Monday, October 07, 2013

Appellants win in Ex parte Chen

Ex parte Chen

“Inherency ... 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.” MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
“‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”’ KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion that Apperley and Blish render obvious “automatically concatenating the multiple selected information elements into a single transfer buffer” as required by claim 16.


Post a Comment

<< Home