oetiker, unique concepts, texas instruments, paulsen, intellicall

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Baumann et al 09/819,462 KIM 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER MILEF, ELDA G

See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (during examination, the examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness); Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). ... See Texas Instr. Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (claim language cannot be mere surplusage. An express limitation cannot be read out of the claim); Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d at 1563.

Oetiker, In re, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .707.07(f), 716.01(d), 1504.01(a), 2106, 2107.02, 2142, 2145, 2164.07

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . 716.04
3694 Ex Parte Zhang 09/895,690 KIM 112(1)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MERCHANT, SHAHID R

See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” and, if done, must “set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).

Paulsen, In re, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . .716.03, 2106, 2144.08

Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 21 USPQ2d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1992). . . . . . . .2111.01, 2181
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 Ex Parte Bendall et al 10/768,761 ZECHER 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP EXAMINER SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART REVERSED-IN-PART 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3735 ABBOTT DIABETES CARE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of DEXCOM, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,038 7,276,029 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Third-Party Requester: JACKSON & CO., LLP EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSEN & BEAR, LLP original EXAMINER MALLARI, PATRICIA C

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Scarpelli et al 10/873,870 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Joglekar et al 11/292,770 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) Caven & Aghevli LLC c/o CPA Global EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Borrego Bel et al 10/707,922 FRAHM 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION EXAMINER PARRIES, DRU M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Ampunan et al 11/062,404 HOELTER 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER MUSTAFA, IMRAN K

3685 Ex Parte Drummond et al 10/980,209 KIM 103(a) RALPH E. JOCKE Walker & Jocke EXAMINER KIM, STEVEN S

NEW

AFFIRMED

2165 Ex Parte Tang et al 10/705,932 BLANKENSHIP 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HICKS, MICHAEL J

3652 Ex Parte Wright et al 10/611,167 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER ADAMS, GREGORY W

ariad, rowe, texas instruments

REVERSED 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Murphy et al 10989721 COLAIANNI 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYDE, P.C. EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN 

Ex Parte Tsai et al 10382032 PAK 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L 

Ex Parte Maydan et al 10867591 COLAIANNI 103(a) MOSER IS LAW GROUP APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. EXAMINER KUNEMUND, ROBERT M 

Ex Parte Burns et al 11108274 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) FLETCHER YODER (CHEVRON PHILLIPS) EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K 

As stated in Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,

the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. . . . The term "possession," however, has never been very enlightening. It implies that as long as one can produce records documenting a written description of a claimed invention, one can show possession. But the hallmark of written description is disclosure. Thus, "possession as shown in the disclosure" is a more complete formulation. Yet whatever the specific articulation, the test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.

598 F. 3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

Ex Parte Bernard et al 10873887 SMITH 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER NORDMEYER, PATRICIA L 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Mane et al 10654137 JEFFERY 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN 

Ex Parte Robinson et al 10633804 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KIM, PAUL 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Nakaoka et al 09958885 MARTIN 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER NANO, SARGON N 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Linzer 11122426 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) CHRISTOPHER P MAIORANA, PC LSI CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOW, JEFFREY J 

Ex Parte Turetzky et al 10154138 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) THE ECLIPSE GROUP LLP EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA 

Ex Parte Endoh et al 10239188 SAADAT 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLANDMAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER AGUSTIN, PETER VINCENT 

Ex Parte Shiono 10882316 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER HSU, JONI 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Lee et al 11033845 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ARORA, AJAY 

Ex Parte Iwamoto et al 10543051 KERINS 103(a)/112(1)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E 

Ex Parte Tsukagoshi 10796394 HAIRSTON 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER LAVARIAS, ARNEL C 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Joye et al 10867986 McCARTHY 112(1)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRATT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Hathaway 10636128 SIU 102(e) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER THERIAULT, STEVEN B 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Lubbers et al 10043924 BARRETT 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TANG, KAREN C 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Adams et al 11191006 HAHN 101/102(b) OGILVY RENAULT LLP EXAMINER RAMPURIA, SHARAD K 

Ex Parte Joshi et al 11251674 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC EXAMINER THIER, MICHAEL 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Mutchler 10761185 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER CUMBERLEDGE, JERRY 

REEXAMINATION 

inter parties

EXAMINER AFFIRMED 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) SHIMANO, INC. Requester and Respondent v. ROLF DIETRICH Patent Owner and Appellant 95000008 6,428,113 LEBOVITZ 120 Priority/112(1)/103(a)/305 314(a) Enlarging the scope of the claims PURDUE LAW OFFICES THIRD PARTY REQUESTER David L. Tarnoof Global IP Counselors, LLP EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C 

When a claim term merely states a purpose, an intended use, or a result, the term may not be considered a limitation of the claim. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Texas Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303 

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04