Phillips, vitronics

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2495 Ex Parte Al-Azzawi 11450476 - (D) BEAMER 103 MOORE PATENTS LEWIS, LISA C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Schneider 10833431 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 103 FAY SHARPE LLP KANTAMNENI, SHOBHA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Card 12263163 - (D) HAAPALA 103 103 Lowe Graham Jones PLLC DANG, KHANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Andersen et al 12226599 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC POLITO, NICHOLAS F

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Becker et al 12391629 - (D) JESCHKE 102 102/103 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) COLLINS, ANDREW WARREN

Here, neither party has identified intrinsic evidence to aid in the construction of “conduit,” and we have identified no such evidence in conflict with the construction provided by the combined dictionary definitions discussed above. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (stating that judges may “‘rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents’”) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc ., 90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2111.01

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Chen et al 11520564 - (D) HASTINGS 103 AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. PARSONS, THOMAS H

1789 Ex Parte Muncaster et al 11881197 - (D) KRATZ 103 JACK A. KANZ COLE, ELIZABETH M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2132 Ex Parte Veazey et al 11551777 - (D) FISHMAN 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MERCADO, RAMON A

2157 Ex Parte Unz 11704551 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP GIRMA, ANTENEH B

2194 Ex Parte Natarajan et al 11624253 - (D) KAISER 103 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC DAO, TUAN C.

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte Sriram 12592416 - (D) HAAPALA 103 Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC NG, CHRISTINE Y

2497 Ex Parte BUDYTA et al 12115372 - (D) SILVERMAN 103/obviousness-type double patenting INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) HOLMES, ANGELA R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2864 Ex Parte Power et al 13028308 - (D) KRATZ 112(1) 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP SUGLO, JANET L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte CHERNICK et al 12496196 - (D) GOODSON concurring BROWNE 103 obviousness-type double patenting LAMORTE & ASSOCIATES P.C. WONG, STEVEN B

3781 Ex Parte Heisner et al 12207696 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 Baker Botts LLP POOS, MADISON LYNN

packard, Phillips, hammack, cohn

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Imanaga et al 11937599 - (D) BEST 103 ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP GATEWOOD, DANIEL S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Anerousis et al 12172540 - (D) McCARTNEY 102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T

2164 Ex Parte Ghosh 12367200 - (D) WINSOR 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY QUADER, FAZLUL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2682 Ex Parte Maass 11660724 - (D) FRAHM 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LAU, HOI CHING

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Ichiyama 11783932 - (D) TIMM 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP GORDON, MATTHEW E

2894 Ex Parte Schaefer et al 12398726 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(1)/112(2)/102 THOMPSON HINE L.L.P. MONDT, JOHANNES P

2897 Ex Parte YANG et al 12104526 - (D) TIMM 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C PRASAD, NEIL R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Zopf 11890604 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP MUSTAFA, IMRAN K

3674 Ex Parte Durairajan et al 12329163 - (D) BAYAT 103 SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC. SAYRE, JAMES G

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Chila et al 12099352 - (D) CALVE 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - General Electric GOYAL, ARUN

3742 Ex Parte Christopher et al 11502865 - (D) JUNG 103 FLETCHER YODER MATHEW, HEMANT MATHAI

3763 Ex Parte Mozdzierz et al 12434864 - (D) ADAMS 103 Covidien LP LUCCHESI, NICHOLAS D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1791 Ex Parte Creighton et al 12730739 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 103 GENERAL MILLS, INC. LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE

2497 Ex Parte Guzman et al 11787409 - (D) WEINBERG 102 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. ARMOUCHE, HADI S

2814 Ex Parte Furst et al 11792619 - (D) TIMM 103 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) YOUNG & THOMPSON SKYLES, TIFNEY L

The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires the specification “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. This portion of the statute requires the claims “be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The standard is not one of exact precision. What one must determine is whether the language is as precise as the subject matter permits given the circumstances. Id.

