tried and failed to solve, notwithstanding knowledge of the teachings of the applied references.",
+    "Based on a review of the top view of the apparatus shown in figure 6 of Pase, it is not readily apparent that there would be insufficient room to incorporate the flexible members between the upper and lower frame members, in place of the lifting arms 44, 46, 441, 46' pivot shafts 48, 48*, crank arms 56, 56, pneumatic power cylinder 60, etc. of Pase's elevating mechanism.",
+    "In any event, to the extent that the frame structure of Pase's unloading apparatus might require some modification to accommodate the flexible members, Appellant has not adequately explained why this would have been beyond the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art.",
+    "\"A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. \" KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.",
+    "See also Perfect Web Tech., Inc. V. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (\"while an analysis of obviousness always depends on evidence \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 it also may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference\").",
+    "As for the particular placement of the flexible members disposed at or adjacent each of said four corners of said frame assembly and around openings in the upper and lower frame members to permit passage of bulk material, as called for in independent claims 1, 13, and 19, Appellant has not pointed out any flaw in the Examiner's reasoning in the Answer at page 8, lines 1-10; page 10, lines 5-18; and page 13, lines 8-17.",
+    "This argument is not persuasive, because, as pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 13), Pase is relied on for this feature.",
+    "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).",
+    "Appellant's argument that Emrey does not teach an opening therethrough (App. Br. 21) is unconvincing for the same reason.",
+    "For the above reasons, we sustain all of the Examiner' is rejections."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010004549_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner found that Mayberry discloses a consumable cartridge case for a muzzle loading firearm, except that Mayberry does not disclose that the cartridge case (tube of paper A) is composed of a consumable solid explosive material comprising nitrate sale, perchlorate salt and fuel as called for in independent claims 1 and 17. Ans. 3.",
+    "The Examiner found that Griesbach discloses a cartridge case (premeasured compressed powder charge 2) composed of a consumable solid explosive material as claimed, that acts as a cartridge in that \"it is used behind a bullet\" so that it **functions as a cartridge much like appellant's cartridge.\" ~ Ans. 3, 8; see also Griesbach, fig. 5.",
+    "The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious \"to take the device of Mayberry and add the consumable cartridge of Griesbach\" to allow the device to be more complete and rapidly burn. Ans. 3-4."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We reverse.",
+    "The Examiner* s proposed combination is unclear.",
+    "The rejection proposes to \"add\" Griesbach's premeasured compressed powder charge 2 to Mayberry' s device, implying that the entirety of Mayberry' s device is retained. See Ans. 3.",
+    "In such a combination the cartridge case (Mayberry's tube A) is unmodified and thus composed of paper, rather than a consumable solid material comprising nitrate salt, perchlorate salt, and fuel as called for in claims 1 and 17. Mayberry, col. 1, 11. 35-36, figs 1, 2.",
+    "A second interpretation is that the Examiner proposes to replace the paper in Mayberry's tube a with a consumable solid material comprising nitrate salt, perchlorate salt, and fuel, as disclosed by Griesbach.\"",
+    "However, Griesbach': premeasured compressed powder charge 2 is a solid structure. See Griesbach, col. 6, 11. 18-19; figs. 1-6; see also Br. 10.",
+    "While the Examiner contends such structure functions as a cartridge (Ans. 8), the Examiner does not provide any evidence or reasoning to establish that Griesbach's solid structure could function as a case including a central internal cavity for receipt of granular, explosive powder. See Griesbach, col. 6, 11. 18-19; figs. 1-6; Spec. figs. 1-4.",
+    "While Griesbach's premeasured compressed charge 2 may be used in a cartridge case, Griesbach does not teach or suggest using it as a cartridge case. Griesbach, col. 15, 11. 5-8; see also Br. 11.",
+    "The fact that Griesbach's premeasured compressed powder charge 2 may function similar to a cartridge does not demonstrate that the material used therein would be suitable for use as a case for such a cartridge. Ans. 8.",
+    "Thus, the Examiner has not established that there was a reasonable expectation that Mayberry's s cartridge case (tube A) would function properly if it were made from the material of Griesbach's powder charge 2.",
+    "The rejection fails to adequately articulate why the subject matter of claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of Mayberry and Griesbach.",
+    "Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 17 and their respective dependent claims 2-7, 10, 18, and 19.",
+    "The rejection does not rely upon Nadel to correct the deficiency of the Mayberry and Griesbach combination explained in the analysis of independent claims 1 and 17, supra. Ans. 6-7, 9.",
+    "Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 8, 9, and 20 because their rejection suffers from the same shortcoming as the rejection of independent claims 1 and 17.",
+    "Though this rejection is stated as Griesbach and Mayberry, rather than Mayberry and Griesbach, the rejection still relies upon the erroneous finding that Griesbach's premeasured compressed powder charge 2 corresponds to a\" consumable cartridge case as claimed.\" Cf Ans. 7-9 (Griesbach and Mayberry) to Ans. 3-4 and 8 (Mayberry and Griesbach).",
+    "Thus, our analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 17, supra, is equally applicable here.",
+    "Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-16."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010004729_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "According to page 6 of the Appeal Brief, the attaching means recited in claims 29 and 35 is said to constitute the holder 33 and the attachment faces recited in claim 29 are said to constitute the U-shaped rails 33c."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "ISSUE AND CONCLUSION The dispositive question raised by the Examiner and Appellants is: Has the Examiner shown that Narusawa describes or illustrates a plane including a pair of attachment faces or rails straddling a motor shaft and extending in parallel with the same at the two sides of a motor case as recited in claims 29 and 35 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 5 102(b)?",
+    "On this record, we answer this question in the negative for the reasons stated by Appellants in the Appeal Brief.",
+    "DISCUSSION As correctly interpreted by Appellants, the phrases \"a plane including a pair of attachment faces\" and \"a plane including a pair of rails\" recited in claims 29 and 35, respectively means that a pair of attachment faces or a pair of rails straddling a motor shaft and extending in parallel with the same at the two sides of a motor case lie in the same plane.",
+    "This interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the plain meaning of the term \"a plane including.. \" and with amended paragraph [0091] of the Specification which defines coplanar surfaces of rails 33c in figure 3 as attachment faces.",
+    "Having interpreted claims 29 and 35 as requiring coplanar attachment faces or rails, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not demonstrated that Narusawa teaches such fcatures.",
+    "Although the Examiner relies on a pair of spring curved pieces 33 of a holder frame 30 in Narusawa's 's figure 1C as attachment faces or rails, Narusawa's figure 1 does not illustrate such pair of curved spring pieces 33 or its faces straddling a motor shaft 22 lying in the same plane as correctly argued by Appellants at pages 12-13 of the Appeal Brief.",
+    "Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 29, 30, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. .8 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of Narusawa."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010005584_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 134(a).",
+    "Invention This invention relates to data transmission techniques, and more particularly, to an optimized method for efficiently transmitting data frames using MAC protocols, such as wireless IEEE 802.11 protocol. (Spec. 1).",
+    "Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:",
+    "1. a method of transmitting data frames over a data network, comprising transmitting a plural number of MAC (Media Access Control) data frames, each MAC data frame including a header, a data field, and a frame check sequence (FCS), with only a single PLCP (Physical Layer Control Procedure) overhead; and transmitting a concatenated MAC header indicating said plural number of MAC data frames with the single PLCP.",
+    "(Disputed limitation emphasized).",
+    "Appellants make the following contentions:",
+    "Appellant's claimed invention is completely different because the combination of Nishimura and Ho does not disclose or suggest a header indicating the number of MAC data frames (wherein each MAC data frame includes a header, a data field, and a frame check sequence).",
+    "As explained above, Ho relates to the MSDU, which is a subset of the aggregation frame, while Nishimura relates to the MAC packet, which is a subset of the MPDU.",
+    "Therefore, the claimed invention would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in view of the combination of Nishimura and Ho because the cited references appear to be related to the number of subsets of the claimed MAC data frame and not the number of MAC frames in the MAC sublayer.",
+    "Furthermore, neither Ho nor Nishimura suggests a need for a header to indicate the number of aggregation frames (Ho) or the number of MPDUs (Nishimura).",
+    "As such, the combination of Nishimura and Ho does not disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.",
+    "Furthermore, as pointed out above, the combination of Nishimura and Ho would not motivate or enable one of ordinary skill in the art to invent the features of claim 1. (Reply Br. 6-7).",
+    "Regarding the independent claim 11, Appellants contend claim 11 is allowable for the same reasons claim 1 is allowable. (Reply Br. 7).",
+    "Regarding the dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-20, Appellants contend these claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency from claims 1 and 11. (Reply Br. 7-8)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20.",
+    "Claims 3 and 13 were canceled.",
+    "REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0210673 A1, November 13, 2003) in view of Ho (US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169769 A1, September 11, 2003).",
+    "Since Nishimura already discloses transmitting a plurality of MAC data frames as recited by claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) prior art rejection relies on the count value as taught by Ho et al. to indicate the number of MAC data frames that are combined with a single PLCP header as taught by Nishimura. (Ans. 12; emphasis removed and added).",
+    "The Examiner relies on Ho's general teaching of a frame counter (126) in the header (1 16) that indicates the number of data frames in the frame body (1 18) behind the header (1 16). (Ans. 12; Ho, Fig. 6).",
+    "Nishimura further discloses detecting the size of the received packet to determine whether the received packet is a conventional packet with a single data unit or a more efficient packet that contains a plurality of data units (see paragraphs 80-83).",
+    "By using the frame sub-body count field 126 as disclosed by Ho et al., Nishimura will be able to determine whether the received packet contains a plurality of data units for processing without the step of detecting the size of the received packet.",
+    "Therefore, the motivation for using the frame sub-body count field with the apparatus of transmitting combined data frames over a data network is to provide information regarding the transmitted data in order to allow the receiver to determine whether a received packet contains multiple data units without having to detect the size of the received packet. (Ans. 13)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. & 6(b).",
+    "We affirm.",
+    "GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based on Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20 on the basis of claim 1.",
+    "See 37 C.F.R. & 41.37(c)(1)(vii).",
+    "ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner's s obviousness rejection of the claims.",
+    "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 Answer in response to arguments made in Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 11-14).",
+    "We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below.",
+    "Issue: Under & 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested \"transmitting a concatenated MAC header indicating said plural number of MAC data frames with the single PLCP,\" within the meaning of claim 1 and commensurate language of claim 11?",
+    "Based upon our review of the record, we find Appellants' principal argument urging patentability is predicated on non-functional descriptive material (i.e., the format of a data frame). (App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 6-7).",
+    "Claim 1 merely requires transmitting MAC data frames according to a specific format (i.e., a data structure per se).",
+    "Claim 11 is broadly directed to forming a frame structure of packet data including MAC data frames.",
+    "As such, claims 1 and 11 do not positively recite that the contents of the data (or arrangement or structure of the data) is used to change or alter any computer function.",
+    "I See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2006-1003, affd, Rule 36 (June 12, 2006)); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative), affd, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006).",
+    "Thus, Appellants' arguments urging patentability are predicated on non-functional descriptive material, which we do not give patentable weight.",
+    "Even if we arguendo accorded patentable weight to the disputed data frame, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for at least the following reasons:",
+    "(1) We agree with the Examiner's findings: Ho et al. discloses a method and apparatus for frame aggregation of MAC data (see paragraph 15) wherein the aggregated frame includes a frame sub-body count field 126 that indicates the number of frames that are aggregated (see paragraph 41 and figure 6).",
+    "(2) We also agree with the Examiner's responsive argument: While the Appellant argues that the frame subbody 132 as disclosed by Ho is not the same or equivalent to a MAC data frame as in Appellants' claim 1, the prior art rejection does not require Ho et al. to disclose [a] MAC data frame because the primary reference already discloses the limitation. (Ans. 13).",
+    "(3) We agree with the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness as further articulated in the responsive arguments: With respect to the combination of Nishimura and Ho et al. in the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) prior art rejection, it is noted that Nishimura and Ho et al. both disclose a system and method for combining and transmitting a plurality of data units into an extended frame or packet.",
+    "Moreover, Appellants fail to present evidence or substantive arguments to rebut the Examiner's proffered motivation to combine Nishimura and Ho. (See Ans. 4).",
+    "For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error regarding the rejection of claim 1.",
+    "We did not find these arguments persuasive for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1.",
+    "For the reasons discussed above regarding claims 1 and 11, we disagree.",
+    "Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and that of claims 2, 4-12, and 14-20, which fall therewith."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010005612_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Contentions Appellant contends: Independent claim 1 recites, in part, \"the processor selects the store buffer data for use by a data load operation if both (i) a selected way of the plurality of ways matches the store buffer way \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 wherein the result of the comparison of the hashed addresses is a current way value indicative of the selected way.\"",
+    "Independent claim 10 recites similar limitations.",
+    "However, Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because the cited references fail to teach or suggest the quoted limitations.",
+    "On page 7 of the Final Office Action, Examiner cites Hughes at col.2 1.36-44 as allegedly teaching the quoted limitation.",
+    "At the cited location, Hughes states \"Ii]n set associative embodiments, the way in which the load hits is compared to the way in which the store hits to further verify the correctness of the forwarding.\"",
+    "However, an independent way determination fails to teach or suggest the result of hashed address comparison being the way value. (App. Br. 12-13).",
+    "However, Appellant additionally contends that the Examiner has erred regarding claims 16-20 in view of the claimed virtual address: Additionally, independent claim 16 recites, in part, \"a virtual address.\"",
+    "However, Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because the cited references fail to teach or suggest the quoted limitation.",
+    "On page 9 of the Final Office Action, \"Examiner cites Gruner at col.5 1.25-21 as allegedly teaching the quoted limitation.",
+    "At the cited location, Gruner teaches an interleaved memory system in which words that are normally expected to be used sequentially are stored in different memory modules.",
+    "However, storing words in different memory modules fails to teach or suggest a virtual address.",
+    "For at least these reasons, Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 16, along with dependent claims 17-20, because the claims are allowable over Razdan in view of Hughes in even further view of Gruner. (App. Br. 14)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "REJECTION Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 15-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. $103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Razdan, Hughes, and Gruner.",
+    "The Examiner disagrees.",
+    "In particular, the Examiner responds that **Applicant has not argued against Razdan in view of Hughes, instead preferring to attack Hughes singly.\" (Ans. 9).",
+    "The Examiner further responds: The Appellant's s statement to the effect of \"Thlowever, an independent way determination fails to teach or suggest the result of hashed address comparison being the way value\" (pg 13) does not appear reflective of positively recited claim requirements.",
+    "The claimed phrasing \"wherein the result of the comparison of the hashed addresses is a current way value indicative of the selected way\" does not positively require that the comparison generate the way; it merely requires that the comparison generate a value that is indicative of the way, which can be interpreted as being fulfilled by Hughes disclosure of recalling the forwarding if the way determination misses, in that the recall signal is a value indicative of the way being incorrect. (Ans. 9-10, underline added).",
+    "Razdan discloses using a hash of a portion of the load address and an un-hashed portion of the address to determine if a load hits in the cache (figure 6), while Hughes accepts the address and way of a load address in determining whether a load hits in the store queue (figure 1).",
+    "At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Razdan to buffer the store operations, as taught by Hughes, and to operate the store queue given the hashed address and un-hashed address already calculated by Razdan.",
