<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Krista, here are some references, with specific quotes, that I have in my notes for arguing against a \u201crearrangement of parts\u201d rational for rejection. I believe the
<i>ex parte Voden</i> quote was from the BPAI opinion, while the <i>ex parte Jensen</i> one looks like it\u2019s from the appellant's brief, but these cases might offer a good startingpoint for arguments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We also agree with Appellant that Tsai \u2032564 does not render claim 36 obvious for the following reasons. First, we note that the Examiner finds that if Tsai \u2032564 does not disclose the air blower as being disposed in the space between the
first game formed on the first side and the air hockey table formed on the second side of the combination game table, then it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have disposed the air blower of Tsai \u2032564 at any desired location,
presumably to include between the soccer and hockey plates 34 and 31, as this amounts to nothing more than a rearrangement of parts requiring only routine skill in the art in reliance on
<i>In re Japikse,</i> 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950). This analysis amounts to application of a
<i>per se</i> rule of obviousness, namely, that parts of a reference may always be rearranged as a general proposition in order to negate any patentable distinction. However, the Examiner provided no comparison between the facts of
<i>Japikse</i> and the facts of the underlying application to explain how the holding of
<i>Japikse</i> applies to the claims on appeal. As such, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection does not rest on a sound evidentiary basis because reliance on
<i>per se</i> rules of obviousness is legally incorrect. Thus, we find the Examiner's statement as to rearranging the location of the fan 4 of Tsai \u2018564 to be conclusory and we are not persuaded of the obviousness of the subject matter of claim 36.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>Ex Parte Justin L. Voden</u>, 11/824,369, 2010 WL 5127444, at *6 (Dec. 13, 2010)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 held that shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In stark contrast to In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70, adding a control (and its associated mechanical, electrical and software) for the special purpose function color-mode of Lundberg to the remote control device 34 of Bartol modifies the operation
of the remote control device 34. That is, the remote control device 34 of Bartol would now be configured with additional components and an additional capability that it did not have. Hence, its operation would be modified. In In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70, the
switch was merely moved from one position to another position on the same hydraulic power press, and thus no new component or capability was added to the press by moving the switch to a different position on the press. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 does not support
the rationale proffered in the rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, Lundberg does not disclose or suggest the key and/or control 188 selects color mode, let alone from a group of the available scanning modes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="NL">Ex Parte Ole C. JENSEN., 2015 WL 13413173 (Bd.Pat.App. & Interf.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="NL"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="NL"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="NL">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="NL">Jeroen.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="NL"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#00853E;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Jeroen Valensa</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#00853E"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#7F7F7F;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Assistant General Counsel \u2013 Intellectual Property</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.aosmith.com/"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="127" height="44" style="width:1.3229in;height:.4583in" id="Picture_x0020_4" src="cid:image001.jpg@01DB9D67.0D8F2980"></span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><br>
<b><span style="color:black">11270 W Park Place<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Milwaukee, WI 53224</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#7F7F7F;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#7F7F7F">email:</span><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#00853E">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a href="mailto:jevalensa@aosmith.com">jevalensa@aosmith.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Krista S. Jacobsen via Patentpractice<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 25, 2025 9:02 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> For advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Krista S. Jacobsen <krista@jacobseniplaw.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Patentpractice] In re Japikse and "criticality of the claimed limitation"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width:100.0%;border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="4" style="width:3.0pt;border:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:none;background:#CF0000;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt">
</td>
<td style="border:solid black 1.0pt;border-left:none;background:#FFD11C;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt">
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">This message has originated from an
<strong><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">External Source</span></strong>. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt"></td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><img border="0" width="1" height="1" style="width:.0104in;height:.0104in" id="_x0000_i1025" src="https://receipts.canarymail.io/track/7CA20B27097B0DE48353ECA654B046B4_A12417436730DB0B5EAB905BDCF331F6.png"></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div id="CanaryBody">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">I have an office action in which claims have been rejected under 103. For several of the claims, the examiner could not find in the applied references exactly
what is recited in the claims, but she rejected the claims anyway, stating only that the recited configuration would have been obvious \u201csince it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
<i>In re Japikse</i>, 86 USPQ 70.\u201d Then she adds, \u201cPlease note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.\u201d<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">I am trying to figure out how best to respond to the examiner\u2019s citation to a CCPA decision from 1950 (!!!) and the apparent assertion that \u201ccriticality\u201d of limitations
must be disclosed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">My first thought is that these rejections amount to improper hand-waving. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Second, I am unaware of any requirement for an application to disclose \u201ccriticality for the claimed limitation\u201d in order for a claim to be patentable over a combination
of references. MPEP 2144.04 says this about \u201ccriticality\u201d: "If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on the rationale used by the court to support an obviousness rejection.\u201d The
examiner appears to have recast this statement as: \u201cIf the applicant has NOT demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it WOULD be appropriate to rely solely on the rationale used by the court to support an obviousness rejection.\u201d Then she sticks
in a reference to <i>In re Japikse</i> and deems it obvious. I do not think that makes for a proper 103 rejection.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Third, the examiner\u2019s rationale seems to seek to improperly shift the USPTO\u2019s burden. The applicant is not required to prove that an invention is nonobvious (apparently
by disclosing \u201ccriticality for the claimed limitation\u201d in the application). Instead, the USPTO is required to allow the claim unless the examiner can show that the claimed invention IS obvious.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">I would appreciate any thoughts from the brain trust, especially if you have received and responded to similar rejections. Thanks in advance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Krista<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="CanarySig">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Krista S. Jacobsen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Attorney and Counselor at Law<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Jacobsen IP Law<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="mailto:krista@jacobseniplaw.com">krista@jacobseniplaw.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">T: 408.455.5539<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.jacobseniplaw.com/__;!!NJahUI48xw!SLpcnaYg-UKdKqbTfPnf0r_2szJD1GEh9Xa0pfs9jfJetwYFfUaZcGiluG_gt0721MiP1WET6eWqjtzFD2bHyQOIlqloJWYo$">www.jacobseniplaw.com
[jacobseniplaw.com]</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">NOTICE: This communication may include privileged or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the sender and delete this communication without
copying or distributing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>