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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, April 12, 2012

datamize, KCJ, abtox, insituform, baldwin

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte San Martin 09/861,314 GONSALVES 103(a) 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER JONES, HUGH M

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

3644 Ex Parte Nottingham et al 11/065,963 CALVE 102(b)/103(a) 112(2) PITTS & LAKE P C EXAMINER BERONA, KIMBERLY SUE

See Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention.”).

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . .2173.05(b)

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Leydet et al 11/741,397 WALSH 112(2)/103(a)/102(e) 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER WILLSE, DAVID H

This court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article “a” or “an” in patent parlance carries the meaning of “one or more” in openended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). That “a” or “an” can mean “one or more” is best described as a rule, rather than merely as a presumption or even a convention. The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must “evince[ ] a clear intent” to limit “a” or “an” to “one.” Id. The subsequent use of definite articles “the” or “said” in a claim to refer back to the same claim term does not change the general plural rule, but simply reinvokes that non-singular meaning. An exception to the general rule that “a” or “an” means more than one only arises where the language of the claims themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule. See, e.g., Abtox Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc., 99 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342-1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

The indefinite article “a” or “an” in patent parlance carries the meaning of “one or more” in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” Baldwin Graphic Systems, 512 F.3d at 1342.


AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Cowan et al 10/743,848 KOHUT 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R

2197 Ex Parte Falk et al 10/844,985 FRAHM 101/103(a) Kenneth F. Kozik EXAMINER RUTTEN, JAMES D


Because the data structure is not limited to being associated with the structured data object or the structured content model representation (i.e., “a data object” lacks antecedent basis linking it to either the structured data object or the structured content model representation), the claimed structured data object also imparts no functionality and is not embodied in a tangible computer readable medium. See Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).

No comments :