+    "The motivation for doing so would have been that it allows the processor to store writes that are still speculative and to flush those writes when they turn out to be non-coherent (Hughes, column 1 lines 14-42).",
+    "Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Razdan to use Hughes store buffer for the benefit of flushing speculative writes that turn out to be non-coherent. (Ans. 4-5).",
+    "The Examiner disagrees: Applicant has failed to provide any reasoned rationale as to why storing words in different memory modules fails to teach or suggest a virtual address.",
+    "Gruner' s storing of words in different memory modules means that the inputted addresses are mapped to different modules, that there is a conversion between the inputted address and the address the actual memory modules see.",
+    "The Examiner asserts that this can clearly be seen as disclosing a virtual address. (Ans. 11-12).",
+    "The Examiner finds that, because \"Gruner' s storing of words in different memory modules means that the inputted addresses are mapped to different modules, \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 there is a conversion between the inputted address and the address the actual memory modules see.\" (Ans. 11-12, emphasis added)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. & 134 from a rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 15-22.",
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. .5 6(b).",
+    "We affirm-in-part.",
+    "The claims are directed to store buffer forwarding in a pipelined computer processing system.",
+    "Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system, comprising: a processor coupled to an address bus; a cache memory that couples to the address bus and comprises cache data, the cache memory divided into a plurality of ways; and a store buffer that couples to the address bus, and comprises store buffer data, a store buffer way and a store buffer index, wherein, the processor selects the store buffer data for use by a data load operation if both (i) a selected way of the plurality of ways matches the store buffer way and (ii) at least part of a virtual address on the address bus matches the store buffer index; otherwise, when the selected way matches the store buffer way, the processor selects the cache data corresponding to the selected way, and when the selected way does not match the store buffer way, the processor ends a store buffer access; a hashed address generator that couples to the address bus and converts the virtual address present on the address bus into a current hashed address; and a hash memory that couples to the address bus and comprises a saved hashed address associated with the cache data; wherein the current hashed address is compared to the saved hashed address; and wherein the result of the comparison of the hashed addresses is a current way value indicative of the selected way.",
+    "(disputed limitations emphasized).",
+    "REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Gruner US 4,048,623 Sept. 13, 1977 Razdan US 6,253,285 B1 Jun. 26, 2001 Hughes US 6,662,280 B1 Dec. 09, 2003",
+    "GROUPING OF CLAIMS In light of Appellant's s arguments, we will decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15, 21, and 22 on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. \u25cf 41.37(c)(1)().",
+    "We will similarly decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of independent claim 16 and associated dependent claims 17-20 on the basis of claim 16. (Id.).",
+    "Issue Under S 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested \"the processor selects the store buffer data for use by a data load operation if both (i) a selected way of the plurality of ways matches the store buffer way \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 wherein the result of the comparison of the hashed addresses is a current way value indicative of the selected way,\" within the meaning of claim 1 and the commensurate language of claim 102 (emphasis added).",
+    "ANALYSIS Regarding the disputed hashed address limitation, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9) that Appellant is attacking the Hughes reference in isolation, while ignoring the teachings and suggestions of Razdan, as relied on by the Examiner in combination with Hughes (and Gruner), as follows:\"",
+    "We also observe that Appellant does not further rebut the Examiner's s responsive arguments (Ans. 9-10) and broader claim construction (id.) by filing a Reply Brief.",
+    "Therefore, on this record we are not persuaded of Examiner error regarding the rejection of representative claim 1.",
+    "Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2- 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15, 21, and 22 (not argued separately) which fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. & 41.37(c)(1)().",
+    "Claims 16-20 Appellant contends that claims 16-20 are allowable for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1 which we did not find to be persuasive. (App. Br. 13-14).",
+    "We reproduce the pertinent portions of Gruner below: Further, the memory system may be arranged to be used in an interleaving process. In non-interleaved memory systems, groups of memory words (e.g., instruction words) which are normally used in sequence are often stored in the same memory module. Accordingly, such sequentially used words cannot be made available simultaneously since access to only one module at a time can be achieved. The process of interleaving memory words reduces the chance that sequentially used memory words will reside in the same memory module and increases the chance that sequential words can be accessed simultaneously. In accordance with such an interleaving memory word arrangement, words which are normally expected to be used sequentially are stored in different memory modules. (Gruner, col. 5, 11. 25-39) Normally, without interleaving, the most significant bit or bits (MSB) of an address identify the memory module which is addressed and the remaining bits of the address identify the particular word within a memory module. Thus, in a 64K memory system using eight 8K memory modules, a 16-bit address is required, the first three most significant bits identifying the module which is addressed and the remaining 13 bits identifying one word of the 8K words within such selected module. If the memory words are interleaved in a 8-way interleaving arrangement, it can be shown that the three least significant bits (LSB) identify the module which is addressed, while the remaining 13 bits identify one word of the 8K words within such module. (Gruner, col. 6, 11. 13-26).",
+    "We begin by broadly but reasonably construing a *virtual address\" in accordance with its plain meaning as requiring a mapping between a defined virtual address space and a physical address space.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner that Gruner teaches a conversion between the inputted address which is 16 bits (as required to address a 64K memory physical memory space containing 2^16 memory locations) and the 13-bit address that the respective eight physical memory modules \"see\" (i.e., 13-bits are required to address the 8K (2^13) memory locations within a particular 8K memory module).",
+    "However, we find this conversion is merely the result of decoding a physical 16-bit address as required to address eight 8K physical memory modules.",
+    "Thus, the 16-bit address in Gruner is an absolute machine address that specifies a physical location in memory, and is not a virtual or logical address which is typically used to address a virtual memory space that may exceed the available physical memory of the machine, and where memory pages may be swapped between physical memory and the hard disk using page frames and page faults.",
+    "In particular, the Examiner has not shown where any virtual address space is defined in Gruner that is mapped to a physical address space.",
+    "In Gruner's s interleaved method of addressing eight memory modules of 8K each, the physical address space is 64K (i.e., the sum total of the memory locations contained in eight 8K memory modules).",
+    "In accordance with Gruner' s disclosed interleaving method, the least significant three bits of the 16-bit address are decoded to enable and select one of the eight 8K memory modules. (Gruner, col. 6, 11. 22-25).",
+    "The most significant 13 bits of the 16 bit address are used to address the respective memory locations contained within a selected 8K memory module. (Gruner, col. 6, 11. 25-26).",
+    "In summary, we find Gruner's s \"conversion\" at best merely teaches a conventional method of decoding a physical 16-bit absolute machine address to address the sum total of 64K physical memory locations as contained within eight 8K physical memory modules.",
+    "Thus, in our view, the Examiner has confused conventional physical address decoding with virtual address to physical address mapping.",
+    "Because we find the weight of the evidence supports Appellant's position as articulated in the Brief, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 16 and also associated dependent claims 17-20, which stand therewith."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010005848_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine Burghoorn with Langdon. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 1-4.",
+    "Appellants also argue that there is no motivation to combine Burghoorn with Bartram. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 4.",
+    "Appellants further argue that there is no motivation to combine Langdon with Holzapfel. App. Br. 10.",
+    "Finally, Appellants argue that Joyce has wa bandwidth of at least about 400 kHz,' whereas the crystal oscillator** of Bartram \"operates nominally at 10.7 MHz\" and, thus, the combination of Joyce and Bartram is in error because Joyce's bandwidth is not greater than Bartram's frequency. App. Br. 11.",
+    "Issue 1 Appellants have made various assertions in support of an argument that the references teach away from their combination.",
+    "Specifically, Appellants have asserted that Burghoorn teaches away from its combination with Langdon because Burghoorn \"seeks to avoid frequency pulling or mode hopping*' whereas the laser source in Langdon *has a frequency that is modulated by a triangular modulation signal.\" App. Br. 6-7.",
+    "Appellants also argue that the proposed combination of Burghoorn and Bartram would change the principle of operation of Burghoorn because the *measurement principle\" of Bartram is different than that of Burghoorn. App. Br. 9.",
+    "Appellants further argue that Holzapfel teaches away from its combination with Langdon because Langdon's 's laser source *has a frequency that is modulated by the modulation signal,\" whereas Holzapfel *states that in position measuring arrangements, fluctuations in wavelength result in erroneous measurements.' App. Br. 10.",
+    "Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided a rationale for the combination of Burghoorn with Langdon or Bartram. App. Br. 7-8, 9-10.",
+    "Moreover, Appellants themselves point out that the Examiner's rejection is based not on the elimination of one component from Burghoorn, but a substitution of components for other components (i.e., *replacing the piezo-electric modulator 83 and its appurtenant equipment, controls, etc. as described by Burghoorn with the *frequency modulated system described in Langdon m). Reply Br. 2.",
+    "Issue 2 In addition to the arguments addressed above relating to the combinations suggested by the Examiner, Appellants argue that claim 15 is not obvious in view of Burghoorn, Bartram, and Joyce because the bandwidth mentioned by Joyce is not above the frequency described by Bartram. App. Br. 11-12."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner responds to Appellants' argument that Burghoorn teaches away from Langdon by pointing out that both Burghoorn and Langdon modulate their respective lasers, but use different methods. Ans. 14.",
+    "Moreover, the Examiner points out that, rather than teaching away from using the modulation method of Langdon, incorporation of such a method could eliminate the piezoelectric device, which may remove unwanted back reflections. Id.",
+    "The Examiner states that Bartram is used \"to show that one can modulate a laser by using a variable current power supply superimposed on a direct current supply \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 instead of modulating the beam as seen in Burghoorn.' Ans. 17.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Langdon modulates a laser such that it changes frequency linearly with time, which is not the same as the detrimental fluctuations in wavelength mentioned in Holzapfel and referenced by Appellants. Ans. 19.",
+    "The Examiner's rationale for combination is that \"lilt would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the current to the laser as in [Langdon/Bartram] to modulate the laser instead of modulating the beam directly,\" as in Burghoorn. Ans. 4, 7.",
+    "The Examiner points out that Joyce is being used for *the idea of using an amplifier with a bandwidth that is larger than an applied alternating current component, not to replace [the] actual amplifier circuit in Burghoorn as modified by Bartram. \" Ans. 20."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, the Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to the Appellants' arguments.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions.",
+    "We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that changing the modulation method would increase the chances of frequency jumping or mode hopping.",
+    "Thus, Appellants have not pointed to, nor do we find, anything in Burghoorn to persuade us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged or 1ed away from using a modulation method different from the method taught in Burghoorn.",
+    "*Teaching an alternative or equivalent method does not teach away from the use of a claimed method. \" In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 438 (CCPA 1965).",
+    "Once again, we agree with the Examiner.",
+    "Burghoorn's 's principle of operation is not changed merely by substituting one method of modulating the laser for another, which is how the Examiner has explained the combination of Burghoorn and Bartram. Ans. 17.",
+    "Therefore, we do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive that Bartram and Burghoorn teach away from their combination.",
+    "Appellants have not offered persuasive evidence to show that modulating a laser as taught by Langdon is inconsistent with the teachings of Holzapfel.",
+    "Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's findings based on the combination of Holzapfel and Langdon.",
+    "Thus, as acknowledged by Appellants and explained by the Examiner, the rationale for the combination of Burghoorn with Langdon or Bartram is the substitution of one known technique for another to yield predictable results. See App. Br. 8 (citing MPEP 5 2143 and KSR Int 'I Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).",
+    "We agree with the Examiner's findings.",
+    "Appellants have not presented persuasive arguments indicating why the concept of Joyce's circuit having an amplifier bandwidth greater than the applied alternating current could not be integrated into the Burghoorn-Bartram combination."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010006465_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant notes that the claimed tethers fix the upper and lower rails to the first base independent of the anchor pulley and argues that Abouzakhm does not disclose the claimed tethers because contrary to the arrangement in Abouzakhm, *Appellant's tethers secure the remaining (unbroken) rail independently to a base so that the vehicle unit does not drop to the ground.\" App. Br. 9.",
+    "Appellant contends that Abouzakhm does not disclose different elongation characteristics for each of the two rails (cables 17, 19). See App. Br. 10.",
+    "Appellant additionally contends that the \"counter balance system is totally absent from Abouzakhm.\" App. Br. 10."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner finds that Abouzakhm discloses each of the features recited in claim 13. Ans. 3.",
+    "More specifically, the Examiner finds that *[s]upport bars 21, 23 [in Abouzakhm] are positioned throughout the length of the system \u00b7 \u00b7 \u25a0 [and] connect and tether the upper and lower rails [17, 19] together.\" Id.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Abouzakhm discloses each of the features recited in claim 18. Ans. 3.",
+    "With regard to the counter balance system, the Examiner finds that in Abouzakhm, the *piston and cable tensioning ram 60 act to counter act the weight of the vehicle\" and disclose the claimed counter balance system. Ans. 3.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Abouzakhm discloses each of the features recited in claim 23 and specifically finds that the ram 60 in Abouzakhm discloses the counter balance system of claim 23. Ans. 3.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Abouzakhm teaches the claimed rail system, but **only shows that the cable used in the system has cover of stainless steel.' Ans. 4.",
+    "The Examiner cites Rubin as teaching \"a cable construction having a core 12 with fiber reinforced extruded plastic 14 braided around the center core 12\" with \"[t]he core 12 and fiber reinforcement 14 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 covered by an additional layer 20 of extruded plastic serving as a casing for the cable.\" Ans. 4.",
+    "The Examiner reasons that \"lilt would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a cable covering construction, like that of Rubin et al to a cable rail system like that of Abouzakhm, so as to equip the system with a lighter weight, yet durable cable with the expected result of being able to support more weight and movements of the vehicle as well as reduce maintenance needs. Id."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We REVERSE.",
+    "We agree.",
+    "The Examiner makes no findings regarding the \"first tether fixing said upper flexible rail to said first base independent of said fixed anchor pulley\" or the \"second tether fixing said lower flexible rail to said first base independent of said fixed anchor pulley\" as required by claim 13.",
+    "Rather, the Examiner simply asserts that \" Abouzakhm discloses various tethers mounted throughout the system as well as at the terminal bases at either end of the system to connect the upper and lower rails and the terminal bases.\" Ans. 5.",
+    "However, the support bars 21, 23 extend between and couple the upper and lower rails to one another, not to a base as claimed. See Abouzakhm col. 4, II. 40-57.",
+    "The support bars 21, 23 are extended and retracted during operation to change the slope of the cable (upper rail) 19 and control the vehicle riding on the cables 17, 19. See Abouzakhm col. 4, 1. 58 - col. 5, 1. 8.",
+    "The support bars 21, 23 in Abouzakhm (considered \"tethers\" by the Examiner) do not fix the upper and lower rails to the first base independent of the fixed anchor pulley as required by claim 13.",
+    "Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13.",
+    "Claims 14- 17 depend from claim 13 and the stated basis for the rejection of claims 14- 17 does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 13.",
+    "Thus, the rejection of claims 14-17 is also not sustained.",
+    "However, the Examiner makes no findings regarding where the different elongation characteristics of the rails is disclosed in Abouzakhm.",
+    "As noted above, the Examiner fails to indicate, and we do not see, where two rails having different elongation characteristics are disclosed in Abouzakhm.",
+    "We agree.",
+    "The cable tensioning ram 60 in Abouzakhm (considered a *counter balance system\" by the Examiner) is actually a control mechanism for the upper cable 19.",
+    "Column 9. lines 14-18 of Abouzakhm explain that *extending and retracting movement of the ram 60 . . \u00b7 accomplish[es] adjustments in the angle of the cable 19 with respect to the associated ground surface.\"",
+    "\" The hydraulic ram 60 includes *a cylinder 83 ha[ving] a piston 85 slidingly contained therein and having attached thereto a piston rod 87.\" Abouzakhm col. 8. 11. 7-9.",