Precision in claiming is not only dependent on the claim language itself; it is dependent on the description of the invention in the Specification. Although claims are not to be limited to specific embodiments set forth in the specification when it is does not appear that an applicant desired the claims to be so limited, the specification is the single best guide to determining the meaning of the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

Claims that lack precise referents in the specification and require elaborate explanations extraneous to both the specification and the claims do not meet the standard of precision required by the statute. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1381–82 (CCPA 1970). In fact, inconsistent use or unclear use of the terms in the specification can even cause a claim that appears clear on its face to become unclear and indefinite when read in light of the specification. See In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 1001 (CCPA 1971) (holding claims indefinite because the claims were, in calling for sealing an oxide surface with an alkali silicate to obtain an “opaque appearance,” inconsistent with the specification which defined an “opaque finish” as a flat-appearing finish which is not obtained when an alkali metal silicate is used as a sealant.).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1384, 166 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1970) 2173.05(e)

Cohn, In re, 438 F.2d 984, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971) 2173.03


3711 Ex Parte Cerpok 13082559 - (D) BROWN 103 102/103 ROBERT A. PARSONS GRAHAM, MARK S

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Godber et al 12611022 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP HARTFORD WATTS, JENNA A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Sayal 10873556 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CASANOVA, JORGE A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Cohen et al 11524052 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC BELCHER, HERMAN A

2457 Ex Parte Bae et al 10778838 - (D) FISHMAN 102 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Anttalainen et al 10595140 - (D) FRAHM 103 ERICSSON INC. MANOHARAN, MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY

2672 Ex Parte Price et al 12231123 - (D) POLLOCK 102 InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely BECKLEY, JONATHAN R

2683 Ex Parte Foth et al 11503446 - (D) HUGHES 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. NGUYEN, AN T

2689 Ex Parte Hjulberg 12102424 - (D) FRAHM 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC BEE, ANDREW W.

3628 Ex Parte Moulckers 11103852 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Greg Goshorn, P.C. CLARK, DAVID J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Isserow et al 11974401 - (D) WOODS 112(2)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Gearhart Law LLC ISLAM, SYED A

3664 Ex Parte Scott et al 11786296 - (D) MAYBERRY 112(2) 112(1) MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD MANCHO, RONNIE M

3681 Ex Parte Oesterling 11864204 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. LI, SUN M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte SCHERMEIER et al 12061894 - (D) POLLOCK 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC YOUNG, RACHEL T

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Eronen et al 11845964 - (D) DANG 102/103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. LONSBERRY, HUNTER B

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex parte CREE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6600175 et al 90010940 - (D) BUI 103 WILMERHALE/BOSTON For Third Party Requester: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. KIELIN, ERIK J

keller, datamize, musgrave, Nystrom, Phillips, sunrace

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Baluja et al 11173702 - (D) FRAHM 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. HOFFLER, RAHEEM

2182 Ex Parte Brenner et al 11751277 - (D) CHEN 103 IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C. TALUKDAR, ARVIND

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2431 Ex Parte Hamalainen 10546641 - (D) MORGAN 103 FASTH LAW OFFICES (ROLF FASTH) SU, SARAH

2443 Ex Parte Arimilli et al 12342691 - (D) SHIANG 102 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. BELANI, KISHIN G

2492 Ex Parte Rasanen 11156479 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 Mintz Levin/San Diego Office MOORTHY, ARAVIND K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Gunderson et al 11096851 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) STOKLOSA, JOSEPH A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Mohrmann, III 11465637 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP CHOUDHURY, ZAHID

See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference[.]”).

Keller, In re, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) 707.07(f) , 2145

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Reignoux et al 11629893 - (D) OWENS 103 103 OSHA LIANG L.L.P. STANFORD, CHRISTOPHER J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte PELTON 11860115 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Cisco c/o Leon R Turkevich Manelli Selter PLLC KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

Specifically, the scope of the claimed “prescribed presentation preference” is not defined and thus, appears to depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention. See Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention. See Application of Musgrave, 57 C.C.P.A. 1352, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (1970) (noting ‘[a] step requiring the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction might be objectionable as rendering a claim indefinite’). Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.” (emphasis added)).

