K-2, rowe, catalina

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Keranen 11793028 - (D) GREENHUT 102 INSKEEP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP, INC SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

Although these limitations are set forth in terms of function or use in claim I (Ans. 5), they "tell[] us something about the structural requirements of the [device]." See K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999); accord Rowe v. Dror, 112 F. 3d 473, 479-80 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Clearly, the use of manipulative language does not similarly demonstrate breadth in method claims 17 and 22, as it is well-settled that the novelty of the device used is not dispositive as to the patentability of method claims. See, e.g., Catalina Marketing Int'l. v. Coolsavings.com, 289 F. 3d 801, 809-810 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

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

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02


AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Sivaram et al 13009944 - (D) NAPPI 102 102/103 Siemens Corporation TRAN, BAO G

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Kim et al 12745167 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. LIU, JUNG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Fack et al 11589214 - (D) FREDMAN 103 The Marbury Law Group, PLLC KARPINSKI, LUKE E

1619 Ex Parte Gaucheron et al 12307849 - (D) FREDMAN 103 American Air Liquide, Inc. ALAWADI, SARAH

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1736 Ex Parte JANSEN et al 12974435 - (D) ANKENBRAND 102/103 Albemarle Netherlands B.V. ZIMMER, ANTHONY J

1767 Ex Parte Jennissen 11631231 - (D) KAISER 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC HEINCER, LIAM J

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2143 RAMBUS, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant v. NVIDIA, CORP. Requester (Withdrawn) Ex Parte 6591353 et al 09/561,868 95001169 - (S) EASTHOM 102/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP original RAMBUS INC. ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original NEURAUTER, GEORGE C

catalina, superior industries, hewlett-packard, roberts, paragon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2667 Ex Parte Ohi 12519152 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 Cheng Law Group, PLLC YANG, WEI WEN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3722 Ex Parte Memmolo et al 10575988 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P.C. SINGH, SUNIL K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Vasisht 10740762 - (D) HUME 103 103 NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP MIRZA, ADNAN M

Our reviewing court guides that the patentability of an apparatus claim "depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure." Catalina Marketing Int'l. Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Superior Industries, Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., 553 Fed.Appx. 986, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Rader, J., concurring) which guides:

[A] system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 [] (1875) ("The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.") Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009) [5]

5 Superior Industries is a non-precedential opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, we consider the concurring opinion by former Chief Judge Rader as guiding because it cites precedential authority in support.

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Reynolds 12297327 - (D) ADAMS 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION TUNG, JOYCE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Hansa et al 13130207 - (D) HEANEY 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP TRAN, LIEN THUY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Doyle et al 12828245 - (D) THOMAS 101/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG KIM, HEE SOO

2493 Ex Parte BALLARD 12350881 - (D) BEAMER 103 VERIZON LESNIEWSKI, VICTOR D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Schaepperle et al 12323864 - (D) BARRY 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT KHAN, SUHAIL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Kwit 11365042 - (D) MOHANTY 103 MCAFEE & TAFT CHEN, GEORGE YUNG CHIEH

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Hoyes 11996236 - (D) SMITH 102/103 Diederiks & Whitelaw, PLC IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE

mayne, catalina, superior industries, hewlett-packard, roberts, paragon, texas instruments

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2899 Ex Parte Sonsky 12065622 - (D) TIMM 102 NXP B.V. Intellectual Property and Licensing YEUNG LOPEZ, FEIFEI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Eaton 11145716 - (D) GREEN 102/103 102/103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

This appeal is before us on remand from our reviewing court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In re Eaton, 545 Fed. Appx. 994 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-precedential).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Bowden et al 12036369 - (D) ASTORINO 102 102/103 Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation BATSON, VICTOR D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Schlichting et al 13048966 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such structurally similar zirconia-based coatings would likewise share other similar properties, such as abradability. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Structural relationships often provide the requisite motivation to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds.”).