+    "\"Hydraulic fluid 82 within the cylinder 83 fluidly communicates to coupling 86 which has attached thereto hydraulic hose 88 which fluidly communicates with a positive displacement pump 90 controlled through the control signals sent thereto by electrical conductor 91\" to control the ram 60 and ultimately the angle of the upper cable 19. Abouzakhm col. 8, 11. 9-14.",
+    "Thus, we do not agree that the ram 60 of Abouzakhm discloses the claimed counter balance system.",
+    "Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 18.",
+    "Claims 19- 22 depend from claim 18 and the stated basis for the rejection of claims 19-22 does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 18.",
+    "Thus, the rejection of claims 19-22 is also not sustained.",
+    "We disagree for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 18.",
+    "Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 23.",
+    "Claims 24- 27 depend from claim 23 and the stated basis for the rejection of claims 24- 27 does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 23.",
+    "Thus, the rejection of claims 24-27 is also not sustained.",
+    "Initially, we again note that the Examiner makes no findings regarding the different elongation characteristics of the rails recited in claim 28 and we do not see where this feature is taught by Abouzakhm or Rubin.",
+    "Further, the Examiner provides no reasoning why it would have been obvious to include rails having different elongation characteristics in the proposed modified rail system of Abouzakhm.",
+    "For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 28.",
+    "Claims 29-32 depend from claim 28 and the stated basis for the rejection of claims 29-32 does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 28.",
+    "Thus, the rejection of claims 29-32 is also not sustained."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010006844_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "The secondary reference cited by the Examiner, Banerjee, does not change the fact that Hipp would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art away from the claimed subject matter.",
+    "Specifically, Banerjee does not disclose anything that can reasonably be construed as disclosing a send thread adapted to send the outgoing data concurrently with the receive thread receiving the incoming data.",
+    "Paragraph [0007] of Banerjee cited by the Examiner simply discloses processing multiple threads in parallel, which has nothing to do with a send thread and receive thread that are part of a virtual port that concurrently send and receive data.",
+    "In fact, Banerjee notes that a \"socket is used to connect a thread to a virtual port.\" Banerjee, I [0008].",
+    "Thus, according to Banerjee, one socket connects one thread to one port, which does not provide any hint of concurrent bidirectional communications using a single virtual port that has a send thread and a receive thread that can operate concurrently.",
+    "Rather, Banerjee, like Hipp, discloses sequential communication.",
+    "See, e.g., Banerjee, II [0042]-[0045] (describing transmitting data and then receiving data from a port selected in a round robin manner). (Reply Br. 4; See also App. Br. 10)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "REJECTION Claims 1-7, 9. 11-22 and 32-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C \u25cf 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hipp (US 6,859,835) in view of Banerjee (US 2002/0199000).",
+    "In particular, the Examiner concludes that the disputed claim term \"virtual port\" should be construed more broadly than the interpretation argued by Appellant:\" In response, Examiner sets forth that the **virtual port\" set forth in the claim [\"]does not preclude the use of a second port with an intended first port.\" [See Board Decision filed, March 27, 2007, page 3].",
+    "As also stated in the Board Decision, Hipp creates a virtual port by multiplexing the send and receive data between at least two ports (col. 3, 11. 22 to 33; col. 4, 11.27 to 40; col. 5, 11. 15 to 18, 39 to 42, and 64 to 67; col. 6, 11.15 to 17; col. 7,1.66 to col. 8,1.12; col. 8,11.53 to 58).",
+    "Hipp uses the term \"a virtual port\" because the second port is transparent to the two applications that are sending and receiving data to an intended first port (col. 2, 11.33 to 36 and 52 to 55, col. 3, 11.1 to 22; col. 6, 11. 15 to 17). (Ans. 12, emphasis added).",
+    "Regarding the disputed claimed send and receive threads, the Examiner (Ans. 4, 10-11) points to Appellant's Specification, which acknowledges that \"to activate a particular socket for communication, a send or receive thread is called according to well known techniques in the art. (Spec. 2, para. [0007]).",
+    "As pointed out by the Examiner, the rejection is based on the combined teachings and suggestions of the Hipp and Banerjee references. (Ans. 10-11)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. .5 6(b).",
+    "We Affirm.",
+    "Based on Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 5-16), we decide the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 3.",
+    "This appeal turns upon claim construction.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner (and the prior BPAI Decision at 4) that under a broad but reasonable construction, the claimed **virtual port\" does not preclude the use of a second port with an intended first port, as taught or suggested by Hipp. (Id.).",
+    "This reasoning is applicable here, given the use of \"comprising\" in Appellant's claims.",
+    "Moreover, when we look to Appellant's Specification for context, we conclude that the scope of the disputed claim term **virtual port\" broadly covers any connection(s) between software applications: *Virtual port and port are used interchangeably to identify connections between software applications, i.e., between the OS and device drivers.\" (Spec., para. [0007], emphasis added).",
+    "Nor does Appellant disclose in the Specification that the claim term \"virtual port\" has any particular recognized meaning in the art.",
+    "We also observe that Banerjee specifically teaches that \"multiple threads may be processed by the processor simultaneously.\" (Banerjee, para. [0007], emphasis added).",
+    "Regarding the secondary Banerjee reference, Appellant also presents a \"teaching away\" argument regarding the Examiner's proffered combination:",
+    "This reasoning is applicable here.",
+    "Appellant's independent claims are silent regarding sockets.",
+    "In reviewing the record, we find the Examiner provides an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning that sufficiently supports the legal conclusion of obviousness. (Ans. 4-5).",
+    "We find this is a case, as the Supreme Court guides, where 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.\"",
+    "Moreover, \"[the combination of familiar elements [e.g., network devices, virtual ports, send and receive threads-- claim 1] according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.\"",
+    "Appellant has presented no evidence that combining the teachings of Hipp with the features relied on by the Examiner in Banerjee would have been *'uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art\" or \"represented an unobvious step over the prior art.\" Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).",
+    "Although the Examiner's construction of *virtual port\" is broad (Ans. 12), because \"applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.\" In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).",
+    "On this record, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner's s construction of the disputed claim term *virtual port\" is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification.",
+    "For essentially the same reasons set forth by the Examiner (Ans. 8-14), and for the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that the disputed limitations are at least suggested by the cited combination of Hipp and Banerjee.",
+    "For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness.",
+    "Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner' s obviousness rejection of claim 1, and claims 9, 16, and 32 which recite commensurate limitations.",
+    "Dependent Claims 3 and 15 Regarding the additional argued limitations of send and receive threads being sub-threads of the master communication thread (App. Br. 11- 12), we agree with the Examiner'. s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness for the reasons articulated by the Examiner. (Ans. 14-15).",
+    "As previously discussed, Appellant's Specification discloses that \"It]o activate a particular socket for communication, a send or receive thread is called according to well known techniques in the art.\" (Spec. 2, para. [0007], emphasis added).",
+    "Banerjee specifically teaches that **multiple threads may be processed by the processor simultaneously\" (Banerjee, para. [0007], emphasis added).",
+    "Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's 's rejection of dependent claims 3 and 15.",
+    "The remaining dependent claims (not argued separately) fall for the same reasons discussed above regarding the respective independent claims.",
+    "Arguments not made are considered waived."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010007205_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "The Appellant discloses that snack mixes come in a wide variety of ingredients and flavors and individual snack pieces come in a wide variety of sizes and shapes. Spec. 1, II. 19-20.",
+    "The Appellant discloses that a well-known snack mix is available under the Chex brand.",
+    "The mix is said to include ready-to-eat cereal pieces, pretzels, and crackers.",
+    "The cereal pieces are said to be in the form of a biscuit fabricated from a grid or matrix of cooked cereal dough.",
+    "The pretzels may have common shapes, such as a simple rod, or may have more complex shapes, such as a heart.",
+    "The crackers may also have simple geometric shapes, such as a rod or a square flat cracker.",
+    "According to the Appellant, these simple shapes have been combined in television commercials to depict various shapes and characters in elaborate displays that often simulate animation. Spec. 2, II. 8-21.",
+    "An object of the Appellant's invention is to improve conventional snack mixes by adding snack pieces that can be used to create shapes and figures.",
+    "The improved snack mix is said to have an enhanced play value and be more appealing to children. Spec. 2, II. 28-33.",
+    "20. A method of enhancing the play value of a dry snack mix comprising the steps of: admixing first dry identifying shaped pieces, including at least eye shaped planar backed cracker pieces having a docking hole positioned to provide a pupil feature and planar baked crackers having opposed major faces and one major face having at least three incisions thereon forming a face pattern, with a first quantity of first puzzle member shaped pieces fabricated from a first dry food composition and a second quantity of second puzzle member shaped pieces fabricated from a second dry food composition to form a puzzle snack mix; and packaging the puzzle snack mix in a package to provide a dry snack puzzle kit.",
+    "21. A dry snack mix puzzle kit in the form of a loose blend of individual pieces suitable for arranging to form a play figurine pattern, comprising: a quantity of first dry shaped cereal based planar pieces including shield shaped baked cracker pieces and planar baked crackers having opposed major faces and one major face having at least three incisions thercon forming a face pattern; a quantity of second dry pretzel base pieces including letter shaped baked pretzel pieces, and limb suggestive shaped baked pretzel pieces; a quantity of third dry shaped cereal based planar pieces defined by planar baked geometric shapes selected from the group consisting of ovals, rings, circles, triangles, squares, rectangles, parallelograms, pentagons, hexagons, octagons, saddles, and mixtures thereof; and a package containing the quantity of the first dry shaped cereal based planar pieces, the quantity of the second dry pretzel base pieces and the quantity of the third dry shaped cereal based planar pieces, wherein select ones of the quantity of the first, second and third shaped pieces can be used to form a variety of objects including a figurine having a head, two arms, two legs and a shield. App. Br., Claims Appendix.'",
+    "As for the eye shaped cracker piece recited in claims 20 and 28, the Appellant argues the Examiner has not cited a single reference which teaches an eye shaped cracker piece wherein docking holes make up the pupil feature. App. Br. 10, 14, 17."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "1 The Appellant seeks review of the following rejections: (1) the rejection of claims 20-33 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable over the Appellant's admission of the prior art2 in view of Witkowski, as further evidenced by Vasic, 4 Okos 407.' Okos 405.6 Fink,' Murray, 8 Tsunematsu Shigeto, 9 Jin Chiyoshige, 10 Olschewski Oliver, 11 Barilla Alimentare, 12 Brown, 13 Moreau, 14 Pettit, IS Hoy, 16 and Zwiers\" 17. : and (2) the rejection of claims 20-33 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable over Witkowski, as further evidenced by Vasic, Okos 407, Okos 405, Fink, Murray, Tsunematsu Shigeto, Jin Chiyoshige, Olschewski Oliver, Barilla Alimentare, Brown, Moreau, Pettit, Hoy, and Zwiers, in view of the Appellant's admission of the prior art.",
+    "The Examiner also finds it was known to form a variety of food products into a variety of novelty shapes. See, e.g., Witkowski, para. [0008] (disclosing that foods, such as cereal and crackers, in die cut, extruded or molded shapes of cartoon characters, animals, unusual shapes, and icons were known); Witkowski Figs. 1, 3, 11 (depicting food products in the form of characters having a face pattern); Witkowski Fig. 4 (depicting food products in the shape of a letter of the alphabet); Okos 405, para. [0044] (food piece in the shape of a head may be provided with recessed portions depicting eyes and a mouth); Okos 405, Fig. 3.",
+    "Moreover, the Examiner finds it was known to combine shaped food products to form a face or figurine. See, e.g., Witkowski, para. [0062] (selection of edible articles may provide the parts to allow a consumer to form a face, skeleton, robot, or person) 18. Witkowski Fig. 8; Okos 407, Fig. 1; Vasic, para. [0007] (disclosing a prepackaged assemblage of edible components of various shapes and sizes and/or specially formed shapes suitable for assembly into various types of toys or toy-like figures).",
+    "The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add any number of novelty-shaped food products to a conventional snack mix, such as the Chex brand snack mix, or combine a variety of food products in a variety of shapes to create a snack mix as recited in the claims on appeal for the predictable result of enhancing its play value. See, e.g., Witkowski, para. [0016] (potential benefits of the invention include stimulating imagination and encouraging creative thinking); Okos 407, para. [0004] (disclosing that edible food puzzle pieces provide added play value).",
+    "To the extent that the prior art does not expressly disclose a one-to-one correspondence between a particular food product and a particular shape as recited in the claims on appeal, the Examiner finds the claimed food products and the claimed shapes were known in the art.",
+    "The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form known food products into other shapes known in the art. See KSR Int 7 Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (\"A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. .\").",
+    "The Examiner explains the Appellant was not the first to form foods, such as crackers, to impart a simulation. See, e.g., Witkowski Figs. 4 and 8 (depicting an oval shaped food piece having a hole positioned to provide a pupil feature)\", 19. Witkowski, para. [0020] (disclosing the food materials used in the invention include crackers).",
+    "The Examiner also contends the Appellant \"is not the inventor of docking holes, which are notoriously conventional expedients to vent dough during baking of baked goods such as crackers.\" Ans. 8, 11-12.",
+    "The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a conventional docking hole to provide the pupil feature illustrated in Witkowski Figures 4 and 8. Ans. 8, 12."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. 8 134 from an Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 20-33, which are all of the pending claims.",
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b).",
+    "We AFFIRM.",
+    "The subject matter on appeal is directed to a dry snack mix that can be used to form figurines and enhance play value.",
+    "Claims 20 and 21, reproduced below, are representative of the subject matter on appeal.",
+    "We affirm both of these rejections for the reasons well-stated in the Examiner's Answer dated November 16, 2009 (\"Ans. \"), and add the following for emphasis.",
+    "B. DISCUSSION The prior art of record establishes that, at the time of the Appellant's invention, snack mixes comprising a variety of food products in a variety of shapes were known.",
+    "For example, the Chex brand snack mix was known to contain cereal pieces in the form of a grid or parallelogram and pretzel pieces in the form of rods. Spec. 2, II. 8-18.",
+    "Significantly, the Appellant has failed to establish, through evidence and/or argument, that the Examiner's factual findings or legal conclusions, based on the combined teachings of the prior art, are erroneous. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (the test for obviousness is *[not] that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references\"; the test for obviousness is \"what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art\").",
+    "For example, the Appellant does not direct us to any evidence establishing that it would have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art to form a known food product into a known shape.",
+    "The Appellant's argument fails to consider the prior art as a whole. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.",
+    "The Appellant does not explain, in any detail, why the Examiner' s position is erroneous.",
+    "For the reasons set forth above and in the Examiner's s Answer, the 8 103(a) rejections will be sustained."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010008271_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Based on Specification paragraph 0019, and Figures 1A/IB showing double headed arrows 108, Appellant contends that the disclosure provides requisite support because *\"[t]his description is sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use Appellant's claimed invention\" (App. Br. 16-19; Reply Br. 3-55) so that one skilled in the art \"can clearly conclude that as of the filing date the inventor Appellants had possession of the claimed invention.\"",
+    "Appellant argues that Specification paragraphs 0018 and 0020 provide sufficient information to enable one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention in sufficient detail to conclude that as of the filing date Appellant had possession of the claimed invention.",
+    "Appellant argues the references individually, rather than as a combination (App. Br. 24-27) and contends that the Examiner does not provide an explanation of how or why the references could be combined to produce the claimed invention.",
+    "Appellant, in the Reply Brief, first contends that the Answer does not identify where missing claim limitations are found in the references.",
+    "Appellant's Reply Brief also contends that Saitou does not teach or suggest the limitation *an ultrasonic array that directs guided waves to the sample and receives guided waves from the sample.\"",
+    "In addition, the Reply Brief contends that Saitou does not teach *an ultrasonic array that directs guided waves to the sample and receives guided waves from the sample\" (Reply Br. 11, 16) or guided waves (Reply Br. 20- 21; 28-30)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Without expressly withdrawing this rejection, the Answer newly rejected claims 11 and 23 as stated in the text.",
+    "The Examiner concludes that the original Specification does not support the limitation *each of said transducers within the ultrasonic array having an axis for directing and receiving guided waves. .,4 Ans. 4:14-16.",
