SEARCH

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

Monday, September 29, 2014

schreiber, hewlett-packard, boehringer

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1768 Ex Parte Fox 12371895 - (D) SMITH 103 CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY FIGUEROA, JOHN J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Goldberg et al 12296201 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS NGUYEN, HIEP VAN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Pacey et al 11791815 - (D) STEPHENS 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP WEATHERFORD, SYVILA

3752 Ex Parte Weis et al 12032150 - (D) KERINS 102 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. CERNOCH, STEVEN MICHAEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2882 Ex Parte Mulder et al 12076732 - (D) SMITH 102(e) 102e)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) ASFAW, MESFIN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Kish et al 12016110 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 102/103 BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS & MAIRE, P. A. KHATIB, RAMI

At the outset, we note that the limitation “for displaying system condition information” is a functional limitation. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 2112 2114
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

3686 Ex Parte Imai et al 11817217 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP HOLCOMB, MARK

We find that such “configured to” language merely represents a statement of intended use of the processing device which does not limit the claim. Particularly, an intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte ECKEL et al 12338026 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(1) 103 Miles & Stockbridge, PC PAK, HANNAH J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Wexler et al 12105092 - (D) PERRY 102(e)/103 VMWare, INC. EHICHIOYA, IRETE FRED

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Auriemma et al 12205470 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC BELANI, KISHIN G

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Sanches 12004359 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 NCR Corporation STANFORD, CHRISTOPHER J

2891 Ex Parte Michael et al 12262288 - (D) HANLON 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FULK, STEVEN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Le et al 11716374 - (D) MURPHY 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. DUFFY, DAVID W

3748 Ex Parte Birch et al 11992454 - (D) WOODS 103 Edwards Vacuum, Inc. DAVIS, MARY ALICE

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
3303 REFOCUS OCULAR, INC. Requester, Respondent v. READING ENHANCEMENT CO. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7,736,389 B1 et al 07/712,359 95002082 - (D) MARTIN 103 Edwin H. Crabtree REQUESTER: WILLIAM A. MUNCK, ESQ. original COHEN, PONTANI & LIEBERMAN FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original SMITH, JEFFREY A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 REFOCUS OCULAR, INC. Requester, Respondent v. READING ENHANCEMENT CO. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8,167,938 B1 et al 12/799,643 95002083 - (D) MARTIN 103 EDWIN H. CRABTREE REQUESTER: WILLIAM A. MUNCK, ESQ. FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original SHIPMON, TIFFANY P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 Ex Parte FORM FACTOR, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant. Ex Parte 6,441,315 et al 09/189,761 90009843 - (D) JEFFERSON 102/103 102/103 Ken Burraston/FormFactor KIRTON & MCCONKIE TARAE, CATHERINE MICHELLE original CUNEO, KAMAND

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 MICRO–PROBE INCORPORATED, Requester and Cross–Appellant, v. FORM FACTOR, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant. Ex Parte 6,825,422 et al 10/174,455 95000583 - (D) JEFFERSON 102(e)/102/103 KEN BURRASTON/FORMFACTOR KIRTON & MCCONKIE Rimmell, Samuel original PATEL, ISHWARBHAI B

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. Requester v. ORBUSNEICH MEDICAL, INC. Patent Owner/Appellant Ex Parte 7942922 et al 12/878,341 95001769 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ARNOLD & PORTER LLP WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original STROUD, JONATHAN R

1 comment :

Ji Yeon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.