ergo, noah, giacomini

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte CHEN et al 11/470,915 KRATZ 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

1715 Ex Parte CHEN et al 11/470,922 KRATZ 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER TALBOT, BRIAN K

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Main 11/210,991 SAADAT 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent EXAMINER MAHMOOD, REZWANUL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Apps 11/252,478 McCARTHY 102(e) REHRIG PACIFIC EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V

3651 Ex Parte Hochtritt et al 10/660,659 McCARTHY 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER WAGGONER, TIMOTHY R

3671 Ex Parte de Kerdanet 10/535,792 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) Levy & Grandinetti EXAMINER MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Kliskey 11/404,527 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) obviousness-type double patenting RENNER KENNER GREIVE BOBAK TAYLOR & WEBER EXAMINER GRANT, ALVIN J

3732 Ex parte D’ALISE 11/255,846 ADAMS 102(e)/103(a) RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB, PA EXAMINER EIDE, HEIDI MARIE

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2167 GOOGLE, INC. Third Party Requestor, Respondent v. FUNCTION MEDIA, L.L.C. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,061 6,446,045 09/480,303 PER CURIAM 112(2)/112(6) Michael F. Heim HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP EXAMINER GELLNER, JEFFREY L original EXAMINER JAKETIC, BRYAN J

The use of means-plus-function language in a claim does not excuse an appellant from complying with the claim definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303 LLC, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., No. 2011-1390, 2012 WL 1150216 at *7 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2012). If an Applicant does not disclose structure for a means plus function term, the claim is indefinite. Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303 LLC, Inc., 673 F.3d at 1361.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1798 Ex Parte Lubker 11/212,357 METZ 103(a) 102(b)/102(a,e)/103(a) PACTIV CORPORATION c/o NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Gelbard 10/839,190 GONSALVES 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 101/102(e)/102(b) DR. MARK M. FRIEDMAN EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Hallowell et al 10/256,818 SAINDON 103(a) 103(a) CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP. C/O NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER SHAPIRO, JEFFERY A

Appellants additionally argue that Stieber is not prior art because the Examiner is not entitled to use the filing of a provisional application in a §102(e) rejection. App. Br. 27-30. This issue has, since the filing of Appellants’ brief, been addressed in In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (the patent-defeating date of a published application under §102(e) can be the provisional filing date).

3653 Ex Parte Mandel et al 11/141,545 SAINDON 102(a)/103(a) 112(2) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP EXAMINER GOKHALE, PRASAD V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Kadykowski et al 11/710,370 WALSH 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) TERUMO CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS CORPORATION ATTN: GAEL DIANE TISACK EXAMINER CRONIN, ASHLEY L

3763 Ex Parte Haase 11/412,464 SCHEINER 103(a) 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Jordens et al 10/550,219 PRAISS 102(b)/103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER FANG, SHANE

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Gupta 10/027,580 JEFFERY 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER VO, HUYEN X

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Ellefson et al 11/185,170 TURNER 103(a) MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP EXAMINER CARTER, CANDICE D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Besselink 10/528,044 ADAMS 103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

3761 Ex Parte Guerreschi et al 10/831,725 SCHEINER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHAPMAN, GINGER T

cescon, ergo, noah

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1626 Ex Parte Dietrich et al 11/320,121 FREDMAN 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER KOSACK, JOSEPH R

See In re Cescon, 474 F.2d 1331, 1334 (CCPA 1973) (concluding that, although not every compound within the scope of the claims was tested, the evidence of secondary considerations was sufficient where evidence showed a correlation and there was no factual basis to expect the compounds to behave differently in different environments).

1636 Ex Parte Koide 09/903,412 FREDMAN 102(e)/103(a) VIKSNINS HARRIS & PADYS PLLP EXAMINER WESSENDORF, TERESA D

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Kolz et al 11/463,342 ARBES 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER
CHANG, JEFFREY

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Cochran et al 09/726,852 HOMERE 112(2)/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER POLTORAK, PIOTR

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Weirauch 10/618,115 GIANNETTI 102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(a)/112(2)HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FEILD, JOSEPH H

The use of means-plus-function language in a claim does not excuse Appellant from complying with the claim definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303 LLC, Inc., No. 2011-1229, 2012 WL 987833 at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2012); Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., No. 2011-1390, 2012 WL 1150216 at *7 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2012). If an Applicant does not disclose structure for a means plus function term, the claim is indefinite. Ergo, 2012 WL 987833 at *1. The indefiniteness analysis requires us first to construe the claim. Noah, 2012 WL 1150216 at *7. Normally this is a two-step process. First, the claimed function must be determined. Next, the corresponding structure in the written description of the patent that performs that function must be identified. Id.

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 Ex Parte Caddell 11/043,343 ZECHER 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER LE, DANG D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Camp 11/168,044 ROBERTSON 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. EXAMINER LIU, HARRY K

3674 Ex Parte Verwoerd 10/550,133 LEE 112(1)/103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER
LEE, GILBERT Y

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Goshgarian 10/427,351 ADAMS 103(a) MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

3735 Ex Parte Jina 11/277,731 ADAMS 102(e)/103(a) SHAY GLENN LLP EXAMINER D'ANGELO, MICHAEL J 

3761 Ex Parte Roberts et al 11/733,964 ADAMS 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER TREYGER, ILYA Y

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2818 Ex Parte 6,314,051 et al RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Requestor and MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester, Cross-Appellant and Respondent 95/001,107 & 95/001,132 09/629,497 EASTHOM 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN

2818 Ex Parte 6,266,285 et al RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent  v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO., LTD. Requestor and MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC. Requestor, Cross-Appellant and Respondent 95/001,106 & 95/001,131 09/566,551 EASTHOM 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Cherepy et al 11/445,569 OWENS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER HOBAN, MATTHEW E

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Nancy Soetens et al 10/171,971 RUGGIERO 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER D

2471 Ex Parte Krause 09/790,998 SMITH 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER WONG, WARNER

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Citta et al 10/340,973 MOORE 103(a) ZENITH ELECTRONICS LLC EXAMINER
ODOM, CURTIS B

2611 Ex Parte Tierno 10/668,562 HOMERE 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER MALEK, LEILA

2613 Ex Parte Azadet 10/219,905 SAADAT 102(e)/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER LI, SHI K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Guha et al 10/699,399 HOMERE 103(a) FLEIT GIBBONS GUTMAN BONGINI & BIANCO P.L. EXAMINER JAGAN, MIRELLYS

2887 Ex Parte Brady et al 11/564,408 HUGHES 103(a) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. EXAMINER MARSHALL, CHRISTLE I

2895 Ex Parte Hovis et al 11/522,164 Per Curiam 112(2) 102(b) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER
WOJCIECHOWICZ, EDWARD JOSEPH

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Sarkar et al 11/216,797 PER CURIAM 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER LAN, TZU-HSIANG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 Ex Parte Nesbitt 11/330,499 GREEN 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER SWEET, THOMAS