+    "That is, he concludes, there is no support for each individual transducer having an axis for directing and receiving guided waves.",
+    "Rather, the Examiner concludes, the original Specification supports only an \"ultrasonic array having an axis for directing and receiving guided waves. \u00b7\u00b7 Ans. 4:17-18 (emphasis added).",
+    "The Examiner concludes that the originally filed Specification and claims fail to provide support for each transducer of the array having *an annular shape for radial wave propagation.\" Ans. 12.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Giurgiutiu teaches the claimed invention except for the recited matrix switch, switch controller, computer and software interface, and more than four receivers with amplification.",
+    "The Examiner further finds that Saitou teaches the claimed matrix switch (Ans. 7:3-6, 15:9-18), switch controller (Ans. 7:6-7; 15:20-23), computer and software interface (Ans. 7:7-8), and more than four receivers (Ans. 7:8- 14; 15:25-16:6)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We agree with the Examiner's findings and reasoning (Ans. 4-5, 14- 15) and adopt them as our own.",
+    "We emphasize that Appellant has failed to provide written description support in the Specification describing \"each of said transducers having an axis.",
+    "Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 25-31 under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.",
+    "Appellants' analysis is not persuasive.",
+    "We therefore again agree with the Examiner's findings and reasoning (Ans. 12-13) and adopt them as our own.",
+    "Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in determining that claims 9 and 21 fail to comply with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 112, first paragraph.",
+    "The Examiner does, however, explain how and why it would have been obvious to combine the references.",
+    "We disagree.",
+    "Arguments directed to that limitation are therefore waived.",
+    "We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) representative claim 1; (2) claim 13 for similar reasons; and (3) claims 5- 7 and 16-19 not separately argued with particularity.",
+    "Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5- 7, 13, and 16-19.",
+    "Appellant's arguments are not persuasive regarding the patentability of claims 8 and 20; 10 and 22; 11 and 23; and 12 and 24 because Appellant attacks the references individually and relies upon recitations of the claim limitations.",
+    "Arguments regarding the ultrasonic array limitation and the guided waves limitation are waived because they are presented for the first time in the Reply Br.",
+    "We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8, 10-12, 20, and 22-24.",
+    "Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 10-12, 20, and 22-24."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010008636_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "ANALYSIS Appellants argue..."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The following grounds of rejection are before us for review: I. Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 24, 29-33, 36, 45, 47, 48, 55, 60, 70, 75-79, 91, and 95 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.",
+    "II. Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 24, 29-33, 36, 45, 47, 48, 55, 60, 70, 75-79, 91, and 95-97 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. . 102(b) as being anticipated by Chirino'."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1 and 47 are representative of the claims on appeal, and read as follows: 1. A system, comprising: at least one computer program for use with at least one computer system and wherein the computer program includes a plurality of instructions including but not limited to a first set of instructions for designating one or more epitopes of at least one agent, a second set of instructions for predicting one or more changes determined by analysis of past variations in the one or more epitopes of the at least one agent, a third set of instructions for aiding the identification of one or more immune response components associated with the predicted changes in the one or more epitopes of the at least one agent, and a fourth set of instructions for communicating at least one of the identified one or more immune response components to a system user.",
+    "47. A computer-implemented method, comprising: designating one or more epitopes of at least one agent; predicting one or more changes determined by analysis of past variations in the one or more epitopes of the at least one agent; aiding the identification of one or more immune response components associated with the predicted changes in the one or more epitopes of the at least one agent; and communicating at least one of the identified at least one immune response components to at least one system user.",
+    "We affirm.",
+    "ISSUE (Rejection 1) Has the Examiner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 47 are drawn to nonstatutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 101?",
+    "FINDINGS OF FACT FF1 The Specification teaches that the \"present application relates, in general, to detection and/or treatment\" (Spec. 2).",
+    "FF2 The Specification teaches further \"a system includes but is not limited to: a computer program for use with a computer system\" (id.).",
+    "FF3 The Specification defines epitope as: the epitope \u25a0 . or parts thereof may be displayed by the agent \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7\u00b7 may be displayed on the surface of the agent \u00b7 I \u00b7\u00b7 extend from the surface of the agent \u00b7 . \u00b7\u00b7 and/or may only be partially accessible by the immune response component.",
+    "The term **epitope\" . \u00b7 \u00b7 as used herein, may include, but is not limited to, a sequence of at least 3 amino acids, a sequence of at least nine nucleotides, an amino acid residue, a nucleotide, a carbohydrate, a protein, a lipid, a capsid protein, a polysaccharide, a lipopolysaccharide, a glycolipid, a glycoprotein, and/or or at least a part of a cell.",
+    "As used herein, the term **epitope\" \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 may be used interchangeably with antigen, paratope binding site, antigenic determinant, and/or determinant.",
+    "As used herein, the term determinant can include an influencing or determining element or factor, unless context indicates otherwise.",
+    "In one aspect the term \"epitope\" \u00b7 . \u00b7 includes, but is not limited to, a peptide binding site.",
+    "As used herein, the term **epitope\" \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 may include structural and/or functionally similar sequences found in the agent \u00b7 a . \u00b7",
+    "The term **epitope\" \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 includes, but is not limited to, similar sequences observed in orthologs, paralogs, homologs, isofunctional homologs, heterofunctional homologs, heterospecific homologs, and/or pseudogenes of the agent \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 (Id. at 9.)",
+    "FF4 The Specification defines \"fimmune response component** as including: but \u00b7 . \u00b7 not limited to, at least a part of a macrophage, a lymphocyte, a T-lymphocyte, a killer T-lymphocyte, an immune response modulator, a helper T-Iymphocyte, an antigen receptor, an antigen presenting cell, a cytotoxic T-Iymphocyte, a T-8 lymphocyte, a CDI molecule, a B lymphocyte, an antibody, a recombinant antibody, a genetically engineered antibody, a chimeric antibody, a monospecific antibody, a bispecific antibody, a multispecific antibody, a diabody, a chimeric antibody, a humanized antibody, a human antibody, a heteroantibody. a monoclonal antibody, a polyclonal antibody, an antibody fragment, and/or synthetic antibody. (Id.)",
+    "FF5 Referencing Figure 14, the Specification teaches depicted is a partial view of a system that may serve as an illustrative environment of and/or for subject matter technologies.",
+    "In one aspect the environment depicted includes a computer system 1400 including a computer program 1402.",
+    "Depicted is the computer program 1402 including instructions 1403, 1404, and/or 1405.",
+    "The computer program 1402 may include a first set of instructions for designating one or more epitopes of at least one agent 1403.",
+    "The computer program 1402 may include a second set of instructions for predicting changes in the one or more epitopes of the at least one agent 1403.",
+    "The computer program 1402 may include a third set of instructions for aiding the identification of one or more immune response components associated with the one or more epitopes of the at least one agent 1404.",
+    "In one exemplary implementation of the system, depicted is a user 1410 (e.g., a medical professional, a researcher, a scientist, a patient, a technician, a manufacturer, a drug maker or the like) employing the system.",
+    "In another exemplary implementation of the system, the computer program 1402 has access to a database 1406.",
+    "In one exemplary implementation a feedback loop is set up between the computer program and the database 1406.",
+    "The output 1407 may be fed back into the computer program 1402 and/or displayed on the computer system 1400.",
+    "The system may be used as a research tool, as a tool for furthering treatment or the like. (Id. at 24-25.)",
+    "FF6 The Specification also teaches: Those having skill in the art will recognize that the state of the art has progressed to the point where there is little distinction left between hardware and software implementations of aspects of systems; the use of hardware or software is generally (but not always, in that in certain contexts the choice between hardware and software can become significant) a design choice representing cost vs. efficiency tradeoffs.",
+    "Those having skill in the art will appreciate that there are various vehicles by which processes and/or systems and/or other technologies described herein can be effected (e.g., hardware, software, and/or firmware), and that the preferred vehicle will vary with the context in which the processes and/or systems and/or other technologies are deployed.",
+    "For example, if an implementer determines that speed and accuracy are paramount, the implementer may opt for a mainly hardware and/or firmware vehicle; alternatively, if flexibility is paramount, the implementer may opt for a mainly software implementation: or, yet again alternatively, the implementer may opt for some combination of hardware, software, and/or firmware.",
+    "Hence, there are several possible vehicles by which the processes and/or devices and/or other technologies described herein may be effected, none of which is inherently superior to the other in that any vehicle to be utilized is a choice dependent upon the context in which the vehicle will be deployed and the specific concerns (e.g., speed, flexibility, or predictability) of the implementer, any of which may vary. (Id. at 35.)",
+    "FF7 The Examiner's statement of the \u00a7101 rejection may be found at page 3 of the Answer.",
+    "As Appellants only argue claims 1 and 47 separately, the remaining system claims (claims 2, 9, 14, 24, 29-33, 36, and 45) stand or fall with claim 1 and the remaining method claims (claims 48, 55, 60, 70, 75-79, 91, and 95) stand or fall with claim 47.",
+    "See 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 41.37(c)(1)(vii).",
+    "FF8 We adopt the Examiner's findings of fact and reasoning as our own.",
+    "PRINCIPLES OF LAW During prosecution before the Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.",
+    "In re American Academy Of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).",
+    "In addition, the claims are not to be confined to the embodiments found in the Specification, and it is improper to import limitations from the Specification into the claims.",
+    "In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007).",
+    "If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is \"necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality\" to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim. . . .",
+    "If, however, the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete invention, including all of its limitations, and the preamble offers no distinct definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations, but rather merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or explain a claim limitation.",
+    "Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).",
+    "*An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous.",
+    "Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.*",
+    "In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).",
+    "Moreover, it is during prosecution that applicants have \"the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.\"",
+    "American Academy, 367 F.3d at 1364.",
+    "It is well established that laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.",
+    "Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, 628 F.3d 1347, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010).",
+    "While it is true that in making that determination the claim must be considered as a whole, \"[n]onetheless, a scientific principle cannot be made patentable by limiting its use to a particular technological environment or by adding insignificant post-solution activity.\" (Id.)"
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010008920_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant relies on the original drawing FIGS. 1 and 2 for support for this claimed feature.",
+    "The Appellant argues that claims 13 and 14 are \"reasonably definite\" when read in light of the specification. App. Br. 5.",
+    "Rejection of claims 9-12, 16, 20, 21, 23, and 24 as anticipated by Mintz Appellant argues claims 9-12, 16, 20, 21, 23 and 24 as a group for the first ground of rejection. App.Br. 5-9.",
+    "Appellant further argues dependent claims 15, 16, 21 and 22 and dependent claims 16-19 and 21 as separate groups for the second ground of rejection.",
+    "Appellant contends that the tie strings 18, 20 disclosed by Mintz do not constitute the claimed cinch assemblies because using one tie from each pair of strings would accomplish the same thing.",
+    "From this, Appellant concludes that the strings constitute a single cinch assembly as opposed to two cinch assemblies that are independently operable."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "REJECTIONS Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 8 112, first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Appellant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.",
+    "Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 9 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention.",
+    "Claims 9-12, 16, 20, 21, 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. $ 102(b) as being anticipated by Mintz (US 5,557,815, iss. Sep. 24, 1996\").",
+    "Claims 15, 16, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 8 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Mintz in view of the teachings of Lincoln (US 7,252,330, iss. Aug. 7, 2007).",
+    "Claims 16-19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Mintz as applied to claims 16 and 21 and further in view of the teachings of Alivizatos (US 5,297,237, iss. Jan. 18, 1994),",
+    "ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. , 112, first paragraph The Examiner's basis for rejecting claims 20 and 21 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. S 112 is that the application as originally filed did not provide written description support for the limitation in claims 20 and 21 \"a generally flat panel.\"",
+    "The Examiner's position for rejecting claims 13 and 14 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 8 112 is that the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention.",
+    "The Examiner finds that claims 13 and 14 are unclear as to the relationship between the *first and second tabs\" on line 2 thereof, and the **adjustable tab(s)\" on line 2 of claim 10. Ans. 4-5.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Mintz discloses a cushion comprising: a central portion 26 defined by a perimeter (col. 3, lines 13-16); an outer portion including a top 12 having an inner edge (col. 3, lines 13-16) and an outer edge (Fig. 3), a bottom 10 having an inner edge (col.3, lines 13-16) and an outer edge (Fig.3), a sidewall (at14) having upper and lower edges defining a circumference (Fig.3), and a filler 16; and cinch assemblies 18,20 each including a fastener strip of hook and loop material (col.3, lines 5-6), as claimed. Ans. 6.",
+    "The Examiner also finds that the individual tabs of the tab pair 18 or 20 could be wrapped around the cushion and tied to each other. Ans. 7.",
+    "The Examiner contends that the functional language of claim 9 which Appellant relies upon to distinguish the Mintz disclosure was fully considered but does not define any structure beyond the structure disclosed by Mintz and that no apparent structural limitation related to this language has been advanced by Appellant. Ans. 8."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. S 6(b).",
+    "In this case, we agree with the Appellant that FIGS. I and 2 illustrate that the depressed central portion 14 of the cushion 10 is \"a generally flat panel, \" as recited in claims 20 and 21.",
+    "This is conveyed by the absence of contours being designated by the presence of curved lines as are used to represent the stuffing or filler material located between the upper portion 26 and the lower portion 28, and by the statement made by the inventor at page 7, lines 12-16 of the specification that the depressed central portion 14 is stitched so that \"a thin layer of batting or filler material may be sandwiched I \u00b7 \u00b7 to provide a light cushioning effect within the depressed central portion 12.",
+    "It therefore is our view that the specification and drawings convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art, as of the filing date, that Appellant constructively possessed the invention as now claimed.",
+    "This being the case, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C 112, first paragraph.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner because it is unclear whether the first and second tabs recited in claim 13 and 14 refer back to the two tabs required by the parent claims or if claim 13 and 14 recite additional tabs.",
+    "Therefore these claims are ambiguous and, as such, do not adequately define the metes and bounds of claim 13 and 14.",
+    "Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.",
+    "We select claim 9 as the representative claim for each group.",
+    "Claims 10-24 stand or fall with claim 9. See 37 C.F.R. , 41.37(c)(1)(vii).",
+    "Re claim 9, the Examiner correctly finds that the cinch assemblies are capable of adjusting the circumference of the cushion, and are \"independently operable relative to each other\". because they can be tied to each other in multiple different configurations.",
+    "We disagree.",
+    "The Examiner correctly finds that Appellant's claimed clinch assemblies are inherently flexible and given the length of the tabs 18, 20 one of the tabs 18 could be tied to one of the tabs 20 and the circumference of the cushion could be adjusted by such tying. Ans. 7.",
+    "The fact that a string from each pair could potentially be tied at the same time and location to achieve the same or a similar degree of cinching does not mean that each pair of strings could not operate independently.",
+    "Appellant does not apprise us of any language in the claim that expressly or implicitly requires a different result to follow from the *independent[] operaltion].\" Therefore, the Examiner correctly concludes that the tabs 18, 20 disclosed by Mintz meet the limitation imparted by the terminology *cinch assemblies \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 for adjusting the circumference of the cushion\" and that the first and second cinch assemblies be *independently operable.\" Contra App.Br. 7.",
+    "Other than citing the claim language (App.Br. 8) Appellant provides no convincing argument to dispute that the Examiner has correctly shown where the claimed elements appear in Mintz.",
