Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Futrell et al 12136202 - (D) HILL 101 Cooke Law Firm MENDIRATTA, VISHU K
3744 Ex Parte Swofford 12040154 - (D) MAYBERRY 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP COMINGS, DANIEL C
“Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be
consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.” In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Prior art references may be ‘indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means . . . [and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.’ Accordingly, the PTO's interpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from analogous art.” Id. (Citations omitted).
Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
3748 Ex Parte Frazier et al 11655268 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 Foley & Lardner LLP BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Fukuda et al 11926504 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC HUANG, MIRANDA M
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1671 Ex Parte Keggenhoff et al 12851604 - (D) FREDMAN 103 BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC PUTTLITZ, KARL J
Under the “law of the case” doctrine, a court will generally adhere to a decision in a prior appeal in the same case unless one of three exceptions exist: (1) the evidence in a subsequent trial contains new and different
material evidence; (2) there has been an intervening change of controlling legal authority; or (3) the earlier ruling was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice. Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 253 F.3d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Gould, Inc. v. United States, 67 F.3d 925, 930 (Fed. Cir. 1995).