SEARCH

PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Laughon MILLS 112(1)/112(2) LICATA & TYRRELL P.C.

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

Ex Parte Sato et al GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Jarvis OWENS 102(e)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Gillespie et al DIXON 102(b)/103(a) INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (SYNA)

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Frank et al SAADAT 103(a) McANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

Ex Parte Langenwalter BAHR 102(b)/103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Kilkenny et al OWENS 102(b)/103(a) FAY SHARPE LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

Ex Parte Goodwin et al DANG 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

Ex Parte Burger et al McCARTHY 102(b) GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.

Ex Parte Garfinkle et al HORNER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BAY AREA TECHNOLGY LAW GROUP PC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Wywialowski et al PATE, III 103(a) LISA M. SOLTIS ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.

Appellants have chosen to employ language in the claims broader that the language used to describe the preferred embodiment and it would be improper to import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, 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. 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.”).

Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . 2111.01

No comments :