+    "We have been presented with no persuasive evidence to the contrary.",
+    "Therefore the rejection of independent claim 9 and dependent claims 10-12, 16, 20, 21, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 8 102(b) as being anticipated by Mintz will be sustained.",
+    "Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 15, 16-19, 21 and 22 but rather relies on arguments presented for the patentability of claim 9, which we find unpersuasive.",
+    "We sustain the rejection of claims 15, 16-19, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 8 103(a).",
+    "Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 16, 19 and 21 but rather relies on arguments presented for the patentability of claim 9. which we find unpersuasive.",
+    "We sustain the rejection of claims 16, 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. , 103(a)."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010009484_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. 5 134 from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18.",
+    "Appellants claim systems and methods for computing and manipulating migration and performance matrices in order to analyze risk and performance. (Specification 9[0021).",
+    "Appellants argue the term \"based on\" in the claim is definite (Appeal Br. 11-12).",
+    "Appellants first argue \"Recalculating risk has nothing to do with comparing ratings, and therefore, cannot teach or suggest 'comparing \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 ratings of the selected entities at the beginning of the rating period with ratings of the selected entities at the end of the rating period to determine rating migrations. as recited in claim 1\" (Appeal Br. 13).",
+    "Appellants further argue *determined change is not used for *arranging an order' of the items in basic financial system table 143, as recited in claim 1.\" (Appeal Br. 13).",
+    "Appellants argue claim 10 by reference to the arguments directed to claim 1 (Appeal Br. 15)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. & 112 Second Paragraph as being indefinite.",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eder and Creager.",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. S 103(a) over Eder, Creager, and Brooks.",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 10, 12, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) over Eder, Creager, and Ram.",
+    "The Examiner rejected claims 11, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) over Eder, Creager, Ram, and Brooks.",
+    "The Examiner rejected independent claims 1 and 10 under Section 112 Second Paragraph as indefinite, reasoning that the term \"based on\" in the clause forming a base matrix after aggregation based on the arranged base matrix before aggregation is \"vague and indefinite.' (Ans. 4).",
+    "However, the Examiner found the determination of ratings migrations, based on determining the change in ratings, as the *defining, measuring and continuously monitoring matrices of value and risk\" (Ans. 5, 11).",
+    "Thus, the Examiner found cash flow in Eder as a rating, but found determining ratings migrations is not based on the ratings/cash flow, but is based instead on ratings as \"monitoring \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 of value and risk\" (Ans. 11).",
+    "The Examiner found the step of arranging an order of the selected entities, which are listed in the base matrix \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 according to the rating migrations at Eder's *generating a matrix [0063], including summing the results a *, (Ans. 5, 12)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We reverse.",
+    "We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.",
+    "We agree with Appellants, because we construe \"based on\" to mean the same things as \"used as an input for,' in that the base matrix before aggregation is used as an input for the base matrix after aggregation.",
+    "We therefore find \"based on\" here conveys a reasonable meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art, and cannot sustain the rejection under Section 112.",
+    "We agree there is error in the rejection, for the following reasons.",
+    "We therefore do not find the required connection between ratings and ratings migrations as presented by the Examiner.",
+    "Even if \"monitoring\" involves some form of comparing, Eder does not disclose comparing/monitoring the \"cash flows\" that the Examiner found are the claimed ratings.",
+    "We agree with Appellants.",
+    "The Examiner found the step of arranging an order of the selected entities, which are listed in the base matrix \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 according to the rating migrations at Eder's *generating a matrix [0063], including summing the results a *, (Ans. 5, 12).",
+    "We do not find that generating a matrix necessarily involves arranging an order, since the claim recites that the data is already in a base matrix.",
+    "Therefore creating one matrix from another involves only copying without any arranging.",
+    "That is because we construe the term arranging to require something more than mere copying, such as sorting, ranking, or other steps to affect the arrangement of the data, as described by the Specification by example (FF 2).",
+    "We thus find error in the prima facie case of obviousness because the claim requirements of determining ratings migrations, and arranging an order according to the ratings migrations is not met by the prior art.",
+    "Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1.",
+    "Since claims 2-6 and 9 depend from claim 1, and since we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1, the rejection of claims 2-6 and 9 likewise cannot be sustained.",
+    "Because of the similarities of the above to claim limitations to the corresponding limitations in claim 1 (Answer 10), we find error by Examiner at the rejection of claim 10 for the same reasons set forth above at claim 1.",
+    "We therefore cannot sustain the rejection of claim 10.",
+    "Since claims 11-15 and 18 depend from claim 10, and since we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 10, the rejection of claims 11-15 and 18 likewise cannot be sustained.",
+    "The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.",
+    "The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eder and Creager.",
+    "The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 4, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) over Eder, Creager, and Brooks.",
+    "The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10, 12, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) over Eder, Creager, and Ram.",
+    "The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) over Eder, Creager, Ram, and Brooks."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010009518_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants assert that the Examiner erred because Draughon does not disclose claim I's limitation of *wherein deformation of said tines connects the tubular tissue structures together.\" App. Br. 4.",
+    "Appellants argue that the foregoing is a structural limitation and not merely a statement of intended use. App. Br. 3-4.",
+    "Appellants contend that Draughon merely *describes a 'means for fastening roll roofing to roofs, .. and otherwise fails to disclose that it connects tubular tissue structures together within the meaning of the claim 1. Ans. 4.",
+    "Appellants argue claims 15 and 17-19 as a group and we select independent claim 15 as the representative claim. See App. Br. 6: see also 37 C.F.R. , 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).",
+    "Appellants offer no new arguments in support of the patentability of claim 15 and merely rely on the same arguments presented in support of claim 1. App. Br. 6.",
+    "Appellants argue that the Examiner's obviousness rejection is legally improper because claim 20 is a dependent claim and the Examiner failed to reject the underlying independent claim (claim 15) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 6 103.",
+    "In effect, Appellants interpret the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. 102(b) anticipation- only rejection of claim 15 as tantamount to a finding that claim 15 is non- obvious."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner found that \"Draughon discloses a staple fastening means that is fully capable of being used in surgery\" and also discloses each and every element in order to anticipate claim 1. Ans. 3.",
+    "The Examiner made the same findings as discussed supra with respect to claim 1. Ans. 3."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. $ 6(b).",
+    "We AFFIRM-IN-PART, THE INVENTION Appellants' invention relates \"to a staple used in an anastomosis procedure.\" Spec. 1, para. [0002].",
+    "Generally, the patentability of an apparatus claim is based on the apparatus rather than the manner in which it is used. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 579-80 (CCPA 1967).",
+    "However, in certain circumstances, functional language may be used to add limitations to an apparatus claim. See K-2 Corp. V. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999).",
+    "In cases in which functional language adds a structural limitation to an apparatus claim, it does so because the language describes something about the structure of the apparatus rather than merely listing its intended or preferred uses. See, e.g., K-2, 191 F.3d at 1363 (\"[T]he functional language tells us something about the structural requirements of the attachment between the bootie and the base [of an inline skate] \u00b7 \u00b7 \").",
+    "In the instant case, the limitation *wherein deformation of said tines connects the tubular tissue structures together\" \" describes something about the structure of the surgical staple.",
+    "In Appellants' invention, the tines are deformable in a manner that preserves the opening of the lumen in the tubular tissue.",
+    "In other words, deformation of the tines on the staple does not collapse the tubular tissue in a manner that would cut off fluid circulation through the tubular tissue.",
+    "Thus, the tissue retains its character of being \"tubular\" after implementation of the surgical staple.",
+    "The Examiner has not provided an adequate explanation as to how Draughon\u2019s fastening means is capable of connecting **tubular tissue structures\" together.",
+    "Although Draughon may be capable of connecting tissue together, the Examiner has not adequately explained how such tissue would remain \"tubular\" and thus capable of sustaining arterial and/or venous fluid flow after being connected.",
+    "Thus, the Examiner's finding appears to be speculative and conclusory.",
+    "Inasmuch as the Examiner has not provided sufficient technical reasoning to reasonably support the finding that Draughon\u2019s fastening means is capable of connecting tubular tissue structures together, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, or claims 2, 4-7 and 9-11 which depend therefrom.",
+    "Claims 17-19 stand and fall with claim 15.",
+    "With respect to Appellants' argument that the three foot length of Draughon' 's means for fastening would prevent its placement inside the human body (App. Br. 4), we find Appellants' argument based on the size of Draughon to be unpersuasive as nothing in claim 15 requires that the surgical staple be sized to fit inside a human body.",
+    "Therefore, Appellants' arguments are insufficient to overcome the Examiner's prima facie case of anticipation.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner that Draughon discloses all of the limitations of the claim 15.",
+    "Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner' s rejection of claims 15 and 17- 19.",
+    "For the same reasons discussed above regarding tubular tissue structures with respect to claim 1. we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16.",
+    "For the same reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 8 103(a) as unpatentable over Draughon and Cook.",
+    "We reject the Appellants\" position.",
+    "It is well settled that a disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. 8 102 also renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. $ 103 since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982),",
+    "As Appellants have failed to rebut the Examiner's prima facie of unpatentability, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20.",
+    "For the same reasons as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 6 103(a) as unpatentable over Draughon."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010009578_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "The Appellants argue that the SPEM thickness disclosed in Formato (i.e., 4~0.1 to ~5.0, preferably <~1 mil\") is very close to, but does not overlap or touch, the claimed range.",
+    "In particular, the Appellants contend that \"[s]ince 0.1 mil = 2.54 micron, a range with a minimum of 0.1 mil (2.54 micron) does not overlap a range with a maximum of 2.5 micron.\" \" Br. 6.",
+    "The Appellants also question whether Formato enables the manufacture or use of the very thin membranes recited in claim 1. See Br. 6."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "4 The Examiner explains: Formato's Fig. I shows that the composite solid polymer electrolyte membrane (SPEM) is made by depositing an ion conducting polymer on the outer surfaces and interpenetrating uniformly into a microporous substrate.",
+    "In other words, the substrate is entirely enclosed within the composite membrane, and therefore necessarily has a less thickness than the SPEM membrane [(i.e., less than the thickness of the SPEMs reported in Table 1). Ans. 5; see also Formato, para. [0042] (\"The composite SPEM of the present invention comprises a porous polymer substrate that is interpenetrated with an ion- conducting material. \").",
+    "The Examiner also finds that Formato only discloses thickness to two significant figures (i.e., \"0.1\" and *5.0*).",
+    "Thus, the Examiner contends that 0.1 mil converts to 2.5 micrometers (two significant figures), not 2.54 micrometers (three significant figures) as contended by the Appellants. Ans. 6-7.",
+    "Moreover, even if the conversion were carried out to three significant figures as proposed by the Appellants, the Examiner interprets the symbol w\"as meaning \"about\" and contends that \"about\" encompasses a small range of variation, such as the difference between 2.54 micrometers (i.e., 0.1 mil carried out to three significant figures) and \"2.5 micrometers\" as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3-4."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6 6(b).",
+    "B. ISSUE The dispositive issue in this appeal is: Did the Examiner reversibly err in concluding that the claimed ion-conductive membrane comprising \"a porous polymer substrate having a thickness of 2.5 micrometers or less\" is rendered obvious by the solid polymer electrolyte membrane (SPEM) disclosed in Formato which has a thickness of \"~0.1 to ~5.0, preferably <~1 mil**?",
+    "For the reasons set forth below, we answer this question in the negative.",
+    "The Appellants\" argument is not persuasive of reversible error.",
+    "The Examiner correctly points out that the SPEM thickness referred to by the Appellants is the thickness of the membrane, not the thickness of the substrate.",
+    "Significantly, the Appellants have not directed us to any evidence to the contrary.",
+    "Based on the foregoing, the Examiner correctly concludes that the thickness of the substrate recited in claim 1 is rendered prima facie obvious by the teachings of Formato.",
+    "5 See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness).",
+    "A patent is presumed valid by statute.",
+    "In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Amgen Inc. V. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (*a presumption arises that both the claimed and unclaimed disclosures in a prior art patent are enabled. \").",
+    "As discussed above, Formato discloses a porous polymer substrate having a thickness within the claimed range.",
+    "Formato also describes various methods of making the substrate. See, e.g., Formato, paras. [01 18], [0119], [0121], [0122], [0124].",
+    "The Appellants have not directed us to any evidence demonstrating that undue experimentation would have been required to make or use the membrane described in Formato.",
+    "See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (\"it is well established that enablement requires that the specification teach those in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation%).",
+    "Therefore, the Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error.",
+    "For the reasons set forth above, the  103(a) rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8 is affirmed."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010009644_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants, however, have provided evidence that (they contend) casts doubt on that expectation.",
+    "Specifically, Appellants rely on a Declaration under 37 C.F.R. 5 1.132 of Robin Steigerwald (Appeal Br. 12-17).",
+    "Dr. Steigerwald declared that Meyer's description of MVA as containing six deletions that occurred during serial passage of the virus would have 1ed him to expect, as of July 1995 (the apparent effective filing date), that MVA was likely to be genetically unstable (Steigerwald Declaration, II 26-29).",
+    "Dr. Steigerwald also declared that in July 1995, \"little was known about the suitability of sites within the MV A genome for insertion of foreign DNA\" (id. at I 36) and that the MV A genome was thought to have genetically stable and genetically unstable regions (id. at II 39, 49).",
+    "In support of the latter statement, Dr. Steigerwald cited Scheiflinger, 8 which characterized the thymidine kinase (tk) locus as a **genetically stable region of the genome\" (Scheiflinger 667).",
+    "Dr. Steigerwald also declared that Antoine? \"evaluated the MVA hemaggluttinin [sic] gene locus (ha) as an insertion site for foreign genes\" (Steigerwald Declaration, I 51), which \"was deemed to be necessary because of the special properties of MVA such as extreme attenuation, its apparent HA- phenotype, and highly restricted host range\" (id. at I 54).",
+    "Antoine states that *[allthough the ha locus had previously been shown to be a potential integration site in other vaccinia strains, the special properties of MVA such as extreme attenuation, its apparent HA\" phenotype and highly restricted host range made the evaluation of the ha gene as an insertion site necessary\" (Antoine 45)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner has rejected claims 31-38 under 35 U.S.C. .5 103(a) as obvious based on Sutter,' Meyer,2 and Alexander\" (Answer 3).",
+    "The Examiner has also rejected claims 31-40 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as obvious based on Small,4 Sutter, Kwon, Meyer, Montagnier, and Alexander (Answer 4).",
+    "The Examiner finds that Sutter discloses *recombinant MVA expressing heterologous polypeptides \u00b7 \u00b7 wherein the genes encoding said polypeptides are inserted into the naturally occurring deletion site III of said MVA virus\" (Answer 3) and Meyer discloses \"the six naturally occurring deletion sites of MV A\" (id.).",
+    "The Examiner concludes that \"it is obvious for the skilled artisan to use . . . any of the other 5 naturally occurring deletion sites of MVA a for the expression of heterologous genes in the method of Sutter\" (id. at 4) with a reasonable expectation of success \"[gliven the success of utilizing the naturally occurring deletion site III of MVA for the expression of heterologous polypeptides\" (id.)",
+    "The Examiner* s reasoning is the same with respect to the second ground of rejection, except that the Examiner also cites Small as suggesting the insertion of antigenic determinants into any of the naturally occurring deletion sites in MV a (id. at 4-5).",
+    "The Examiner responds that Scheiflinger and Antoine \"are drawn to non-analogous insertion sites (i.e. deletion sites that are not naturally occurring. Sutter more definitively reflects the state of the art as it discloses the stable insertion of foreign DNA into MVA.\" (Answer 10.)"