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

“When different words or phrases are used in separate claims, a difference in meaning is presumed.” Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.” Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This presumption is “especially strong when the limitation in dispute is the only meaningful difference between an independent and dependent claim, and one party is urging that the limitation in the dependent claim should be read into the independent claim.” SunRace Roots Enterprise Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2111.01

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Pauly et al 11317464 - (D) FINK 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. SANDERS, STEPHEN

2457 Ex Parte Leermakers 10993391 - (D) SHAW 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SALL, EL HADJI MALICK

2463 Ex Parte St. Laurent et al 11854417 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. KHIRODHAR, MAHARISHI V

2491 Ex Parte SAWICKI et al 12143134 - (D) WORMMEESTER 103 Stevens Law Group BECHTEL, KEVIN M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 Ex Parte Baardse et al 12052610 - (D) BOUDREAU 102 Siemens Corporation GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA

2644 Ex Parte Naim et al 11274015 - (D) COURTENAY 103 SPRINT HEIBER, SHANTELL LAKETA

Phillips, bristol-myers2, continental can, kansas jack, goodyear dental

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Gaither et al 11554672 - (D) SMITH 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LI, ZHUO H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Todd 11626730 - (D) WORTH 103 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP TRINH, MICHAEL MANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Kelly 10737087 - (D) HOELTER 112(1)/112(2) CANTOR COLBURN LLP LAVINDER, JACK W

Appellant disagrees and references Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) for stating “the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” App. Br. 21 (additional citations omitted); see also Reply Br. 2. “Accordingly, the Examiner's allegation that the meaning could change over time is irrelevant, as the meaning ‘at the time of invention’ determines plain meaning.” App. Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 3.

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Bugir et al 11305873 - (D) SAADAT 103 William E. Curry PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Scrimsher et al 11497156 - (D) FRAHM 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PLECHA, THADDEUS J

2473 Ex Parte Meier et al 11600492 - (D) WINSOR 103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. HUQ, OBAIDUL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Rooyen 11010486 - (D) JEFFERY 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CHEN, JUNPENG

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Jiang et al 12182531 - (D) GARRIS 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY BERHANU, SAMUEL

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex parte Artsana USA, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8056975 et al 12/573,484 90009987 - (D) GREENHUT 103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. Third Party Requester: Law Office of John W. Harbst ENGLISH, PETER C original NELSON JR, MILTON

“[U]nhelpful evidence [does not] diminish[] the strength of the more persuasive forms of evidence.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Company V. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 13-1306, 18 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2014). The burden of showing commercial success attributable to the features of the claim does not impose a burden to demonstrate that no other conceivable factors contributed to that success. App. Br. 31-36; contra Ans. 8. “It is not necessary that [] the patented invention be solely responsible for the commercial success, in order for this factor to be given weight appropriate to the evidence, along with other pertinent factors.” Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1273 (Fed.Cir. 1991).

Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 2131.01

We are unaware of any requirement that the invention be the only successful product in its market niche or the most successful. App. Br. 38 (citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 2d 602,679 (D. Del. 2013) aff’d at Bristol-Myers Squibb Company V. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc ., supra (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2014)(“ We agree with the factual findings on secondary considerations and find no clear error”). Evidence of growth in market share, like evidence of total market share, is relevant to the commercial success inquiry. See e.g., Kansas Jack, Inc. v. Kuhn, 719 F. 2d 1144, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 1983). A growing market share demonstrates that Appellant was “displac[ing] other devices which had previously been employed for analogous uses.” See Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 US 486, 495-6 (1877).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Requester and Respondent v. FRACTUS, S.A. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7528782 et al 11/780,932 95001455 - (D) MOORE 102(e)/103 EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC Third Party Requester: Novak Druce & Quigg, LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP MENEFEE, JAMES A original PHAN, THO GIA

electromed, superguide, phillips

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Anghileri et al 12282795 - (D) SMITH 103 Pearne & Gordon LLP SCHIFFMAN, BENJAMIN A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Turpin et al 10762866 - (D) FREDMAN 103 ALG INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC TIMBLIN, ROBERT M

