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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, December 14, 2012

american academy, bowles, suitco surface

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte BAEK et al 11678092 - (D) ADAMS 103 Kile Park Goekjian Reed & McManus PLLC KEYS, ROSALYND ANN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Brown et al 09967553 - (D) SMITH 102 IBM54 KONRAD RAYNES & VICTOR, LLP CHOJNACKI, MELLISSA M

2194 Ex Parte Sreejith 10431771 - (D) BENOIT 102 DOCKET CLERK HOANG, PHUONG N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte McMurry et al 11277201 - (D) ZECHER 102/103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. PHUNG, LUAT

2486 Ex Parte Fernandez et al 09823509 - (D) HUME 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. VO, TUNG T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Karabinis 11036230 - (D) McNAMARA 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC KARIKARI, KWASI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Field 11535092 - (D) GRIMES 103 Bard Biopsy Systems C. R. Bard, Inc. HOLWERDA, KATHLEEN SONNETT

3731 Ex Parte Frion et al 11943289 - (D) WALSH 103 SHAY GLENN LLP MILES, JONATHAN WADE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte King et al 12180262 - (D) GREEN 103 103 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP LOVE, TREVOR M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2188 Ex Parte Steely et al 10760659 - (D) COURTENAY Dissenting HOMERE 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHERY, MARDOCHEE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Hoornaert et al 09789197 - (D) POTHIER 103 103 RATNERPRESTIA SHAW, YIN CHEN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 ELESYS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Requester, Cross-Appellant v. AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001002 6422595 09/639,299 FITZPATRICK 102/103 102/103 BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original SLITERIS, JOSELYNN Y

The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claims in Reexamination: A Standard Making It Easier to Invalidate Patent Claims

CAFC Applies The Wrong Claim Interpretation Standard in Patent Reexamination

“During reexamination, as with original examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant (or, in this case, the patentee), because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.” In re American Academy Of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (appeal from reexamination proceeding).4

Suitco Surface, Inc., In re, 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111


American Academy of Science Tech. Center, In re, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2111, 2111.01
...

fn4 We observe that although not pointed out or argued by the Patent Owner in its brief, the ‘595 patent expired in 2010 for failure to pay a maintenance fee. (See Notification of Expiration of Patent Under Reexamination filed Aug. 10, 2010). “[I]n reexaminations proceedings in which the PTO is considering the patentability of claims of an expired patent which are not subject to amendment, a policy of liberal claim construction may properly and should be applied. Such a policy favors a construction of a patent claim that will render it valid, i.e., a narrow construction, over a broad construction that would render it invalid.” Ex parte Bowles, 23 USPQ2d 1015, 1017 (BPAI 1991) (quoting Ex parte Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d 1655, 1656 (BPAI 1986)) (both nonprecedential). However, we decline to apply this policy to the present case. Such policy is premised on an inability to amend the claim, but the policy is not applicable in the present case wherein the Patent Owner had ample opportunity to amend the claims of the ‘595 patent prior to its expiration and the expiration of the ‘595 patent was volitional by the Patent Owner’s intentional failure to pay the required maintenance fee.

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Nakayoshi et al 10598967 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC LAM, CATHY FONG FONG

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Butler et al 11261752 - (D) JEFFERY 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MCCUE, BRITTANY N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Davis et al 10123383 - (D) ARPIN 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. RAMAN, USHA

2432 Ex Parte Alone et al 10898634 - (D) KUMAR 103 LENOVO (US) IP Law LANIER, BENJAMIN E

2448 Ex Parte Brownholtz et al 10894526 - (D) DROESCH 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP WHIPPLE, BRIAN P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Marston 11094851 - (D) FETTING 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP MILLER, ALAN S

3632 Ex Parte Raby 11963828 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 Schramm-Personal-ACT KING, ANITA M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Tsukamoto et al 10730095 - (D) SAINDON 101/102 VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC HU, KANG

3731 Ex Parte Moser et al 11576376 - (D) GREEN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS TANNER, JOCELIN C

No comments :