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Because the same issue is dispositive with respect to both rejections, we will address them together.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner that the disclosures of the references cited in the Answer would have provided a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation that Sutter's method could be successfully modified to insert a foreign gene in one of the other known deletion sites of MVA.",
+    "\"If a prima facie case is made in the first instance, and if the applicant comes forward with reasonable rebuttal, whether buttressed by experiment, prior art references, or argument, the entire merits of the matter are to be reweighed.\" In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1986).",
+    "\"If rebuttal evidence of adequate weight is produced, the holding of prima facie obviousness, being but a legal inference from previously uncontradicted evidence, is dissipated.' In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).",
+    "We conclude that the rejections on appeal are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record.",
+    "While the references cited by the Examiner support a prima facie conclusion of obviousness, the Steigerwald Declaration and Scheiflinger reference cited therein provide evidence that those of skill in the art considered MVA to have genetically stable regions, and therefore by implication other regions that would be considered genetically unstable.",
+    "The Steigerwald Declaration and the Antoine reference cited therein show that, because of the properties of the MVA virus, those of skill in the art considered it necessary to evaluate potential sites for insertion of foreign DNA, even when the site had been used previously in other vaccinia strains.",
+    "The Examiner has provided no direct evidence to support his position that the successful insertion of a foreign gene in deletion site III would be sufficient to provide a skilled worker with a reasonable expectation of successfully inserting a foreign gene in one of the other naturally occurring deletion sites in the MV A genome.",
+    "Thus, when \"the entire merits of the matter are . . . reweighed,\" Hedges, 783 F.2d at 1039, we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence does not support a reasonable expectation of success."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010010421_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant argues that independent claim I is not anticipated by Podsobinski. App. Br. 6.",
+    "In particular, Appellant asserts, inter alia, that *the 'rim portion' of the filter [of Podsobinski] need not (and does not) form a seal but rather need only filter the incoming air.\" App. Br. 9.",
+    "Appellant further argues that independent claims 16 and 18 recite limitations similar to those referred to with respect to claim 1 and are not anticipated by Podsobinski for the reasons expressed in connection with claim 1. App. Br. 10."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "With respect to claims 1, 10, 16, 18, and 22, the Examiner finds that Podsobinski discloses a pneumatic power tool having a body 1, a handle 2, a cap member 9 and a gasket assembly 10. Ans. 3.",
+    "The Examiner takes the position that the gasket assembly 10 includes a first portion comprising a compressible band (located on one end of element 10 in Figure 2) and a second portion comprising a porous screen (indicated as element 10 in Figure 2) coupled to an interior region of the first portion. Id.",
+    "The Examiner relies on Amada to teach an air filter comprising a porous material over molded with a resin. Ans. 5."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 8 6(b).",
+    "We REVERSE.",
+    "We agree with Appellant.",
+    "Each of independent claims 1, 16, and 18 recites a gasket assembly or gasket having two portions, with a first portion sealingly abutting or engaging the body and the cap member of the pneumatic power tool.",
+    "As correctly noted by Appellant, the only reference in Podsobinski to element 10 is the statement that \"compressed air passes through filter screen 10 into inlet passage 11.\" Podsobinski, col. 3, II. 19-20.",
+    "Given that Podsobinski provides nearly no written description of the element's structure, it appears that the Examiner's findings with respect to filter screen 10 are based entirely on what is depicted in Figure 2. See Ans. 3, 5-6.",
+    "A close examination of Figure 2 shows that filter screen 10 does not abut or engage, much less sealingly abut or engage, both a body and a cap member of the Podsobinski device.",
+    "Specifically, filter screen 10 is shown as contacting only the inner bore of the *cap member\" 9 in Figure 2.",
+    "The filter screen 10 is not shown as contacting any other structure and thus cannot be said to contact a \"body\" of the housing assembly.",
+    "The Examiner contends that element 1 of Podsobinski' is the body (Ans. 3) but does not provide an explanation of how filter screen 10 contacts this structure.",
+    "The unnumbered structure shown at the right of the tool in Figure 2 (i.e., the structure that receives the cap member 9 and to which the lever 20 is pivotally mounted at element 21) might be considered to be the **body,\" but Figure 2 shows a gap between the leftmost edge of filter screen 10 and the adjacent surface of the unnumbered structure.",
+    "As such, filter screen 10 does not abut or engage this structure either.",
+    "We also disagree with the Examiner's statement that the *rim portion\" of filter screen 10 \"seals against the inlet portion of the tool since it is sized to fit therein such that ALL air flow passes through the porous portion of (10), thereby sealing-out any other air flow into the tool.\" Ans. 6.",
+    "Podsobinski does not explicitly disclose such a seal.",
+    "Moreover, the Examiner has not established that Podsobinski inherently discloses such a seal as there is no showing that filter screen necessarily seals against the inlet portion.\" See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (\"Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. \" (citations omitted)).",
+    "The Examiner has not explained how such a seal necessarily abuts or engages structure that corresponds to a body and cap as called for in claims 1, 16, and 18.",
+    "For the above reasons, we determine that the Examiner's 's finding that Podsobinski discloses a portion of a gasket assembly sealingly abutting or engaging the body is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.",
+    "Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 16, and 18, or claims 2. 3, 6, 7, 9-15, 17, 19, and 21-27 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Podsobinski.",
+    "The Examiner does not rely on Amada to disclose a portion of a gasket assembly sealingly abutting or engaging a body and a cap member.",
+    "As such, the Examiner does not rely on Amada to cure the above-noted deficiencies of Podsobinski with regard to independent claim 1, from which claims 4. 5, and 8 depend.",
+    "Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 8 103(a) as being unpatentable over Podsobinski and Amada."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010010491_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant argues that claims 1 and 10 recite, in step (m), \"repeating steps (e) [through] (1) in the event that step (1) indicates that macro-reentrant circuits can exist in the estimated area not treated\" such that the claims recite multiple assessments of treatment options prior to implementation of a treatment plan in step (n). App. Br. 9.",
+    "Appellant then argues that Keidar teaches performing multiple actual ablations, rather than at least repeatedly performing simulations of inserting a sheath and inserting a medical device through the sheath, and therefore does not teach or suggest each feature of the invention as recited in independent claims 1 and 10, and their dependent claims. App. Br. 9-10."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner finds, with respect to independent claims 1 and 10, that the claims do not require any physical transformation and that the invention as claimed does not produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result.",
+    "The Examiner acknowledges that Claims 1 and 10 recite, in step (n), \"implementing the treatment plan of steps (g) through (i),\" but finds that steps (g) through (i) only involve simulation and not actual treatment. Ans. 3-4.",
+    "The Examiner additionally finds that, while Appellant has recited performing \"simulations\" on a computer, a solution of the method is not implemented by a machine and the majority of the steps claimed are not required to be implemented by a machine, and that steps (g) and (h) amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. Id. at 8.",
+    "The Examiner states that the object of the invention, as indicated in Claim 7, is to actually ablate the heart of a patient, and that step (n) of \"implementing the treatment plan of steps (g) through (i)\" is just a repeated step of simulating a medical procedure, which is basically performing more computer calculations without using the data to transform a particular article. Id. at 8-9.",
+    "On lines 2-5 of page 9 of the Answer, the Examiner suggests \"adding the limitation of actually inserting the sheath into a patient\" to overcome the section 101 rejection.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Ciaccio discloses a method of preventing reentrant circuits in the heart comprising the steps of constructing an image of the heart (Paras. [0183]-(0184]), displaying the image on a screen (Para. [0082]), marking areas on the map where adjacent areas had a difference in electrogram duration of 15 ms or more, connecting the points to define the estimated reentrant circuit isthmus, estimating a best ablation line based on the estimated isthmus, and determining the surface area of the isthmus (Para. [0187]). Ans. 5.",
+    "The Examiner also finds that, in locating the isthmus, various conduction criteria can be set for determining if a particular area is prone to reentrant circuits (Para. [01 14). Id.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Ciaccio does not disclose simulating the procedure or assessing data post ablation to determine if the reentrant circuit still exists and then reapplying therapy if a determination is made that the reentrant circuit still exists. Id.",
+    "The Examiner finds, however, that DiCuccio discloses a system for mapping out a patient's heart on a display (Para. [0025]) and simulating insertion of a medical device, such as an ablation catheter (Para. [0027]), through a sheath 175 (Para. [0026]) for the purpose of reducing the amount of training that occurs on an actual patient (Para. [0004]). Id. at 5-6.",
+    "The Examiner finds that Keidar teaches measuring pre-ablation tissue characteristics 62, applying RF to ablate tissue 66, measuring post-ablation tissue characteristics 68, comparing actual ablation to predicted ablation 70, and repeating the steps if the characteristics do not fall within a specified tolerance 72 (fig. 3 and para. [0077]), and that this procedure is performed to improve the precision and consistency of RF ablation procedures (Para. [0005]). Id. at 6.",
+    "The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Ciaccio to include simulating the ablation procedure, as taught by DiCuccio, and calculating pre-ablation and post-ablation tissue characteristics to determine if the reentrant circuit was successfully treated, for the purpose of reducing the need to practice critical procedures on live patients and improving the precision and consistency of RF ablation procedures. Id.",
+    "The Examiner determines that Appellant uses the language comprising, which is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited method steps, and that claims 1 and 10 therefore do not preclude performing multiple ablation steps. Ans. 9."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Construing element (n) of claims 1 and 10 aids us in determining whether claims 1-17 are directed to statutory subject matter.",
+    "One skilled in the art, upon reviewing Appellant's written description and claims, would understand that the treatment plan of step (g) includes insertion of a sheath into the heart and the treatment plan of step (h) includes insertion of a medical device through the sheath and within the heart.",
+    "Thus, construing the claims to include insertion of the sheath into the heart overcomes the Examiner': is rejection under section 101.",
+    "We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 5 101.",
+    "The Examiner is correct that a claim employing the transitional term **comprising\" may not exclude additional, unrecited elements (i.e., steps in a method claim). In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 688-89 (CCPA 1981).",
+    "Regardless of the meaning of the term \"comprising\" and the effect of such a term on the scope of Appellants' claims, we agree with Appellant that Keidar does not teach or suggest at least repeatedly performing simulations of inserting a sheath and inserting a medical device through the sheath.",
+    "Rather, Keidar teaches iterative ablations based on calculating and re- calculating an appropriate RF dosage for measured pre-ablation tissue characteristics. Keidar, fig. 3 and para. [0077].",
+    "Such iterative estimation and ablation is not iterative simulation as recited in the claims.",
+    "Indeed, the Examiner does not explicitly find that any of the references, alone or in combination, teach iterative simulation and assessment prior to treatment, regardless of whether ablation additionally occurs.",
+    "We therefore cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) as unpatentable over Ciaccio, DiCuccio, and Keidar.",
+    "With respect to the rejection of dependent claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a), Taylor does not cure the above-stated deficiencies of Ciaccio, DiCuccio, and Keidar.",
+    "We therefore cannot sustain the rejections of claims 6 and 15 under \u25cf 103(a) as unpatentable over Ciaccio, DiCuccio, Keidar, and Taylor."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010010888_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants claim a steel alloy comprising a defined composition which contains less than 0.1% by weight copper and exhibits a PRE value greater than 25, wherein PRE = %Cr + 3.3x%Mo+16x%N (claim 17).",
+    "Representative claim 17, the sole independent claim on appeal, reads as follows: 17. A steel alloy, comprising: a composition including (in % by weight): C 0.40-0.60 Si 0.1-1.0 Mn 0.3-1.0 Cr 12-15 Mo 2.5-4.0 Ni 0-1.0 Co 0-4.0 N 0.15-0.20 Cu <0.1 balance Fe as well as normally occurring impurities; a hardness > 56 HRC; and a value for PRE > 25, wherein PRE - % Cr + 3.3 . % Mo + 16 \u00b7 % N.",
+    "Appellants argue that the applied prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the claim 17 steel alloy having less than 0.1 weight percent copper and a PRE value greater than 25 (Br. 6).",
+    "As correctly pointed out by Appellants, JP 399 does not recognize PRE as a result-effective variable, and the steel alloy composition of example 8 falls outside the claim 17 composition with respect to, for example, the Mo and Cu claim limitations (Br. 9)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner concedes that JP 399 teaches a steel alloy having a lowermost copper amount of 0.1 % but concludes that it would have been obvious to reduce this amount to less than 0.1% as required by claim 17 (Ans. 4, 7).",
+    "The Examiner's obviousness conclusion regarding the claim 17 PRE value of greater than 25 is based on the fact that the example 8 steel alloy of JP 399 contains Cr, Mo, and N concentrations which, according to the claim 17 PRE formula, result in a PRE value of 25.3 (id. at para. bridging 4-5, 9)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We agree.",
+    "This obviousness conclusion is not without some merit.",
+    "Nevertheless, the Examiner's position is weakened by the undisputed fact that JP 399 (as well as Uehara) expressly teaches away from a copper amount of less than 0.1% (i.e., because sufficient pitting corrosion resistance cannot be obtained if the copper amount is less than 0.1%).",
+    "Accordingly, the fact that the example 8 alloy possesses by happenstance a PRE value of 25.3 does not support the Examiner's unpatentability position.",
+    "In short, we agree with Appellants that the applied prior art fails to recognize Appellants' discovery that a specific combination of Cr, Mo, and N (see the corresponding concentrations and PRE values of claim 17) provides pitting corrosion resistance without the need for a Cu concentration of at least 0.1%, thereby avoiding deterioration in hot working properties of the claimed alloy by keeping the Cu concentration below 0.1% (Br. 8, 9).",
+    "The absence of such recognition by the applied prior art indicates that the Examiner's obviousness conclusions regarding the above discussed claim 17 limitations are based on impermissible hindsight.",
+    "Under these circumstances, we cannot sustain the Examiner's 8 103 rejection of claims 2-23 as unpatentable over JP 399 alone or in view of Uehara."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010011011_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants argue that: Marrs discloses an integrated circuit chip to substrate interconnection and method.",
+    "Specifically, referring to col. 10, lines 14-17, and Figs. 7, 8, Marrs teaches that the resulting bond 801 is a direct gold to gold connection between coined ball bond bump 312 on chip 201 and metallization 502 on substrate bonding contact 501C on substrate 501.",
+    "In this teaching, it is taught or suggested to those skilled in the art that the coined ball bond bump 312 is gold.",
+    "Moreover, referring to col. 10, lines 20-31 of Marrs, the passage \"the resulting weld is not as susceptible to melting as solder\" teaches or suggests that the coined ball bond bump 312 is NOT made by solder. Appeal Brief 6."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Rejections on Appeal Claims 29, 31, 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 102(b) as being either anticipated by Marrs (U.S. Patent Number 5,795,818; issued August 18, 1998) or in the alternative, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as unpatentable over Marrs. Answer 3-5.",
+    "Claims 30, 32-34 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. S 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marrs and Beddingfield (U.S. Patent Number 5,977,632; issued November 2, 1999). Answer 5-6.",
+    "The Examiner finds that: 1. Marrs' \"bump\" is the same structure as Appellants' \"solder compound\" because appellants use the term(s) \"bump\" or \"solder bump\" in many instances throughout the disclosure to refer to the same structure (see specification, page 19, lines 19-20 (..solder bump..); page 22, lines 10-12 (...more solder can be deposited to create a larger bump... \"); page 23, line 3, line 4, lines 6-7, line 12 (. (.Mbump...T); \"); etc.",
+    "2. Marrs teaches a bonding contact using weld or welding.",
+    "By using weld or welding, Marrs does not need to use additional solder or epoxy material to bond the bump 312 to an UMB layer 502 (col. 10, lines 15-20).",
+    "However, the bonding contact in Marrs is NOT the same structure as the \"solder compound\" in applicants' claim.",
+    "Appellants' claimed structure is essentially a bump, which is the same bump 312 in Marrs.",
+    "Appellants' bump is made of metal.",
+    "Marrs' bump is also made of metal.",
+    "Applicants' UMB layer is made of metal or gold.",
+    "Marrs' UMB layer is also a metal or gold. Answer 7."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b) (2012).",
+    "We reverse.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner that Marrs discloses a **bump** configuration in relation to an interconnect structure; however, Marrs does not disclose \"at least one solder compound overlying the UBM layer\" as recited in independent claims 29, 37 and 38. See Answer 7; see also Appeal Brief 6.",
+    "The Examiner findings are based on a comparison of the shapes of Marrs' interconnection bump with the claimed invention's interconnection bumps; yet the Examiner fails to indicate where Marrs employs the usage of solder as indicated in the claims. See Answer 4-8.",
+    "Therefore we agree with Appellants' arguments that Marrs teaches away from utilizing solder in conjunction with the interconnection bump. See Appeal Brief 6.",
+    "We reverse both the Examiner's anticipation and obviousness rejections of independent claims 29, 37 and 38, as well as claims 30-34 and 36 dependent therefrom.",
+    "Beddingfield does not address the deficiency of Marrs."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010011131_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Based on Appellant's arguments, the issue on appeal is whether the combination of Bilder and Moore teaches or suggests \"to communicate a media object to \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 one or more called/calling devices in response to the user electronic equipment placing the call on hold in accordance with hold settings of the user electronic equipment,\" as recited in claim 1, and \"hold settings including criteria for selecting a media object,\" as recited in claim 16.",
+    "Appellant contends that the combination of Bilder and Moore fails to teach or suggest \"hold settings\" as recited in claim 1 and \"hold settings including criteria for selecting a media object\" as recited in claim 16, features described by Appellant as \"customized hold settings.\" App. Br. 5- 7; Reply Br. 2-6.",