2192 Ex Parte Schumacher 10941725 - (D) DIXON 102/103 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC DAO, THUY CHAN

2198 Ex Parte Denissen 10892273 - (D) DANG 103 Wolff & Samson (ALU) TECKLU, ISAAC TUKU

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Zilliacus et al 10777284 - (D) BROWNE 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. DOAN, DUYEN MY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2848 Ex Parte Locker et al 12263184 - (D) KIMLIN 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES WU, JERRY

2872 Ex Parte Endo et al 11467399 - (D) THOMAS 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. CHWASZ, JADE R

2885 Ex Parte Crowder 11259978 - (D) KIMLIN 102/103 Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC LEE, JONG SUK

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Peltola et al 10568792 - (D) ASTORINO 103 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP CERNOCH, STEVEN MICHAEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Murthy et al 11184301 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE VO, TRUONG V

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Moloudi 11005837 - (D) NAPPI 103 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. MILORD, MARCEAU

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Herwig et al 11834773 - (D) WARREN 103 103 NCR Corporation VO, TUYEN KIM

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Bayer et al 11478004 - (D) KIMLIN 103 CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION ALANKO, ANITA KAREN

1789 Ex Parte Chen 11742104 - (D) SMITH 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC COLE, ELIZABETH M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Yochai 11726831 - (D) HUME 103 MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC NGUYEN, LOAN T

Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.

SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Electro Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sci., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Further, “although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention,” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005), our reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, “ha[s] repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments." Id.

electromed DONNER 2: 397, 426, 580, 584; 10: 526, 626-29; 15: 43
HARMON 6: 134, 137, 206, 226; 17: 95, 98

Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2111.01
HARMON 6: 25, 270

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258
DONNER 2: 548-50; 11: 227-36
HARMON 6: 37, 52-65, 76, 87, 91, 130, 142, 153, 161, 165, 170, 210, 220, 233-37, 307, 318, 331, 413

2188 Ex Parte Ballard et al 11700604 - (D) DANG 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LO, KENNETH M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Soundararajan 10537890 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Duane Morris LLP (Entropic) MENDOZA, JUNIOR O

2445 Ex Parte Amanuddin et al 10972610 - (D) CALVE 103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC COULTER, KENNETH R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Lue et al 11324495 - (D) KIMLIN 103 112(1) MACRONIX C/O HAYNES BEFFEL & WOLFELD LLP HSIEH, HSIN YI

2833 Ex Parte Sommovigo et al 12325111 - (D) KIMLIN 103 LAWRENCE R. OREMLAND, P.C. TA, THO DAC

2839 Ex Parte TAKAMOTO et al 12755639 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC PATEL, HARSHAD C

2868 Ex Parte Redlich et al 12267187 - (D) KIMLIN 103 ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES LLC VAZQUEZ, ARLEEN M

2872 Ex Parte Kihara et al 11485312 - (D) NAGUMO 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. CHAPEL, DEREK S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Nottingham et al 11065963 - (D) HOELTER 103 112(a)/112(b) PITTS & LAKE P C BERONA, KIMBERLY SUE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Metzger et al 12001910 - (D) SMEGAL 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB BERTHEAUD, PETER JOHN

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2878 Ex parte OY AJAT LTD Patent Owner, Appellant 90011681 6,933,505 10/126,254 RUGGIERO 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON For Third Party Requester: IP & T GROUP LLP GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original GABOR, OTILIA

phillips

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 11581196 - (D)
Ex Parte Dixon FRANKLIN 103 QUARLES & BRADY, LLP MACAULEY, SHERIDAN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 11947201 - (D)
Ex Parte Thomas et al CAPP 112(2)/102/103 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC HOLMES, JUSTIN

