REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Aitken et al 11560930 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 CONLEY ROSE, P.C. POUNCIL, DARNELL A
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Knoerzer et al 12716033 - (D) GARRIS 103 102 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP AUGHENBAUGH, WALTER
We agree with Appellants that Melican is not analogous art. The Examiner’s opposing view apparently is based on the proposition that the inventions of Melican and claim 1 are in the same field of endeavor because they are both directed to composites. However, such a proposition so broadly characterizes the field of Appellants’ endeavor as to render meaningless this aspect of the test for non-analogous art. Here, the Examiner has failed to “correctly set the field of the invention by consulting the structure and function of the claimed invention as perceived by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Carbone et al 12022184 - (D) HUME 102 102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP ALHIJA, SAIF A
We note, "[d]uring prosecution . . . the PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). We find the broadest reasonable interpretation of common claim element "hardware" does not exclude such hardware disclosed in Fig. 8 of the cited reference, nor does the broadest reasonable interpretation of "virtualization layer" preclude the inclusion of hardware device drivers in such a layer.
Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)
Hyatt, In re, 211 F.3d 1367, 54 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2111