+    "Specifically, Appellant alleges that the Examiner erred in relying on Bilder because Bilder does not *provid[e] criteria for determining a selection of a media object as provided by the claimed hold settings.\" App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4.",
+    "Appellant also alleges that the Examiner erred in relying on Moore for teaching *hold settings\" as recited in Appellant's claims because *[plaragraph [0016] of Moore merely discloses how a call is placed on hold. \u00b7 \u25a0 \u00b7 [It] does not relate at all to what happens during the hold state. ~, Reply Br. 2."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner has rejected claims 1-6, 9-11, and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bilder (US 6,400,804 B1, June 4, 2002) and Moore (US 2005/0096023 A1, May 5, 2005). Ans. 4-9.",
+    "The Examiner has rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bilder, Moore, and Hamilton (US 2005/0152531 A1, July 14, 2005). Ans. 9-10.",
+    "The Examiner has rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bilder, Moore, and Kiiskinen (US 2007/0211869 A1, Sept. 13, 2007). Ans. 10.",
+    "The Examiner has rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bilder, Moore, and Florkey (US 2007/0047711 A1, Mar. 1, 2007). Ans. 10-11."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "Appellant's invention relates to a service for providing personalized call features to electronic equipment within a communications network. Spec. 1, 11. 5-6.",
+    "Claims 1 and 16 are illustrative of the invention (disputed limitations in italics): 1. A server for providing call hold functions to a communications network through which a call between a user electronic equipment and one or more called/calling devices is routed, the server comprising: a network interface that connects the server to the communications network; and a controller that is coupled to the communications network via the network interface, the controller being operatively configured to receive a request from the user electronic equipment to communicate a media object to at least one of the one or more called/calling devices in response to the user electronic equipment placing the call on hold in accordance with hold settings of the user electronic equipment.",
+    "16. A user electronic equipment designed for use in combination with a server as recited in claim 1, the user electronic equipment comprising: call circuitry that enables the user electronic equipment to establish a call with a called/calling device; hold circuitry that enables the user electronic equipment to place the call established with the called/calling device on hold; an interface for receiving hold settings including criteria for selecting a media object; and a controller operative in conjunction with the call circuitry and hold circuitry to communicate a request to the server indicating that the call is placed on hold, wherein the request includes the criteria of the hold settings.",
+    "Bilder discloses an on-hold activity selection device 114 that provides activity services to parties that are placed on hold during a call. Bilder, col. 2, 11. 66-67; Fig. 1.",
+    "On-hold activity selection device 114 is connected to a communications network, as are user terminals 102 and 104. Id., col. 2, 11. 4-11; Fig. 1.",
+    "When a calling party uses terminal 104 to communicate with terminal 102, for example, the call is routed through on- hold activity selection device 114. Id., col. 3, 11. 18-21.",
+    "Bilder discloses that when one of the terminals 102 or 104 places the other terminal on hold during a call, on-hold activity device 114 provides on-hold activities to the on-hold party's terminal. Id., col. 3, 11. 42- 44.",
+    "\"The on-hold activities may include, for example, listening to music, listening, viewing or reading advertisements, news, sports, graphical presentations, prerecorded video messages, playing video games, browsing the Internet, reading textual messages, and any other type of entertaining and/or informative activity. \" Id., col. 4, 11. 29-35.",
+    "The on-hold activity to be provided to the on-hold party's 's terminal may be selected from a menu. Id., col. 3, 11. 38-42.",
+    "Bilder teaches customizing the available on-hold activities based on a user profile associated with the on-hold party. Id., col. 8, 11. 29- 32.",
+    "The user profile for a particular party may be correlated with the party's terminal, which may be identified, for example, by its telephone number. Id., col. 8, 11. 37-51.",
+    "Bilder also teaches customizing the available on-hold activities based on the approximate on-hold time. Id., col. 10, 11. 5-7.",
+    "Moore discloses a mobile phone 100 that can place an incoming call on hold. Moore, I [0016].",
+    "Mobile phone 100 contains controller 140, which can be configured to play for the caller a pre-recorded message or a digital music file stored in memory when the call hold feature is activated. Id., \" [0017], [0018].",
+    "We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments.",
+    "First, with respect to Bilder, we do not agree that the reference fails to teach or suggest criteria for determining a selection of a media object.",
+    "Bilder teaches that the list of available on-hold activities (including \"media objects\" such as audio and video messages) may be customized based on identification of the on-hold party. FF3.",
+    "Appellant's Specification provides the same example when describing criteria for selecting a media object. Spec 12 (\"[T]he user may select to input different criteria to be used in conjunction with the selection of the particular media objects to be communicated. For example, the user may be presented with an option to associate specific media object (e.g., songs) based on the identification of the called/calling party.\" (emphasis added)).",
+    "Bilder also teaches customizing the available on-hold activities based on approximate on-hold time. FF3.",
+    "Thus, contrary to Appellant's argument, we find that Bilder teaches criteria for selecting media objects.",
+    "Moreover, because Bilder's system uses criteria to determine a list of available media objects from which the media object to be communicated to the on-hold party will be selected, we find that Bilder teaches, or at least suggests, providing criteria for selecting a media object to be communicated to the on-hold party.",
+    "We also disagree with Appellant's contention that Moore does not teach \"hold settings\" as recited in Appellant's claims because it merely discloses how a call is placed on hold rather than what happens during the hold state.",
+    "We agree with Appellant that paragraph [0016] of Moore describes various means for placing a call on hold. See Reply Br. 2.",
+    "However, paragraphs [0017] and [0018] of Moore describe what happens during the hold state, i.e., a pre-recorded message or digital music file is played for the caller placed on hold. FF4.",
+    "Thus, we find unpersuasive Appellant's argument that Moore fails to teach \"hold settings\" because it does not describe what happens during the hold state.",
+    "Based on our analysis of the references, we concur with the Examiner's conclusion that claims 1 and 16 would have been obvious because the combination of Bilder and Moore teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 16. See Ans. 14.",
+    "Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's $ 103(a) rejection of claim 1 and 16, as well as the .8 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 2-15 and 17, which were not separately argued with particularity. App. Br. 7-8.",
+    "Because our conclusion relies on findings different from those made by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection over the art relied on by the Examiner."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010011715_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: claims 1-4, 15-20, 22-25, 27, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. $102(b) as anticipated by Smith (U.S. 5,845,372, iss. Dec. 8, 1998); claims 12-14, 21, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith in view of Takada (U.S. 4,371,193, iss. Feb. 1, 1983); and claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. $103(a) as unpatentable over Smith.",
+    "Presumably, with respect to the interpretation of the claimed \"controlled-slippage clamp,\" the Examiner argues that the clamp disclosed in Smith anticipates this feature because the clamp of Smith \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 is capable of performing the intended use of the present invention, which is to control slippage of a vehicle safety belt.",
+    "Said slippage control, as taken at its broadest reasonable interpretation, can include stopping slippage altogether or even allowing maximum slippage (Ans. 6).",
+    "Further, the Examiner' argues, presumably with respect to the claimed *reduc[tion of] the variable-size web loop in size and \u00b7 \u00b7 increase \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 [in] effective length of the extensible restraint strap, \" that \"the clamp of Smith \u00b7\u00b7 while disclosing the structural details of the claimed invention, is capable of performing the intended use, which in this case constitutes forming a loop in the section of seat belt\" (Ans. 6)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. & 6(b).",
+    "We REVERSE.",
+    "We are persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments that Smith does not disclose the claimed features of a controlled-slippage clamp coupled to portions of the first and third strap segments to form a variable-size web loop comprising the second strap segment and configured to compress the portions of the first and third strap segments at a predetermined clamping load to allow controlled slippage of the web in the controlled-slippage clamp in response to application of a tugging force to the first strap segment to reduce the variable- size web loop in size and to increase an effective length of the extensible restraint strap as recited in independent claim 1.",
+    "We agree with Appellants, however, that the correct interpretation of the claimed \"controlled[-]slippage clamp is not [a] zero movement clamp\" (Reply Br. 2), and that Smith . \u00b7 \u00b7 does not disclose any controlled- slippage clamp \u00b7 \u00b7 \u00b7 . [because the claims] are directed to a controlled-slippage clamp that permits controlled-slippage (or movement) of a strap (underlining original) (App. Br. 8).",
+    "This interpretation of \"controlled- slippage clamp\" is consistent with the description used throughout Appellants' Specification.",
+    "Thus, in view of the foregoing, we must reverse the rejection of independent claim 1.",
+    "We agree with 3 For example, paragraph [0003] of the Specification states \"The controlled- slippage clamp is used to control the rate of deceleration of an occupant seated in a vehicle seat by extending the effective length of the restraint strap in a controlled manner during application of a tugging force to the restraint strap caused by a sudden stoppage or slowdown of the vehicle, and paragraph [0004] of the Specification states \"Such controlled slippage allows regulated 'payout' of a reserve portion of the restraint strap to increase the effective length of the restraint strap and thereby control the rate of deceleration of a vehicle occupant and/or juvenile seat coupled to the restraint strap. \" Appellants, however, that the Examiner has not presented evidence sufficient to support this argument (Reply Br. 2) or provided a citation in the reference that discloses this.",
+    "Thus, for this independent reason, we must reverse the rejection of independent claim 1.",
+    "For reasons similar to those discussed above, we are persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments that Smith does not disclose the claimed features of a controlled-slippage clamp coupled to a portion of the first strap segment and configured to compress the portion of the first strap segment at a predetermined clamping load normally to establish a web section comprising only the first strap segment extending between the anchor fastener and the controlled-slippage clamp and to define an effective length of the web section to allow controlled slippage of the web in the controlled- slippage clamp in response to application of a tugging force to the first strap segment to increase the effective length of the web section by using the first strap segment and at least a portion of the second strap segment to define the web section as recited in independent claim 18.",
+    "Specifically, we agree with Appellants that Smith does not disclose the claimed \"controlled-slippage clamp,\" and the Examiner does not present sufficient evidence to support the argument that Smith discloses the claimed \"increase [of] the effective length of the web section\" or show such a citation in the reference.",
+    "Thus, in view of the foregoing, we must reverse the rejection of independent claim 18.",
+    "For reasons similar to those discussed above, we are persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments that Smith does not disclose the claimed features of \"a controlled-slippage clamp\" as recited in independent claim 28.",
+    "Thus, we must reverse the rejection of claim 28.",
+    "We must reverse the rejections of the remaining claims, inasmuch as these claims depend from one of independent claims 1, 18, and 28."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010012232_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants argue that Sullivan *300 does not disclose a method for treating a subterranean formation penetrated by a wellbore by injecting the formation with a well treatment fluid having an initial pH of at least about 11.",
+    "In particular, Appellants assert that the Examiner's analysis presented in an Advisory Action does not accurately characterize Sullivan 300.",
+    "Appellants argue that Sullivan *300 forms a filter cake with a solid base-soluble material (first stage) and after that the solid base-soluble material is degraded with a base (second stage).",
+    "Appellants further argue that examples 1 and 2 of Sullivan *300 refer to *embodiments where a base is added not to the initial fluid, but after to a viscoelastic fluid.\"",
+    "Appellants also argue that example 2 of Sullivan 3300 can only refer to the second stage corresponding to introduction of a base for the degradation of the solid base-soluble material.",
+    "Appellants argue that Sullivan '731 does not disclose that the VES has an initial pH above 11 but instead highlights the difference between a VES system typically buffered to a pH of above 12 in normal use and the solid acid/pH control agent combination described in Sullivan *731, which shows the highest pH buffer being at pH 9.5.",
+    "Appellants argue that nothing in Sullivan '731 shows a system made of a VES, a solid acid, and buffer with a pH above 11."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. . 102(b) as being anticipated by Sullivan 300 (US 2004/0094300 A1; pub. May 20, 2004).",
+    "Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. . 102(e) as being anticipated by Sullivan '731 (US 7,219,731 B2; iss. May 22, 2007).",
+    "The Examiner found that Sullivan *300 discloses a method of treating a subterranean formation penetrated by a well bore by injecting into the formation a well treatment fluid comprising a viscoelastic surfactant with at least one degradable linkage surfactant (see para. [0037]), a hydrolysable fiber (paras. [0025, 0044]), and a pH control material (para. [0035]) where the hydrolysable fiber and viscoelastic surfactant form non-solid products upon hydrolysis and the fluid has an initial pH of at least 11 (paras. [0035- 1 See Advisory Action, mailed Apr. 8, 2010 (entering amendment with claim 9 re-written in independent form). 0037]).",
+    "The Examiner found that Sullivan *300 discloses the use of viscoelastic surfactant fluids at pH's of 12.5 or higher.",
+    "The Examiner responds that the limitation of \"wherein said fluid has an initial pH of at least about 11\" is disclosed at paragraphs [0035] to [0037] of Sullivan 300.",
+    "The Examiner finds that these paragraphs disclose that \"[slome of the [viscoelastic surfactant] fluids described are normally used at pH's s of as much as 12.5 or higher,\" and therefore, Sullivan 300 provides for an initial pH of the fluid of at least about 11.",
+    "The Examiner found that Sullivan '731 discloses a method for treating subterranean formations penetrated by a well bore by injecting the formation with a well treatment fluid comprising a VES having at least one degradable linkage (col. 10, 11. 1-23 incorporating US patents), a hydrolysable fiber (col. 12, 11. 7-19), and a pH control material (col. 7, 11. 34-37), where hydrolysable fiber and viscoelastic surfactants form non-solid products upon hydrolysis and the fluid has an initial pH of at least about 11 (col. 10, 11. 6-11).",
+    "The Examiner also found that Sullivan '731 discloses that VES systems may not always be beneficial with the solid acid pH control agents of the invention, but Sullivan '731 does not exclude all uses of VES systems with a pH above 12 with a solid acid/pH control agent combination of the disclosed invention of Sullivan *731."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. & 6(b).",
+    "Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's s findings that Sullivan *300 discloses the claimed method with a well treatment fluid with an initial pH of at least about 11, as set forth at pages 3- 5 of the Answer.",
+    "Sullivan *300 discloses that any viscoelastic surfactant (VES) fluids can be used for hydraulic fracturing in or after the pad and some VES fluids are used at pH's s of 12.5 or higher.",
+    "We sustain the rejection of claim 9.",
+    "These arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's s findings that Sullivan '731 discloses a method for treating a subterranean formation by injecting a well treatment fluid with a VES with an initial pH above 11 and other claimed components, as set forth at pages 4 and 5-6 of the Answer.",
+    "Sullivan '731 discloses the use of VES systems with a pH of above 12 and notes that the solid acid/pH control agent combination of Sullivan '731's invention may not always be beneficial with such VES systems.",
+    "We sustain the rejection of claim 9."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2010012561_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants argue on pages 13-18 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner' is rejection of claim 1 is in error.\"",
+    "Appellants acknowledge that Albert discloses an electrophoretic medium having all features recited in claim 1 except for the specified difference between the refractive index of the suspending fluid and the continuous phase (Br. 14).",
+    "In addressing the Examiner's citation of col. 20, 11. 16-41 of Albert, particularly the disclosure at 11. 37-41 that \"[the wall material may \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 be chosen to match the refractive index of the internal phase of the capsule (i.e., the suspending fluid) or a binder in which the capsules are to be dispersed,\" Appellants argue that this defines a \"relatively minor objective\" in Albert (Br. 17).",
+    "Appellants further contend that it would be \"highly unlikely\" for a skilled worker following the teaching of Albert to produce a structure having refractive indices that meet the claim limitation (Br. 17).",
+    "Appellants argue on pages 18-19 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner's s rejection of claim 22 is in error.",
+    "Appellants argue on pages 19-20 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner'. s rejection of claim 23 is in error.",
+    "Appellants argue on pages 20-21 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner' s rejection of claim 5 is in error.",
+    "Appellants argue on page 21 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner's rejection of claims 7-11 and 14-17 is in error."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "Claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C $102(b) as anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 6,262,706 (\"Albert\") (Ans. 4).",
+    "Claims 3-5, 7-11, and 14-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. $103(a) as unpatentable over Albert (Ans. 9).",
+    "The Examiner finds that Albert teaches the carbon black particles are contained on the transparent substrate/panel. Ans. 20.",
+    "The Examiner finds that this association teaches that the panel comprises an absorber and meets the claim limitation. Ans 20.",
+    "The Examiner identifies a lengthy disclosure in Albert for various compositions of the suspending fluid.",
+    "The Examiner notes certain similarities in chemical structures for some of the disclosed compositions to what is recited in the claim (Ans. 21)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. & 6(b).",
+    "We affirm-in-part and enter a new ground of rejection for claim 22.",
+    "We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in their Appeal Brief and have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments.",
+    "This argument presents us with the issue of: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Albert discloses the limitation of claim 1 that recites \"wherein the difference between the refractive index of the suspending fluid and the continuous phase is not greater than about 0.03.\"",
+    "We disagree that the Examiner has erred.",
+    "This argument misapplies the test for anticipation, which is satisfied when a single prior-art reference describes each and every element as set forth in the claim.",
+    "See, e.g., Verdegaal Bros. V. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).",
