cortright, thorner

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2195 Ex Parte Arcese et al 13405029 - (D) HOWARD 102/103 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. TEETS, BRADLEY A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2485 Ex Parte Rohaly et al 12811237 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY MIKESKA, NEIL R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2636 Ex Parte Ramachandran et al 12459448 - (D) FISHMAN 103 OFS Fltel, LLC (FORMERLY FURUKAWA ELECTRIC NORTH AMERICA, INC.) WOLF, DARREN E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Felt 12766212 - (D) SMEGAL 103 STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER QUINN, RICHALE LEE

Although the Examiner is directed to give a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation, the interpretation must be consistent with: (1) the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification); (2) the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings; and (3) the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111 , 2164.04

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Herrmann et al 12523964 - (D) NEW 103 Winston & Strawn LLP BASQUILL, SEAN M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Fudge 13103307 - (D) SMITH 103 VERIZON KU, SHIUH-HUEI P

2157 Ex Parte Gustafson et al 12495022 - (D) SMITH 103 NBCUniversal Media, LLC c/o Fletcher Yoder, P.C. MUELLER, KURT A

2184 Ex Parte Lida et al 12193021 - (D) SHAW 103 Active Knowledge Ltd. MAMO, ELIAS

2199 Ex Parte Boskovic 11644173 - (D) FISHMAN 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP GOORAY, MARK A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Besaw et al 12404968 - (D) BARRY 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise KIM, TAE K

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Broughton et al 12446256 - (D) DEJMEK 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP MARK D. SARALINO ( SHARP ) ENGLISH, ALECIA DIANE

2659 Ex Parte Sayers et al 12614260 - (D) McMILLIN 102/103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise KOVACEK, DAVID M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Herlihy et al 12502038 - (D) HOSKINS 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. BACHMAN, LINDSEY MICHELE

3781 Ex Parte Olson et al 11843265 - (D) SMEGAL 103 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT MATHEW, FENN C

3782 Ex Parte Drwiega 12660352 - (D) BROWN 103 41.50 103 Gregory B. Beggs HELVEY, PETER N.

To act as his own lexicographer, “the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” See Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted).

Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 2111.01

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 ANGIODYNAMICS, INC. Respondent, Requester v. Patent of C.R. BARD, INC. Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 7785302 et al 11/368,954 95002089 - (D) McCARTHY 103 102 C.R. Bard, Inc. c/o Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C. Third Party Requester: CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP WILLIAMS, CATHERINE SERKE original BERDICHEVSKY, AARTI

cortright, skvorecz

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Yacoubian 11773029 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 102 BURGESS LAW OFFICE, PLLC CUMBERLEDGE, JERRY

See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“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.”); see also In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation.”).

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999)  2111 ,  2164.04

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1673 Ex Parte St. Cyr et al 10585961 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(1)/double patenting 103 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. BLAND, LAYLA D

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Chandrasekar et al 12403153 - (D) WINSOR 103 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE KUDDUS, DANIEL A

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 GOOGLE, INC. Requester and Respondent v. XEROX CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6778979 et al 09/683,235 95001430 - (R) LEBOVITZ 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. Third Party Requester: QUINN EMANUAL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP WOOD, WILLIAM H

cortright

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Kinoshita 11547973 - (D) EVANS 103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Solomon et al 12648325 - (D) BAYAT 102/103 FLSMIDTH FRANCIS, FAYE

3752 Ex Parte Babaev 11610402 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 Bacoustics, LLC BOECKMANN, JASON J

3774 Ex Parte Ryan et al 11329440 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Medtronic CardioVascular WOZNICKI, JACQUELINE

While the Examiner is encouraged to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation, we find the Examiner’s interpretation unreasonable in this instance. That is, there is no reason to interpret part of the diameter of Burt’s syringe between the “parallel spaced apart flange rings 38 and 39 for use as stabilizers” (FF 2) as a “locating portion” simply in order to permit the larger end of Burt’s syringe to become the “flange.” See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“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.”)

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111 , 2164.04

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Ibrahim et al 11796165 - (D) STRAUSS 102 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BROWN, MICHAEL J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Lau et al 12343149 - (D) NAGUMO 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP WOODARD, JOYE L

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Torchalski et al 11850489 - (D) BUI 102/103 Zebra/Alston & Bird YANG, JAMES J

cortright intergraph, ormco, gould2

custom search

REVERSED
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) 2111 , 2164.04

3748 Ex Parte Frazier et al 11655268 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 Foley & Lardner LLP BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
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

AFFIRMED
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).

cortright

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Chapin et al 11796278 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Mintz Levin/Boston Office BROWE, DAVID

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Kienzle et al 12544702 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP KEMMERLE III, RUSSELL J

1745 Ex Parte Adams 12005811 - (D) TIMM 103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA, PLLC WU, VICKI H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Sheppard 11649481 - (D) SHIANG 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 AT&T Legal Department - MB BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2654 Ex Parte Lucioni 10885905 - (D) RUGGIERO 112(2)/103 SIEMENS CORPORATION OLANIRAN, FATIMAT O

2671 Ex Parte Aschenbrenner et al 10892848 - (D) GRIMES 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP VO, QUANG N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Murthy et al 11521850 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN Mission/BSTZ TRAN, TONY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Wynn et al 11424969 - (D) GREENHUT 103 TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC RUSH, KAREEN KAY

(see, e.g., In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“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.”)

