datamize, KCJ, abtox, insituform, baldwin graphic

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte San Martin 09/861,314 GONSALVES 103(a) 102(e)/102(b)/103(a) CONLEY ROSE, P.C. EXAMINER JONES, HUGH M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Nottingham et al 11/065,963 CALVE 102(b)/103(a) 112(2) PITTS & LAKE P C EXAMINER BERONA, KIMBERLY SUE

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.”).

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . .2173.05(b)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Leydet et al 11/741,397 WALSH 112(2)/103(a)/102(e) 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER WILLSE, DAVID H

This court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article “a” or “an” in patent parlance carries the meaning of “one or more” in openended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). That “a” or “an” can mean “one or more” is best described as a rule, rather than merely as a presumption or even a convention. The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must “evince[ ] a clear intent” to limit “a” or “an” to “one.” Id. The subsequent use of definite articles “the” or “said” in a claim to refer back to the same claim term does not change the general plural rule, but simply reinvokes that non-singular meaning. An exception to the general rule that “a” or “an” means more than one only arises where the language of the claims themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule. See, e.g., Abtox Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc., 99 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342-1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

The indefinite article “a” or “an” in patent parlance carries the meaning of “one or more” in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” Baldwin Graphic Systems, 512 F.3d at 1342.

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Cowan et al 10/743,848 KOHUT 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R

2197 Ex Parte Falk et al 10/844,985 FRAHM 101/103(a) Kenneth F. Kozik EXAMINER RUTTEN, JAMES D

Because the data structure is not limited to being associated with the structured data object or the structured content model representation (i.e., “a data object” lacks antecedent basis linking it to either the structured data object or the structured content model representation), the claimed structured data object also imparts no functionality and is not embodied in a tangible computer readable medium. See Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).

datamize, solomon, miyazaki

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1625 Ex Parte Banholzer et al 10/977,753 WALSH concurring FREDMAN 103(a) MICHAEL P. MORRIS BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA CORPORATION EXAMINER DESAI, RITA J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Hayami et al 10/864,538 COLAIANNI 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Banerjee et al 10/640,847 BISK 102(e) Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Borchard 10/423,395 HAHN 103(a) Christie Parker & Hale LLP EXAMINER ALLEN, STEPHONE B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Adifon et al 10/520,756 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Giobbi 10/630,141 KAUFFMAN 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER YOO, JASSON H

3723 Ex Parte Ashfield 10/674,852 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP EXAMINER ELEY, TIMOTHY V

3731 Ex Parte Palumbo et al 11/157,833 McCOLLUM 102(e) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER LANG, AMY T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Deckman et al 11/880,207 COLAIANNI 103(a) 103(a) ExxonMobile Research and Engineering Company EXAMINER GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN

1767 Ex Parte Hong et al 11/761,332 GAUDETTE 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting 102(b)/103(a) Kilyk & Bowersox, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2197 Ex Parte Ireland 10/709,917 COURTENAY 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. EXAMINER WANG, RONGFA PHILIP

The Federal Circuit Court has held in post-issuance patent infringement cases that the definiteness requirement “does not compel absolute clarity” and “only claims ‘not amenable to construction’ or ‘insolubly ambiguous’ are indefinite.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). The claim as a whole must be considered to determine whether it apprises one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and therefore serves the notice function required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph by providing clear warning to others as to what constitutes the infringement of the patent. Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(emphasis added).

Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 55 USPQ2d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2172
However, when a patent application is pending before the USPTO, “if 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).

Thus, a claim that is not indefinite under the Federal Circuit Court’s “insolubly ambiguous” standard (as applied to issued patent claims), may be considered indefinite under the USPTO Miyazaki standard of review that employs a lower threshold of ambiguity for pending patent application claims.

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Miyazaki 10/255,626 DANG 103(a) 102(e)/103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER SERRAO, RANODHI N

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Kenoyer et al 10/105,752 THOMAS 103(a) 103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR

2617 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/514,311 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 103(a) Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC EXAMINER SAMS, MATTHEW C

2625 Ex Parte Morovic 11/256,947 JEFFERY 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CAMMACK, DAVID S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Cassoni 10/815,202 McCARTHY 103(a) 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER YEAGLEY, DANIEL S

3665 Ex Parte Lazarz et al 11/091,996 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHUONG P

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Stemmle 11/187,384 SPAHN 102(b) 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER TRUONG, THANH K