While the Examiner may be correct, in principle, that limitations from the specification are not read into the claims, claims must still be interpreted in light of the specification of which they are a part. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258
HARMON 6: 27, 153, 297
DONNER 2: 548-50; 11: 227-36

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 12560786 - (D)
Ex Parte Burke et al PER CURIAM 103 NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER AKRAM, IMRAN

1767 12001830 - (D)
Ex Parte Dorr et al OWENS 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

1793 12499205 - (D)
Ex Parte Johal HASTINGS 103 FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP MORNHINWEG, JEFFREY P

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2824 12000629 - (D)
Ex Parte Mizutani BEST 103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC HUR, JUNG H

2833 11470668 - (D)
Ex Parte Asokan et al KALAN 102/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY FISHMAN, MARIN

2862 11241536 - (D)
Ex Parte Homer et al HASTINGS 101/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY COSIMANO, EDWARD R

2899 11590183 - (D)
Ex Parte Zhai et al BUI 102 FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP KIM, SU C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 09999378 - (D)
Ex Parte Hammann KIM 103/obviousness-type double patenting DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA RINES, ROBERT D

3629 11811229 - (D)
Ex Parte Wagner et al MEDLOCK 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP WILSON, CANDICE D C

CCS, McGuire, Phillips

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Duquette 10683013 - (D) HORNER 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

3721 Ex Parte Woodman et al 11803555 - (D) HORNER 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. GERRITY, STEPHEN FRANCIS

3764 Ex Parte Cassidy et al 11831265 - (D) FITZPATRICK 102/103 SHERRILL LAW OFFICES THANH, LOAN H


3767 Ex Parte Veasey et al 10315163 - (D) PLENZLER 102/103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC GRAY, PHILLIP A

3775 Ex Parte Measamer 11742110 - (D) CALVE 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC SCHAPER, MICHAEL T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2676 Ex Parte Reese et al 10141571 - (D) BENOIT 102/103 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DULANEY, BENJAMIN O

As such, the Specification does not set forth a definition of “a copy-protection template” to limit the claim term. See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Claim terms are properly construed to include limitations not otherwise inherent in the term when the Specification “clearly set[s] forth a definition of the disputed claim term.”). The exemplary embodiment is, however, an informative example of how to practice their invention. Cf. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (explaining that examples in a specification may be used to teach an ordinarily skilled artisan how to practice the invention, rather than intending to limit the claims to the embodiments disclosed in the specification).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Beck et al 11609517 - (D) CALVE 102 102/103 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON P.C. ARCE, MARLON ALEXANDER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Wente et al 11650403 - (D) ASTORINO 112(1)/103 103 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP ALEXANDER, MELANIE P

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Jung 11698804 - (D) DIXON 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. AFOLABI, MARK O

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Zeyher et al 11187785 - (D) DIXON 103 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP KHAN, OMER S

2688 Ex Parte Lee 10865952 - (D) FISHMAN 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP ALUNKAL, THOMAS D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Marshall et al 11536884 - (D) DIXON 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED POOS, JOHN W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Kagan et al 10698148 - (D) GRIMES 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP GRAY, PHILLIP A

3769 Ex Parte Wang et al 12165025 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Covidien LP JIAN, SHIRLEY XUEYING

REHEARING  

GRANTED Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1639 Ex Parte van der Lelie 11925382 - (D) WALSH 102 BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY BOESEN, CHRISTIAN C

See also, In re McGuire, 416 F.2d 1322, 1327-28 (CCPA 1969) (“Appellants argue the century-old status of the references but this argument does not impress us, absent some showing that the art tried and failed to solve some problem notwithstanding its presumed knowledge of the references. For aught that appears, as soon as the need for an inside tubing cutter was perceived it was produced out of the accumulated skill of the art.”).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Lin et al 11398138 - (R) DANG 102 Sony Corp of America - EVS PHANTANA ANGKOOL, DAVID

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Nathans et al 10392849 - (D) TURNER 103 Pay Rent, Build Credit, Inc. MONFELDT, SARAH M