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

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

halliburton, datamize, miyazaki

custom search

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Doumaux et al 12808046 - (D) KAISER dissenting HOUSEL 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, VU ANH

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Keohane et al 11867735 - (D) HAAPALA 103 LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) HO, RUAY L

2176 Ex Parte Dejean et al 11923904 - (D) SHIANG 103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER BURKE, TIONNA M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Salvi et al 12501412 - (D) SILVERMAN 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY POLLACK, MELVIN H

2452 Ex Parte McClain et al 12612895 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP (26530) HUSSAIN, TAUQIR

2457 Ex Parte Brakensiek 12495119 - (D) CURCURI concurring BAUMEISTER 102/103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation KIM, HEE SOO

Rather, "dynamic data" and "static data" are merely undefined terms of degree. When a term of degree is used in a claim, the specification must provide some standard for measuring the requisite degree.  Datamise, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc. 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). "[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite." Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).

Our reviewing court explained the rationale for requiring such definiteness for terms of degree in Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-1 LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In Halliburton, the court was asked to determine whether the relative claim term "fragile gel" was sufficiently definite.  Id. at 1246.  In spite of that Patent's Specification containing an express definition for the term "fragile gel" (id. (citing Kirsner et al., U.S. No. 6,887,832 B2; issued May 3, 2005, at col. 2, II. 26-42)), the Halliburton court nonetheless found that no "possible construction resolves the ambiguity in the scope of the term." Id. at 1250.

The fact that Halliburton can articulate a definition supported by the specification, however, does not end the inquiry.  Even if a claim term's definition can be reduced to words, the claim is still indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot translate the definition into meaningful precise claim scope."

Id. at 1251.

The Hallibrton court explained the public policy underlying its conclusion:

35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 requires that the specification of a patent "conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention." Because claims delineate the patentee's right to exclude, the patent statute requires that the scope of the claims be sufficiently definite to inform the public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e., what subject matter is covered by the exclusive rights of the patent. Otherwise, competitors cannot avoid infringement, defeating the public notice function of patent claims. Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1996) ("[T]he primary purpose of the requirement is `to guard against unreasonable advantages to the patentee and disadvantages to others arising from uncertainty as to their [respective] rights.'") (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Carp., 304 U.S. 364, 369, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402, (1938)). The Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he statutory requirement of particularity and distinctness in, claims is met only when [the claims] clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly circumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise." United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236, 63 S.Ct. 165, 87 L.Ed. 232 (1942).

Id. at 1249 (citations omitted).

The Halliburton court also noted an additional policy consideration, which serves as the basis for why the Board should not ignore the claims' clarity in spite of the issue not being raised on appeal:

the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.

Id. at 1255.

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)

Miyazaki, Ex parte, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (BPAI 2008) 2173.05(b)

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Neuhauser et al 11777051 - (D) SCHOPFER 102 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen) JIAN, SHIRLEY XUEYING

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Scantlebury et al 10503549 - (D) WARREN 103 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP WOOD, ELLEN SUZANNE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Yoshida et al 12631295 - (D) BAER 103 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT DRAVININKAS, ADAM B

Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Golombek et al 12128795 - (D) ADAMS 103 41.50 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON SOROUSH, LAYLA

1631 Ex Parte Rambaud 10687636 - (D) POLLOCK 112(1)/112(2)/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON WHALEY, PABLO S

1631 Ex Parte Leuthardt et al 12459493 - (D) McGRAW 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC HARWARD, SOREN T

1631 Ex Parte Leuthardt et al 12459623 - (D) McGRAW 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC HARWARD, SOREN T

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Uensal et al 12375550 - (D) WARREN 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) NGUYEN, COLETTE B

1747 Ex Parte Dale et al 12450964 - (D) GARRIS 112(a)/112(b)/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ROGERS, MARTIN K

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte van Putten 13354196 - (D) NEW 102/103 MAURICE H.P.M. VAN PUTTEN ELLIS, MATTHEW J

2175 Ex Parte Gn et al 12345050 - (D) HOMERE 102 LSI CORPORATION TRAN, MYLINH T

2175 Ex Parte Jude et al 12486914 - (D) NEW 102/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 NABI, REZA U

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Marilly et al 11960691 - (D) KAISER 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT LIN, JASON K

2431 Ex Parte STAUNER et al 11961947 - (D) MCMILLIN 112(2) 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP VAUGHAN, MICHAEL R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Rosenberg 11927060 - (D) SHIANG 103 Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton, LLP BOLOTIN, DMITRIY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Craven et al 10582390 - (D) TIMM 103 GATES & COOPER LLP (General) FOX, BRANDON C

2854 Ex Parte Wilson et al 12110518 - (D) ABRAHAM 102/103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER MARINI, MATTHEW G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Lowles 12394750 - (D) STEPINA 103 41.50 103 RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

3671 Ex Parte Goering et al 12715237 - (D) BROWNE 103 DEERE & COMPANY NGUYEN, MAI T

3672 Ex Parte Selb et al 12800975 - (D) MURPHY 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB LAGMAN, FREDERICK LYNDON

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3788 Ex Parte Felsch et al 12267191 - (D) SMEGAL 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials POON, ROBERT


2782 HTC CORPORATION Requester v. FLASHPOINT TECHNOLOGY, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 6163816 et al 08/920,424 95001420 - (D) COCKS 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Herskovitz & Associates, PLLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: PEKINS COIE LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original SHIN, CHRISTOPHER B

No comments :