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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, August 8, 2014

KCJ, harari

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Matusch et al 10942297 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 ProPat, LLC PACKARD, BENJAMIN J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Hsu 10515372 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP WEBB, GREGORY E

1784 Ex Parte Starikov et al 11891429 - (D) OWENS 103 Cooke Law Firm KRUPICKA, ADAM C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Rhee et al 11342003 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN NGUYEN, THAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte RAGHUNATH et al 11622119 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 101 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. THIAW, CATHERINE B

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Ota et al 11718151 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. VAJDA, PETER L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Marquet et al 10846542 - (D) JEFFERY 103 KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. POWERS, WILLIAM S

Turning to claim 1, the claim recites, in pertinent part, that the interface device comprises a smart card connector to which plural smart card execution devices are connected. We emphasize the indefinite article “a” here, for it is well settled that it means “‘one or more’” where, as here, the claim contains the transitional phrase, “‘comprising.’” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To be sure, “[w]hen the claim language and specification indicate that ‘a’ means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That exception is not the case here; nor have Appellants shown as
much on this record.

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP. and RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD. Requesters v. INNOVATIVE SONIC LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte RE40077 et al 11/247,003 95002157 - (D) JEFFERY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 103 Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C. For THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: OBLON, SPIVAK McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP CORSARO, NICK original LY, ANH VU H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 KOHLER CO. Requester and Appellant v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7230345 et al 11/033,579 95001558 - (D) WEINBERG 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original PONOMARENKO, NICHOLAS

No comments :