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111, 2164.04
HARMON 2: 109, 127; 5: 39, 69, 73
DONNER 9: 52-56, 73, 144-49, 329

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1645 Ex Parte Aderem et al 10991347 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/112(2) 112(2) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP GANGLE, BRIAN J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Jafeld et al 12198216 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP LIU, XUE H

2898 Ex Parte Lee 11997287 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 102 102/103 H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC KOLAHDOUZAN, HAJAR

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte McMillin et al 10752359 - (D) HOFFMANN 102 102 Detroit Office/Brinks Hofer Gilson and Lione ROBINSON, DANIEL LEON

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Rosner 10328084 - (D) SCHEINER 112(1)/103 HEDMAN & COSTIGAN, P.C. DRAPER, LESLIE A ROYDS

1643 Ex Parte Allison et al 10854000 - (D) ADAMS 102 ARNOLD & PORTER RAWLINGS, STEPHEN L

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1736 Ex Parte Routier et al 12097267 - (D) KOKOSKI 112(2)/103 SHELL OIL COMPANY ZIMMER, ANTHONY J

1767 Ex Parte TAZZIA et al 12164764 - (D) McKELVEY 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Quinn Law Group, PLLC KARST, DAVID THOMAS

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Fano 11686693 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 Harrity & Harrity, LLP CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Andersson 11333931 - (D) PARVIS 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP PHUONG, DAI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Kushner 11175976 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 Cesari and McKenna, LLP/Intersil JAGER, RYAN C

2829 Ex Parte Kearns et al 11844935 - (D) DELMENDO 103 OSHA LIANG LLP/Oracle TRAN, THANH Y

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD and SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. REQUESTERS v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS, N.V. and PHILIPS LUMILEDS LIGHTING COMPANY LLC PATENT OWNERS AND APPELLANTS 95001733 6,590,235 09/775,765 CURCURI 112(1)/102/103 For Third Party Requester: STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN & POX, PLLC For Patent Owner: OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. KIELIN, ERIK J original THOMPSON, CRAIG

WITHDRAWN
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 LACKS INDUSTRIES, INC. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. HAYES LEMMERZ INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000018 6386642 09/730,029 LEBOVITZ 103 MACMILLAN SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original STORMER, RUSSELL D

bicon, zumbiel, cortright, case, eaton, richdel

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Braun et al 11721077 - (D) KRATZ 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. SAHA, BIJAY S

1745 Ex Parte Schonbeck 11152425 - (D) DELMENDO 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2699 Ex Parte Branton et al 11192619 - (D) KRIVAK 103 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP SHAPIRO, LEONID

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2857 Ex Parte CELESTINI 11463918 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Lutz 11354781 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Cozen O'Connor TAOUSAKIS, ALEXANDER P

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. (internal citations omitted).

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111, 2164.04

As the Appellant chose to use both the preamble and the body of the claim to define the subject matter of the claimed invention, the preamble is limiting. See e.g., C.W. Zumbiel Co., Inc. v. Kappos 702 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952-53 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“when the limitations in the body of the claim ‘rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention’” (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Sonderkaer 10513672 - (D) SAINDON 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC CHAPMAN, JEANETTE E

3634 Ex Parte Ashmus 11207409 - (D) OSINSKI 112(2) 103 JANSSON SHUPE & MUNGER LTD. CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

3689 Ex Parte Harris 10531246 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(1)/112(2)/101/103 112(2)/101 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP ARAQUE JR, GERARDO

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3753 Ex Parte Nederegger et al 11605228 - (D) KILE 103 102/103 Manelli Selter PLLC TIETJEN, MARINA ANNETTE

3769 Ex Parte Rogers 11448296 - (D) PRATS 103 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP SHAY, DAVID M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Feng et al 12187049 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 Hartman Global IP Law TAKEUCHI, YOSHITOSHI

1756 Ex Parte Clipstone et al 11375693 - (D) BEST 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

1791 Ex Parte Mayville et al 11106082 - (D) NAGUMO 103/obviousness-type double patenting BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. DICUS, TAMRA

As our reviewing court has explained, “[p]recedent cannot establish facts.” Case v. CPC Int’l, Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Case v. CPC Int’l Inc., 730 F.2d 745, 221 USPQ 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) 2301.03

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2453 Ex Parte Videtich 10135300 - (D) DIXON 112(2)/102 General Motors Corporation ANTHONY LUKE SIMON NGUYEN, THUONG

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Dick 11619642 - (D) TARTAL 103 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP BOEHLER, ANNE MARIE M

Moreover, asserting that what makes an invention commercially successful is a claimed feature that is well known in the art fails to establish a nexus because “the asserted commercial success of the product must be due to the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.” J.T. Eaton & Co., Inc. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) citing to Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 714 F.2d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (claims held obvious despite purported showing of commercial success when patentee failed to show that “such commercial success as its marketed system enjoyed was due to anything disclosed in the patent in suit which was not readily available in the prior art.”)

3611 Ex Parte Parenti et al 12015337 - (D) CAPP 103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C KIM, SHIN H

3626 Ex Parte Graves et al 10813230 - (D) KIM 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 DOWELL & DOWELL P.C. COUPE, ANITA YVONNE

3689 Ex Parte Cole et al 10408175 - (D) FETTING 102/103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP FISHER, PAUL R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3776 Ex Parte Porter et al 11031421 - (D) DANIELS 103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP MANAHAN, TODD E