SEARCH

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

Monday, July 16, 2012

bradford, johnson

custom search

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Singh et al 11346529 - (D) BARRY 103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC JENKINS, WILSON, TAYLOR & HUNT, P.A. UM, DANIEL H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2646 K/S HIMPP Requester, Cross-Appellant, and Respondent v. HEAR-WEAR TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Respondent 95001022 - (D) 7,016,512 10/651,879 COCKS 102/103 102/103 FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP RIMELL, SAMUEL G LE, HUYEN D

AFFIRMED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Ramsaier et al 11166926 - (D) WEINBERG 102 FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC VY, HUNG T

2175 Ex Parte Hunleth et al 10768432 - (D) CHEN 103 POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC ORR, HENRY W

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Cook et al 11528710 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 Siemens Corporation MCALLISTER, STEVEN B

Federal Circuit case law also holds that, absent clarification of a narrower scope, “coupled” is a term of substantial breadth. See Bradford Co. v. Conteyor North America, Inc., 603 F.3d 1262, 1266-67, 1270-71 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the district court had properly “found the claim term ‘coupled to’ to mean ‘linked together, connected or joined,’” but had improperly later “ruled that the term ‘coupled to’ was restricted to a direct coupling”); and Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 992 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating the infringer “recognizes that the unmodified term ‘coupled’ generically describes a connection, and does not require a mechanical or physical coupling”).

Johnson Worldwide Associates v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 993, 50 USPQ2d 1607, (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05

No comments :