+    "Since Albert discloses index matching of a suspending fluid to a capsule wall in an electrophoretic medium, we disagree that the Examiner has erred in finding the limitation disclosed.",
+    "We accordingly sustain the Examiner* s rejection of claim 1.",
+    "These arguments present us with the following issues: (1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Albert discloses \"two light-transmissive panels spaced from one another**; and (2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Albert discloses that \"at least one of the light-transmissive panels comprises an absorber for electromagnetic radiation of [a wavelength to which the electrophoretic medium is sensitive].\"",
+    "With respect to the first issue, we disagree that the Examiner has erred.",
+    "We disagree with Appellants' assertion that Albert has no suggestion that both substrates be transparent and provided with light-transmissive electrodes so that the whole display is light-transmissive (see Br. 18).",
+    "The Examiner correctly observes that Albert discloses an embodiment at col. 12, 11. 29-38 in which \"all of the pixels present in the display are largely transparent,\" thereby requiring two transmissive substrates to contain the electrophoretic medium (Ans. 20).",
+    "Therefore, Albert discloses two light- transmissive panels spaced from one another.",
+    "We disagree; the claim distinguishes between the light-transmissive panels and the electrophoretic medium.",
+    "Albert teaches the carbon-black particles are part of the electrophoretic medium but we do not find that the light- transmissive panels are also part of the medium.",
+    "We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner's rejection.",
+    "This argument presents us with the issue of whether the Examiner erred in finding that Albert discloses electrically charged, substantially transparent particles within an electrophoretic medium.",
+    "We disagree that the Examiner has erred.",
+    "Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings.",
+    "Specifically, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding Albert discloses a second set of clear or transparent particles that have an electrical charge (see Ans. 7, citing Albert, col. 6, 11. 52-62; col. 7, 11. 37-40)",
+    "We accordingly sustain the Examiner's s rejection of claim 23.",
+    "This argument presents us with the issue of whether the Examiner erred in finding it obvious over Albert for the suspending fluid to comprise a mixture of a hydrocarbon and chloronaphthalene.",
+    "We agree that the Examiner has erred.",
+    "However, the Examiner has provided insufficient reasoning to support the conclusion that it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to substitute chloronaphthalene for naphthalene in a suspending- fluid mixture.",
+    "We therefore do not sustain the Examiner' s rejection of claim 5.",
+    "This argument presents us with the issue of whether the Examiner erred in finding that Albert discloses \"an electrophoretic medium \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 sandwiched between two transparent substrates\" (Br. 21).",
+    "We disagree that the Examiner has erred.",
+    "For the reasons we express there, we find that Albert discloses the claimed structure.",
+    "We accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7-11 and 14-17.",
+    "We enter a new ground of rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. $103(a) as unpatentable over Albert in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,950,220 (\"Abramson\").",
+    "Except for the limitation of \"at least one of the light- transmissive panels compris[ing] an absorber for electromagnetic radiation of [a wavelength to which the electrophoretic medium is sensitive],' Albert discloses all limitations of claim 22 for the reasons given by the Examiner, which we adopt, along with the Examiner's 's findings, as our own.",
+    "Accordingly, Abramson teaches light- transmissive panels that comprise an absorber for electromagnetic radiation of this wavelength.",
+    "Thus, we find Abramson teaches \"at least one of the light-transmissive panels comprises an absorber for electromagnetic radiation of this wavelength.\"",
+    "We further find an ordinarily skilled artisan would include such ultraviolet filters with the devices disclosed in Albert to address the recognized ultraviolet sensitivity of the electrophoretic medium.",
+    "We thus conclude that Albert and Abramson render the invention as recited in claim 22 obvious."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2011000236_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant contends that the Examiner has taken an extremely broad interpretation in finding that the individual fractionation trays of an industrial distillation column would read on a system designed for laboratory use. (App. Br. 6-7).",
+    "Appellant supports this contention by purporting narrower meanings to the term \"reaction vessel\" and *independent work stations\" that would exclude the claim from reading on an industrial distillation column, as allegedly disclosed in Young (id. 7-8).",
+    "Appellant contends that the term means that the work stations have \"different chemicals (reactants) and different reaction characteristics (heating, cooling, gas blanket, etc.)\" such that \"li]t is impossible to interpret the functionally interconnected fractionation trays of a distillation reactor as independent\" due to the flow of liquids and gases of the same chemicals needed for the fractionation reactor to work (App. Br. 7-8).",
+    "Appellant asserts that the term \"reaction vessel\" is clearly defined in the Specification \"as generally referring to bench scale flasks, beakers and other reactors used by bench researchers\" (App. Br. 8).",
+    "Appellant also contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the stirring mechanism of Johnson with the fractionation trays of Young because (a) the distillation column already has \"violent movement of cascading liquids through rushing upwardly flowing gases\" rendering a stirring mechanism meaningless and (b) a plasma discharge reactor requires very different technology from the process described in Young (App. Br. 8)."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner provides a broader interpretation in that a \"reaction vessel\" is *any structure capable of holding liquid and intended to be used to conduct reactions\" (Ans. 5) (emphasis added)."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We affirm.",
+    "However, because our affirmance relies on a different interpretation of claim 21 and different reasoning than the Examiner's reasoning, we designate our affirmances as new grounds of rejection.",
+    "Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with sole independent claim 21.",
+    "We are not persuaded that \"reaction vessel\" and *independent work stations\" recited in claim 21 would not have been met by the teachings of Young for two reasons.",
+    "First, the distillation column of Young is not limited to an industrial application.",
+    "Second, we do not agree with Appellant's s narrower purported meaning of the term *independent work stations.\"",
+    "We agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term *independent work stations,\" according to the skilled artisan when read in light of the Specification, does not require all the characteristics and features indicated by Appellant.",
+    "Appellant provides no evidentiary support for the position that the term \"independent\" narrows the meaning of the term \"work stations\" to require all reaction conditions to be different from one reaction vessel to another.",
+    "In particular, we find no requirement in claim 21 that each reaction vessel utilizes different reactants.",
+    "Accordingly, we decline to limit the meaning of the term *independent work stations\" as argued by Appellant.",
+    "Since the term \"work stations\" requires controlled cooling, at most, the term \"independent\" limits the \"work stations\" to be capable of independently controlled cooling.",
+    "Since Young teaches independently controlled heating and cooling of each tray 20 (see Young, Abstract and II [0002] and [0031]), the system providing the heating and cooling operations to each of the plurality of trays 20 constitutes the limitation in claim 21 of *independent work stations.\"",
+    "We find the Appellant's Specification provides for an interpretation narrower than the Examiner*. s purported interpretation.",
+    "The broad interpretation relied upon in the rejection of \"any structure capable of holding liquid and intended to be used to conduct reactions\" does not take into account the express guidance provided in Appellant's Specification.",
+    "Accordingly, we find that the term \"reaction vessel\" to have a narrower meaning than that relied upon by the Examiner* s rejection.",
+    "Despite the narrower meaning, however, we determine that Young would have suggested to a skilled artisan a bench-top or laboratory \"reaction vessel.\"",
+    "Because Young teaches that the system could be any size including *in the form of a bench lab setup\" (Young, I [0059]), the claimed \"reaction vessel\" is not distinguished from tray 20 of Young solely on the basis of size or laboratory bench suitability.",
+    "Further, we find that the term \"reaction vessel\" is not structurally limited so as to distinguish one of the trays 20 as taught by Young.",
+    "Claim 21 does not structurally or functionally distinguish tray 20 from the open reservoir \"reaction vessel\" disclosed in Figure 5 of Appellant's Specification, reproduced above.",
+    "We are not persuaded by Appellant's contentions.",
+    "Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated a stirring mechanism in those situations where it is desirable to obtain a reflux condition for a liquid reactant, including in a distillation column such as that taught by Young.",
+    "To do so would have been no more than the predictable use of a stirring mechanism according to its established function as a mechanism for creating a reflux condition.",
+    "Moreover, the problem being addressed by the stirring mechanism is for obtaining movement of liquid, which is not a problem specific to the type of reaction taking place.",
+    "Johnson evinces that such a problem has already been solved in the art."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2011000545_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Sullivan, Eatability, and Bates teaches or suggests a \"type or a degree\" of association, as recited in claims I and 17.",
+    "Appellant argues that Bates merely teaches group membership without a type or degree of association. App. Br. 6 (citing Bates, col. 7, II. 13-18; Figs. 12 and 4).",
+    "Appellant argues that Bates cannot teach the disputed limitation because Bates also teaches that rankings can be provided without the use of group search results."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner withdraws the rejection of independent claim 33 and its dependent claims 56 and 57 because the Examiner indicates that the claims contain allowable subject matter. Ans. 2-3.",
+    "Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16-22, 24, 25, 28, 30, 34-40, 42-49, 51 and 58-67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C $103(a) as being unpatentable over Sullivan (Danny Sullivan, \"Eurekster Launches Personalized Social Search:, Jan 21,2004, http:/www.scarcheaginewatch.com), Eatability (Eatability.com, 2003, haph//weet.andive/ww/wal/2003312127912 http://www.eatability.com/) and Bates (US 6,947,924, Sep. 20, 2005). Ans. 3-25.",
+    "Claims 7, 11, 23, 27, 32 and 52-55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C $103(a) as being unpatentable over Sullivan, Eatability, Bates and Ng (US 6,405,175 B1, Jun. 11, 2002). Ans. 25-29.",
+    "Instead, the Examiner finds that one embodiment of the reference teaches performing a search using a particular group's search information, wherein the user is associated with the group. Ans. 30 See also Bates col. 6, 11. 42-57."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6 6(b).",
+    "We affirm.",
+    "OPINION Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Bates, Eatability, and Sullivan teach or suggest *ranking articles responsive to the first search query based on a type or degree of the association between the first member and the first user, \" as recited in independent claims 1 and 17?",
+    "However, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 29-30), that a user who is a member of a group is associated with that group.",
+    "Since, in one of Bates' embodiments, ranking is a result of group search results, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 29-30) that ranking is based on a type of association, as claimed.",
+    "Contrary to Appellant's contention (App. Br. 6-8; Reply 1-2), the Examiner is not explicitly relying on the lack of a group being associated with a particular search to teach the disputed limitation. See Ans. 29-30.",
+    "Thus, we agree with the Examiner.",
+    "Appellant's additional argument that neither Bates, Sullivan, nor Eatability teach or suggest different types or degrees of association is not commensurate in scope with the claims.",
+    "Claims 1 and 17 do not require multiple types of associations but only require that results *rank[] articles responsive to the first search query based on a type \u00b7 \u00b7 of the association between the first member and the first user\" not multiple types of associations.",
+    "Thus, Appellant's admission that \"Sullivan and Eatability are limited to single category of association\" (App. Br. 6), supports that the combination of Sullivan, Eatability, and Bates teaches or suggests at least one type of association between a first member and first user that is used to rank articles responsive to a search query.",
+    "Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner did not err in finding that that Bates, Eatability, and Sullivan teach or suggest \"ranking articles responsive to the first search query based on a type or degree of the association between the first member and the first user\" as recited in independent claims I and 17.",
+    "Appellant made no separate arguments for claims 7, 11, 23, 27, 32 and 52-55, Since Appellant presented no separate arguments with respect to the claims that depend from independent claims 1 and 17 (see App. Br 8), we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C 9 $103(a) of independent claims 1 and 17 and the claims that depend therefrom, dependent claims 2-9, 11. 12, 14, 16, 18-25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34- 40, 42-49, 51-55, and 58-71."
+  ]
+}

opinion_split/2011000671_DECISION.json

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+{
+  "appellant_arguments": [
+    "Appellants' Contentions Appellants contend (Br. 6-16) that the Examiner erred in rejecting (a) claims 1-4 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 102(b), (b) claim 6 under 5 103(a) over Matsumoto, and (c) claims 7 and 20 under \u25cf 103(a) over Matsumoto and Hwang for numerous reasons, including:",
+    "(A) Matsumoto fails to teach or suggest a *doped halo\" (Br. 8), which is shown in Figure 2A of Appellants' Drawings and is defined by the Specification at page 8, lines 19-22 as \"a suitably doped portion of a semiconductor body \u00b7\u00b7\u00b7 situated between active source/drain regions of the semiconductor body, but where the doped halo does not completely fill that region\" (Br. 8);",
+    "body-effect in said transistor test structure\" where the doped halo is under a gate, which in turn is situated over a semiconductor body (claims 1 and 15).",
+    "Appellants state (Br. 3-4, Summary of Claimed Subject Matter, claim 1) that \"doped halo\" is defined in the Specification at page 8, lines 19-22."
+  ],
+  "examiner_findings": [
+    "The Examiner's Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-4 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. \u25cf 102(b) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (US 2002/0109187 A1).' Ans. 3- 4.",
+    "(2) The Examiner rejected dependent claim 6 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) over Matsumoto.\" Ans. 4-5.",
+    "(3) The Examiner rejected dependent claims 7 and 20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 5 103(a) over Matsumoto and Hwang (US 6,218,248 B1).3 Ans. 5-6."
+  ],
+  "ptab_opinion": [
+    "STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. 5 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 15-18, and 20.",
+    "Claims 5, 8-14, and 19 have been canceled.",
+    "We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 5 6(b).",
+    "We affirm.",
+    "Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added to disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows:",
+    "Claim 1: A silicon-on-insulator (SOI) transistor test structure comprising: a gate situated over a semiconductor body and over a doped halo: at least two semiconductor body contacts situated on opposing sides of said doped halo, wherein one or more of said at least two semiconductor body contacts forms a direct electrical contact with said doped halo underlying said gate, thereby increasing current flow to said doped halo to facilitate measuring body-effect in said transistor test structure.",
+    "In view of the foregoing, we select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims consisting of claims 1-4 and 15-18.",
+    "Principal Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 6-16), the following principal issue is presented on appeal:",
+    "Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1-4 and 15-18 as being anticipated and (ii) claims 6, 7, and 20 as being obvious because Matsumoto fails to teach the *doped halo\" limitation at issue in representative claim 12",
+    "ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's s rejections in light of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred.",
+    "We disagree with Appellants' 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, as well as the Advisory Action mailed January 26, 2010, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's s Answer (Ans. 3- 9) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief.",
+    "We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.",
+    "At issue is the meaning of \"doped halo\" as that term is used in the claims and as defined by Appellants' Specification (Spec. 6:11-14; doped halo 108 shown in Figs. 1A and 1B).",
+    "Doped halo 208 (Figs. 2A and 2B) is described as being **formed, for example, by doping the region of semiconductor body 202 under gate 204 with a suitable P type dopant\" (Spec. 8:20-22), and \"[a]s shown in Figure 2B, doped halo 208 in semiconductor body 202 is situated under gate 204 and adjacent to semiconductor body tie region 210\" (Spec. 8:19-20).",
+    "Doped halo 108 shown in Figures 1A and 1B is similarly described in the Specification (Spec. 6:11- 14).",
+    "In this light, Appellants' Contentions (A), (B), and (C) are not persuasive because Appellants' arguments improperly narrow the definition of doped halo which is provided at page 8, lines 20-22 of the Specification, simply as formed by doping the region of a semiconductor body that is under a gate with a suitable P type dopant.",
+    "We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7-9) that Matsumoto meets the limitations of claim 1, including disclosing a doped halo (P doped region 17b) under a gate (gate oxide film 5, side wall 6, and gate electrode 71).",
+    "Matsumoto discloses a pocket region that is equivalent to the doped halo of the claims (I [0298]; Figs. 36 and 37).",
+    "We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7-8) that Matsumoto's pocket implant 17b is equivalent to a halo implant because we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) that Ravindhran (US 5,395,773) (col. 2, 11. 57-59) serves as extrinsic evidence proving that a pocket implant is equivalent to a halo implant.",
+    "Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief or otherwise contradicted this assertion and definition provided by the Examiner.",
+    "Additionally, while features of an apparatus or system may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997).",
+    "**[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.\" Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990).",
+    "Appellants have failed to structurally distinguish the prior art's s pocket region from the test structure and system having a doped halo as recited in representative claim 1.",
+    "And, the function of *increasing current flow to said doped halo to facilitate measuring body-effect in said transistor test structure\" recited in independent claims 1 and 15 does not serve to distinguish Appellants' invention from Matsumoto's disclosure. Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477-78.",
+    "Therefore, Appellants' Contentions (E), (F), and (G) relating to the function of Matsumoto's device are not persuasive.",
+    "Appellants' Contentions (A), (B), (D), (E), and (F) listed supra (see Br. 9-13) are not commensurate in scope with the language of representative claim 1 and are therefore not persuasive.",
+    "Representative claim 1 does not recite source/drain regions, that there are no intermediate regions between the doped halo and the semiconductor body contact, and/or the degree to which accuracy is of body-effect measurement is increased.",
+    "In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 1 as well as claims 2-4 and 15-18 grouped therewith as being anticipated by Matsumoto.",
+    "We sustain the rejection of claim 6 for the reasons provided as to claim 1 and because Appellants have not argued claim 6 separately.",
+    "We sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 20 for similar reasons as provided for claims 1 and 15 from which claims 7 and 20 respectively depend."
+  ]
+}