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

Tuesday, August 11, 2015


custom search

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Kittle et al 12514187 - (D) NAGUMO 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Kampmann et al 11911254 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 ERICSSON INC. HARLEY, JASON A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Schaefer et al 12375457 - (D) BROWNE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. SELF, SHELLEY M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte Chandrasekar et al 12403153 - (D) WINSOR 103 HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE KUDDUS, DANIEL A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Sun et al 12094623 - (D) SAADAT 103 RPX Clearinghouse, LLC MURPHY, CHARLES C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Johnson 12409166 - (D) GARRIS 103 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Itron) HOANG, ANN THI

2854 Ex Parte Bechberger et al 12178931 - (D) WILSON 112(2) 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP OLAMIT, JUSTIN N

The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. 112(2), in the examination context "is to determine whether the claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity." In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971) (emphasis added).  "[T]he definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed - not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pretinent art." Id.

Moore, In re, 439 F.2d 1232, 169 USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971) 1504.04 2161.01 2164.08 2172

No comments :