SEARCH

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

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

zletz, garnero

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte Dressler et al 13032285 - (D) MCMILLIN 112(1)/103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. MAMO, ELIAS

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Cordara et al 12308882 - (D) FINK 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP LI, TRACY Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2800 Ex Parte Graefe 12260053 - (D) KUMAR 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LIANG, VEI CHUNG

2837 Ex Parte Florian et al 11916725 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) ROSENAU, DEREK JOHN

However, the Examiner’s claim interpretation is flawed. Claim 1 requires a “sintered monolithic component”. That is, the plain language of the claim requires that the monolithic body be sintered. Appellants’ Specification discloses, on page 12, that

[t]he component is produced through common sintering of the layers located in the layer stack. This occurs preferably in a single processing step.

We thus interpret the claim in this manner, and note that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s claim interpretation, the claimed phrase of “wherein the piezoelectric layers, the electrode layers, and the absorption layer together form a sintered monolithic component” is properly interpreted as meaning that the “sintered monolithic component” is the piezoelectric layers, the electrode layers, and the absorption layer sintered together. See also In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1979) (holding “interbonded by interfusion” to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as “welded,” “intermixed,” “ground in place,” “press fitted,” and “etched” are capable of construction as structural limitations.)

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 715 ,   2111 ,   2111.01 ,   2111.03 ,   2138 ,   2171 ,   2173.05(a) ,   2181 ,   2286 ,   2686.04

Garnero, In re, 412 F.2d 276, 162 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1979) 2113

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Raschke 10933699 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 Siemens Corporation SAXENA, AKASH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Schmand et al 11532665 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION BRUTUS, JOEL F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Weibezahn 11858652 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1) 112(2)/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY VAN, LUAN V

1772 Ex Parte LEFLAIVE et al 12253382 - (D) GARRIS 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. PREGLER, SHARON

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Mueller et al 11322608 - (D) FISHMAN 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP DAYE, CHELCIE L

2165 Ex Parte Weinberg et al 12276009 - (D) BRANCH 103 SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC PEACH, POLINA G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Ivtsenkov et al 12022982 - (D) FRAHM 112(1)/112(2)/103 112(2) Protective Arms Systems Inc. LEUNG, WAI LUN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Gross 10856579 - (D) FETTING 112(1)/112(2) 112(1)/103 STEVEN VOSEN POUNCIL, DARNELL A

No comments :