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) 2144.09 , 2145

1723 Ex Parte Yoshioka 12458537 - (D) HOUSEL 102 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P

1755 Ex Parte Li et al 12100131 - (D) OWENS 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. PILLAY, DEVINA

1766 Ex Parte Sherman et al 11821568 - (D) McKELVEY 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY LOEWE, ROBERT S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Goyal et al 11953652 - (D) ENGELS 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG ZHEN, WEI Y

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Wen et al 12141054 - (D) KAISER 103 NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION MURPHY, CHARLES C

2461 Ex Parte Ross et al 11958272 - (D) DANG 103 BGL/Broadcom CLAWSON, STEPHEN J

Our reviewing court guides the patentability of an apparatus/system claim “depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Superior Industries, Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., 553 Fed. Appx. 986, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Rader, J., concurring):

[A] system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 [] (1875) (“The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.”). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v.Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

...
That is, as discussed above, claim 1 merely requires forming a “controller” intended “for detecting” and “appending” markers to each stream “thereby resulting in a modified” stream. That is, a “modified” stream is provided in a “thereby” clause describing the results of the intended “appending” function to be performed by a “controller” in the claimed “circuit.”

Given the language used, the “thereby” clause is reasonably interpreted to identify the intended result if and when a controller within the claimed circuit performs its intended function of “appending” markers to each elementary stream. Thus, the “thereby” clause at issue is akin to a “whereby” clause that merely states an intended result. Our reviewing court has concluded that “[a] ‘whereby’ clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.” Texas Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we will not read a “modifying” step into the circuit of claim 1.

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

2481 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11843049 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP TOPGYAL, GELEK W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Darby et al 12964962 - (D) FINK 102/103 TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Kosowsky 12832022 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC (1511) YANG, MINCHUL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Luthardt et al 10588335 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 41.50 103 VENABLE LLP MAYE, AYUB A

chu, catalina, rice

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Armstrong et al 11966547 - (D) BARRETT 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. BADAWI, SHERIEF

2167 Ex Parte Hirsch et al 12407779 - (D) SHIANG 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- IBM WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Beck 10447823 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(1)/103 FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP OSMAN BILAL AHME, AFAF

3682 Ex Parte Brown et al 12423282 - (D) HILL 103 Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions Holdings Corp. BROWN, ALVIN L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Viavant 11154867 - (D) MacDONALD 103 KRAGULJAC LAW GROUP, LLC / ORACLE AL HASHEMI, SANA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2415 Ex Parte Drevon et al 10766843 - (D) NEW 103 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (ALU) RUTKOWSKI, JEFFREY M

Our reviewing court has held that the patentability of an apparatus claim "depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure." Catalina Marketing Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). ("It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.")

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02

2424 Ex Parte James et al 11841531 - (D) SHIANG 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. BAIG, SAHAR A

2456 Ex Parte Kilian et al 11321326 - (D) HORVATH 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN SAP/BSTZ NGUYEN, VAN KIM T

2487 Ex Parte Cornett et al 12487405 - (D) MacDONALD 103 HONEYWELL/SLW DIEP, NHON THANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 Ex Parte Wyse 12971805 - (D) JESCHKE 102/103 MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC EBNER, KATY MEYER

3655 Ex Parte Schever 11656153 - (D) HOELTER 102 103 THE GATES CORPORATION CHAU, TERRY C

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Suciu et al 13364798 - (D) JESCHKE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M

In the context of a rejection based on design choice, the relevant issue is not necessarily whether the invention solves a stated problem or problems (nor whether the problems are known or unknown), but rather whether the alleged differences between the invention and the prior art "result in a difference in function or give unexpected results" or whether they are "no more than obvious variations consistent with the principles known in the art." See In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965). ...

Further, Appellants have not set forth any evidence showing unexpected results as compared to the prior art regarding, for example, reduced weight or avoiding discontinuities. Cf. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (reversing an obviousness rejection based on evidence of unexpected results and distinguishing cases affirming rejections in which the parties failed to provide any evidence).

Chu, In re, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 211.05 , 716.02(f) , 1504.20 , 2145 ,

cordis, allen eng'g, catalina, pitney bowes

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1711 Ex Parte Hoppe et al 11828560 - (D) GARRIS 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) CORMIER, DAVID G

1791 Ex Parte Cross et al 11206424 - (D) TIMM 103 Hovey Williams LLP GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte NARAYAN et al 11462577 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. ALAM, SHAHID AL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Baugh 11649872 - (D) HORNER 102/103 BENTON F. BAUGH MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Alicherry et al 11668800 - (D) FISHMAN 103 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP TIV, BACKHEAN

Claim construction is an issue of law that we review de novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The preamble of claim 8 recites “[a] method for use by a secure client associated with a user device” (emphasis added). “Generally,” [the Federal Circuit has] said, “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed.Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, the preamble may be construed as limiting “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed.Cir.2002), quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed.Cir.1999). We conclude that the preamble of claim 1 does give life and meaning to the steps of the claim and will construe “for use by a secure client.”

Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2133.03(e), 2133.03(e)(4)

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2111.02

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1726 Ex Parte SENOO et al 09162992 - (D) PAK 103 K&L Gates LLP DOVE, TRACY MAE

1766 Ex Parte Dessinges et al 12348542 - (D) BEST 102/103 SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION TOSCANO, ALICIA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Sangili et al 11176121 - (D) SMITH 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WANG, VICTOR W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte Yoshihara 10613577 - (D) McKONE 103 TEKTRONIX, INC. WANG, TED M  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Alarcon et al 10428295 - (D) PRATS 103 Becton, Dickinson and Company Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP YANG, NELSON C

catalina, ahlert, knapp

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Kumar et al 10/917,988 ZECHER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent EXAMINER IBRAHIM, MOHAMED

2457 Ex Parte Singerle 10/808,166 GONSALVES 102(b) Authenticatid Corp. EXAMINER RUBIN, BLAKE J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Sandberg et al 10/693,820 McCARTHY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting DEL CHRISTENSEN SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP

3742 Ex Parte Sandberg et al 10/693,840 McCARTHY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting DEL CHRISTENSEN SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Bomers 10/699,968 GONSALVES 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) 103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER KEATON, SHERROD L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte Perez-Cruet 11/408,571 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC EXAMINER HARVEY, JULIANNA NANCY
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3672 Ex Parte 5,894,897 et al 90/010,342 08/708,396 SONG 103(a) MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) Third Party Requester: Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, JIMMY G original EXAMINER BAGNELL, DAVID J
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Colombo et al 10/496,327 GRIMES 103(a) COLLARD & ROE, P.C. EXAMINER AHMED, HASAN SYED

Cf. Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.”).

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . 2111.02

1627 Ex Parte Rennie et al 10/979,498 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CARTER, KENDRA D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Trefethren et al 11/414,101 TIMM 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER OHERN, BRENT T

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Thomas 11/363,234 ZECHER 103(a) SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP EXAMINER WU, YICUN

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Wall et al 12/019,399 STEPHENS 103(a) TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC EXAMINER EDWARDS JR, TIMOTHY

The Examiner may take notice of facts or common knowledge in the art which are capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970). To challenge the Examiner's notice, Appellants must present evidence to the contrary. In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232 (CCPA 1961) (considering challenge to the taking of judicial notice by Trademark Trial and Appeal Board).

Ahlert, In re, 424 F.2d 1088, 165 USPQ 418 (CCPA 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.03

Knapp Monarch Co., In re, 296 F.2d 230, 132 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.03

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Fujii et al 10/410,434 GONSALVES 103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER NORRIS, JEREMY C

2858 Ex Parte Guang et al 10/863,920 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP EXAMINER BOATENG, ALEXIS ASIEDUA

storage tech., allen eng'g, catalina, pitney bowes, symantec, IMS, american medical

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Squibbs et al 11/035,801 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, NAM V

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Schrader et al 10/967,022 KAUFFMAN 103(a) 103(a) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER VALENTI, ANDREA M

Whether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is “determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed.Cir. 2003). While there is no simple test for determining when a preamble limits claim scope, we have set forth some general principles to guide that inquiry. “Generally,” we have said, “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed.Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, the preamble may be construed as limiting “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002), quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A preamble is not regarded as limiting, however, “when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Catalina, 289 F.3d at 809. If the preamble “is reasonably susceptible to being construed to be merely duplicative of the limitations in the body of the claim (and was not clearly added to overcome a [prior art] rejection), we do not construe it to be a separate limitation.” Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288-89 (Fed. Cir. 2008). We have held that the preamble has no separate limiting effect if, for example, “the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434-35 (Fed.Cir. 2000).

Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . 2133.03(e), 2133.03(e)(4)

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . 2111.02

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . .2111.02

IMS Technology Inc. v. Haas Automation Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 54 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . .2181, 2183, 2184
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Dijk et al 11/699,692 McKELVEY 103(a) KRATON POLYMERS U.S. LLC EXAMINER KAUCHER, MARK S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Chane et al 10/306,752 POTHIER 102(e)/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD EXAMINER AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Aikens et al 10/370,640 HUGHES Concurring BLANKENSHIP 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e)/103(a) Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC EXAMINER BURGESS, BARBARA N