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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

ranbaxy

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2494 Ex Parte Carter et al 11208275 - (D) WINSOR 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 GARLICK & MARKISON GERGISO, TECHANE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Reid 11447625 - (D) FLOYD 103 BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A JOHNSON, VICKY A

3664 Ex Parte Hanson 11465710 - (D) BROWNE 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. KISWANTO, NICHOLAS

3692 Ex Parte Schmidt 11348637 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. MONFELDT, SARAH M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Austin et al 10380663 - (D) COURTENAY 112(2)/102/103 101 Haugen Law Firm LU,CHARLES EDWARD

Assuming arguendo that claim 35 is a proper multiple dependent claim, we agree with Appellants that it includes the subject matter of the claims from which it depends. (See App. Br. 17). 2

See also 35 U.S.C. § 112(e):

(e) REFERENCE IN MULTIPLE DEPENDENT FORM.—A claim in multiple dependent form shall contain a reference, in the alternative only, to more than one claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the particular claim in relation to which it is being considered. 3

2 A counter argument can be made that multiple dependent claim 35 is not a proper dependent claim because it arguably does not specify a further limitation of the subject matter of claim 1, but instead broadens the subject matter of claim 1 to extend the scope of coverage to a computer program embodiment not within the scope of apparatus claim 1. See Pfizer Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (when a claim relying on another claim “fails to ‘specify a further limitation of the subject matter’ of the [another] claim to which it refers because it is completely outside the scope of [the another claim,]” such claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph.).

3 Amended Sept. 16, 2011, Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, sec. 4(c), 125 Stat. 284 (effective Sept. 16, 2012).
 
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Yang 10939302 - (D) PRATS DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC 103 PARAS JR, PETER

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte GALLOWAY 11939700 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BEMIS COMPANY, INC. CHEN, VIVIAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Berkel van 10516847 - (D) COURTENAY 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DINH, DUC Q

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Pedrazzoli Pazos 10325771 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS ABDELSALAM, FATHI K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Iannizzaro et al 11760981 - (D) CAPP 102/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP DAVIS, MARY ALICE

3765 Ex Parte Cho 11403339 - (D) CALVE 103 FELLERS SNIDER BLANKENSHIP BAILEY & TIPPENS HADEN, SALLY CLINE

3783 Ex Parte Christain et al 11239561 - (D) FLOYD 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC MCMAHON, MARGUERITE J  

REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY Requester and Appellant and Cross-Respondent v. TDY INDUSTRIES Patent Owner and Respondent and Cross-Appellant 95001417 7244519 10/922,750 LEBOVITZ 102 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102 ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES DIAMOND, ALAN D original TURNER, ARCHENE A

No comments :