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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

uship, ekchian

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Yang et al 10580776 - (D) KOHUT 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman VO, CECILE H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Holdsworth et al 12274402 - (D) CURCURI 102(e) 37 CFR § 41.50(b) 101 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. OSMAN, RAMY M

2476 Ex Parte Shibata et al 11265513 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. AGA, SORI A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2652 Ex Parte Barclay et al 11143835 - (D) POLLOCK 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT DEANE JR, WILLIAM J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Kennedy et al 11593063 - (D) ENGELS 102/103 Duane Morris LLP HUYNH, NAM TRUNG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Lee et al 11940263 - (D) GARRIS 103 Law Office of Scott C Harris Inc VALONE, THOMAS F

FEDERAL CIRCUIT


AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 MEDISIM LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BESTMED, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. 7,597,668 11/444,710 2013-1451 PROST JMOL anticipation JMOL unjust enrichment McCarter & English, LLP; Perkins Coie, LLP EISEMAN, ADAM JARED

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 2611 GOLDEN BRIDGE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. APPLE INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC, Defendant. 6,574,267 09/273,450 7,359,427 10/412,576 2013-1496 MOORE SJ non-infringement MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY BOCURE, TESFALDET

This is a clear and unmistakable assertion by the patentee to the PTO of the meaning and scope of the term preamble. The fact that the stipulation was contained in documents accompanying an IDS does not change this result. We have held that “an applicant’s remarks submitted with an [IDS] can be the basis for limiting claim scope.” Uship Intellectual Props., LLC v. United States, 714 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Ekchian v. Home Depot, Inc., 104 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An IDS is part of the prosecution history on which the examiner, the courts, and the public are entitled to rely.”).

No comments :