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

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

function media, typhoon touch, finisar, agilent

custom search

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Yuengling et al 11313898 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. TIV,BACKHEAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Afram et al 11862968 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 VERIZON MISIASZEK, MICHAEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 Ex Parte Masters 10385587 - (D) NEW 112(2)/102 Siemens Corporation SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT

We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Specification discloses sufficient structure to fulfill the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (sixth paragraph). “It is axiomatic that claims must ‘particularly point[ ] out and distinctly claim[ ] the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.’” Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 112 (second paragraph)). The sixth paragraph of section 112 allows “a claim [to] state the function of the element or step, and the ‘means’ covers the ‘structure, material, or acts' set forth in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The trade-off for allowing such claiming is that “the specification must contain sufficient descriptive text by which a person of skill in the field of the invention would ‘know and understand what structure corresponds to the means limitation.’” Id. at 1383–84 (quoting Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).

The use of a computer is inherent in the disclosure, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that it is necessary to employ a computer to run the disclosed computer program—software is useless without hardware. See Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question”).

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Jrad et al 11838349 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. MAPA, MICHAEL Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Foad et al 11029646 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Applied Materials, Inc. PURINTON, BROOKE J



Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY, INC. Requester, Respondent v. SOUTHCO, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001911 6468012 09/911,940 SONG 103 102 PAUL & PAUL Third Party Requester:  KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP KASHNIKOW, ANDRES original WILSON, NEILL R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 EVERBRIDGE INC., FEDERAL SIGNAL CORP., AND TWITTER INC. Third Party Requesters, Appellants, and Cross-Respondents v. COOPER NOTIFICATION, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant 95001425 7409428 10/829,181 McKONE 102/103 KING & SPALDING, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTERS: Haynes and Boone, LLP CRAVER, CHARLES R original WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

No comments :