3724 Ex Parte Walker et al 11/375,661 LEE 103(a) 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER MICHALSKI, SEAN M

3765 Ex Parte Powell et al 11/070,582 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS PC EXAMINER QUINN, RICHALE LEE

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Bossidan et al 10/575,293 COLAIANNI 112(1) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RODEE, CHRISTOPHER D

1742 Ex Parte Brown Ex parte THE BOEING COMPANY Appellant 11/314,475 SCHAFER 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER HAUTH, GALEN H

1745 Ex Parte Stevens et al 10/838,108 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) Becton, Dickinson and Company EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R

1771 Ex Parte Lloyd et al 10/738,078 FRANKLIN 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER MCAVOY, ELLEN M

1787 Ex Parte Church et al 11/956,672 FRANKLIN 103(a) WHYTE HIRSCHBOECK DUDEK S C EXAMINER CHEN, VIVIAN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Rosenthal et al 10/289,662 HUGHES 101/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SAXENA, AKASH

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Braun 09/940,616 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER POPE, DARYL C

2612 Ex Parte Breed et al 11/502,039 RUGGIERO 103(a) BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ EXAMINER LABBEES, EDNY

2612 Ex Parte Lax 12/237,623 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER YACOB, SISAY

2617 Ex Parte Bednasz 10/829,637 FRAHM 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER CUMMING, WILLIAM D

2617 Ex Parte Leung 11/156,097 PER CURIAM 102(e) KAM LUNG LEUNG EXAMINER CHO, UN C

2618 Ex Parte Nurminen et al 11/054,048 KOHUT 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER PAN, YUWEN

2627 Ex Parte Adelmann 11/702,721 JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SIMPSON, LIXI CHOW

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Iyer et al 11/327,930 HAHN 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER BLUM, DAVID S

2817 Ex Parte Pfeiffer et al 11/619,765 JEFFERY 103(a) Frank V. DeRosa, Esq. F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON, RYAN

2837 Ex Parte Elliott et al 10/154,038 RUGGIERO 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER BENSON, WALTER

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Tucker 12/180,269 SPAHN 112(1)/103(a) The Affordable Patent Service EXAMINER ROHRHOFF, DANIEL J

3652 Ex Parte Hoe et al 10/184,233 HORNER 103(a) FELLRS, SNIDER, BLANKENSHIP, BAILEY & TIPPENS, P.C EXAMINER UNDERWOOD, DONALD W

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Hertweck et al 11/595,544 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER MILES, JONATHAN WADE

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1723 Ex Parte 6979117 et al Vita-Mix Corporation Requester v. K-TEC, Inc. Patent Owner 95/000,228, 90/009,113, 90/008,814 ROBERTSON 102(e)/103(a) HOLLAND & HART EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER COOLEY, CHARLES E

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Blanton et al 11/593,762 POTHIER 103(a) WARN PARTNERS, P.C. EXAMINER HUYNH, KIM T

all dental, orthokinetics, datamize, cohn, johnson, gardner, miller, borkowski

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Gale 11/841,789 McCOLLUM Concurring ADAMS 103(a) Samuel E.Webb STOEL ROVES LLP EXAMINER GULLEDGE, BRIAN M

1615 Ex Parte Koenig et al 10/836,449 ADAMS 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER MERCIER, MELISSA S

1634 Ex Parte Barrett et al 11/400,481 ADAMS 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER BHAT, NARAYAN KAMESHWAR

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Oommen 10/890,340 DIXON 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER VU, VIET DUY

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Ramachandran et al 10/696,626 FRAHM 103(a) Smith Risley Tempel Santos LLC EXAMINER WONG, LINDA

2624 Ex Parte Hasegawa 11/260,276 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER RAHMJOO, MANUCHER

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Yuan 11/099,460 RUGGIERO 103(a) POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC EXAMINER LUU, AN T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Nusbaum et al 11/103,884 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) PLUMSEA LAW GROUP, LLC EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA

3761 Ex Parte Jensen 11/049,047 O’NEILL 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CRAIG, PAULA L

3773 Ex Parte Eidenschink et al 11/221,559 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER OU, JING RUI

3784 Ex Parte Fry 11/049,391 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) Warren C. Fry EXAMINER RAHIM, AZIM

The primary purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure that the claims are written in such a way that they give notice to the public of the extent of the legal protection afforded by the patent, so that interested members of the public, e.g., competitors of the patent owner, can determine whether or not they infringe. All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., Inc., 309 F.3d 774, 779-80 (Fed. Cir. 2002). If the language of a claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.”). In addition, if the claims are inherently inconsistent with the description, definitions, and examples appearing in the specification, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is likewise appropriate. In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993 (CCPA 1971).

Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . 2173.02, 2173.05(b)Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . 2173.05(b)Cohn, In re, 438 F.2d 984, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Akers 11/626,473 BAHR 112(2)/103(a) BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC EXAMINER PALABRICA, RICARDO J

Nevertheless, as correctly pointed out by Appellant on page 16 of the Appeal Brief, merely that a claim is broad does not mean that it is necessarily indefinite. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17 (CCPA 1977); In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970).

Johnson, In re, 558 F.2d 1008, 194 USPQ 187 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.08, 2173.05(i)

Miller, In re, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.04
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1761 LEPRINO FOODS CO. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of LAND O’ LAKES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,003 90/006,317 6,319,526 LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: TOWNSEND & TOWNSEND & CREW, LLP EXAMINER KUNZ, GARY L original EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

To establish an actual reduction of practice, the patent owner has the burden of demonstrating that the method reduced to practice includes all the elements of the claimed method (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 715.07 & 2185.05, Eighth Edition (August 2001), revised July 2010). See also In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718-19 (CCPA 1974).

Borkowski, In re, 505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.07
REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2132 Ex parte TSE Ho Keung Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,772 6,665,797 TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: HO KEUNG TSE THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOESTER LLP EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original EXAMINER BARRON JR, GILBERTO

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Perricone et al 11/506,137 MILLS dissenting-in-part McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER
ARNOLD, ERNST V

1615 Ex Parte Moore et al 11/287,653 ADAMS 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER TRAN, SUSAN T

1616 Ex Parte Hovey et al 10/768,194 WALSH 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER HOLT, ANDRIAE M

1617 Ex Parte Bruins et al 10/535,108 ADAMS 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER SOROUSH, ALI

1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 10/925,904 GREEN 101/102(b) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER LIN, JERRY

1651 Ex Parte Poo et al 10/410,954 MILLS 112(1)/103(a) Gregory A. Nelson Novak Druce & Quigg LLP EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K

1655 Ex Parte Malnoe et al 10/607,330 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, DEBORAH A

1655 Ex Parte Nagasawa 11/234,222 NAGUMO 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, DEBORAH A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Ludewig et al 11/512,487 WALSH 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LOEWE, ROBERT S

1796 Ex Parte Dvorchak et al 12/117,827 WALSH 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Lee et al 10/245,229 DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Yarbrough 11/211,012 KIM 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DA) EXAMINER KHATTAR, RAJESH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Dosmann 10/367,690 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

3753 Ex Parte Watts et al 10/775,033 LEE 102/103(a) PAMELA A. KACHUR EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C
REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Mehlhorn 10/759,222 WALSH 103(a) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER WEDDINGTON, KEVIN E

DENIED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Rees 10/722,648 PATE III 103(a) PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J

NEW

REVERSED

3754 Ex Parte McBroom et al 11/228,000 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER JACYNA, J CASIMER

3637 Ex Parte Schneider 11/656,730 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP EXAMINER RODDEN, JOSHUA E

3694 Ex Parte Usher et al 09/858,844 FETTING 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) INNOVATION DIVISION CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. EXAMINER APPLE, KIRSTEN SACHWITZ

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3745 Ex Parte Hetherington et al 11/355,032 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER LOPEZ, FRANK D

3774 Ex Parte Malaviya et al 10/195,794 GRIMES 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

2477 Ex Parte Moore et al 10/404,113 FRAHM 102(e)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER PHUNKULH, BOB A

AFFIRMED

2456 Ex Parte Barrett 10/887,971 ZECHER 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER FAN, HUA

3754 Ex Parte Johnston 11/374,563 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Scott E. Johnston EXAMINER
HOOK, JAMES F

2889 Ex Parte Seichter et al 10/771,378 HAHN 102(e)/103(a)/112(1) Viering, Jentschura & Partner - OSR EXAMINER QUARTERMAN, KEVIN J

3775 Ex Parte Sengun et al 10/905,351 SAINDON 103(a) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER WOODALL, NICHOLAS W

REHEARING

DENIED

3762 Ex Parte Harris et al 10/773,121 PATE III 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. EXAMINER ALTER, ALYSSA MARGO