genentech, bond, schriber-schroth, omega

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Greff 10/068,812 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

1612 Ex Parte Torney et al 10/939,206 GRIMES 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER MAEWALL, SNIGDHA
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Von Wendorff 10/491,072 DIXON 112(2)/101/102(b)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER TORRES, JOSEPH D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Mostafa 10/149,639 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) AlbertDhand LLP EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK

2445 Ex Parte Boehme et al 10/024,118 LUCAS 102(e)/102(a)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER COULTER, KENNETH R
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned against unreasonably broad claim construction:
Although the PTO emphasizes that it was required to give all “claims their broadest reasonable construction” particularly with respect to [the] use of the open-ended term “comprising,” see Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“the open-ended term comprising ... means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added”), this court has instructed that any such construction be “consistent with the specification, ... and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The PTO’s construction here, though certainly broad, is unreasonably broad. The broadest construction rubric coupled with the term “comprising” does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. See Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217 (1940).

In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . 2131, 2183, 2184

Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 2111.03, 2138.05, 2163
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Theiler 10/521,931 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Singhal 09/891,913 KIM 103(a) 103(a) Tara Chand Singhal EXAMINER MONFELDT, SARAH M

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Gertzmann et al 11/784,643 McKELVEY 103(a)/provisional double patenting CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2122 Ex Parte Fu 11/342,086 LUCAS 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER GAMI, TEJAL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2471 Ex Parte Reinold et al 09/943,882 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. EXAMINER HYUN, SOON D

See Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (an express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by the negative limitation is required, such as an express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that provides support for the negative limitation).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Abbasi et al 11/005,683 KIM 103(a) SPRINT EXAMINER GORT, ELAINE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Minoguchi et al 10/836,892 SAINDON 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

meitzner, pearson, omega, raytek, CCS, bell atlantic

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Zhong et al 10/811,277 HANLON 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Windl 11/136,629 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER WIENER, ERIC A

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 ELESYS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Requestor, Respondent v. AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,003 6,397,136 MEDLEY 112(2)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Brian Roffe, Esq. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Rickard K. DeMille BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE, GERTRUDE

Argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).

EXAMINER REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 RAYSPAN CORPORATION and Netgear, Inc., Appellant-Reexamination Requester, v. Patent 7,193,562 of RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC., Owner 95/001,078 7,193,562 TORCZON 102/103(a) For the requester: Thomas C. Reynolds, SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER For the owner: Steve Bachmann, CARR & FERRELL LLP For the Commissioner of Patents: Deandra M. Hughes, with Albert J. Gagliardi and Eric S. Keasel, ART UNIT 3992 EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER CHEN, SHIH CHAO

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte English et al 11/818,103 PRATS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

1782 Ex Parte Elder et al 11/344,992 LANE 112(1)/103(a) CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte St. Pierre et al 10/206,932 COURTENAY 103(a) MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP EXAMINER BATURAY, ALICIA

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that an express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by the negative limitation is required, such as an express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that provides support for the negative limitation. Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted):

Beyond the words of the claim, neither the district court nor Raytek has identified any express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation. See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Our independent review of the patent document, see Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2001), reveals no express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by this negative limitation. Accordingly, we must conclude that there is no basis in the patent specification for adding the negative limitation.

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Wong et al 10/519,278 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. EXAMINER MILLER, BRANDON J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/870,375 KIM 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER JOSEPH, TONYA S
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Baeremaecker et al 10/968,130 WALSH 103(a) SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY LLP EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H

NEW

REVERSED

3761 Ex Parte Erspamer et al 10/135,936 McCARTHY 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3774 Ex Parte Lane et al 11/069,457 McCARTHY 103(a) Medtronic CardioVascular EXAMINER GANESAN, SUBA

1726 Ex Parte Ujiie et al 10/399,343 KRATZ 103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER DOVE, TRACY MAE

AFFIRMED

1781 Ex Parte Lundberg et al 11/484,263 OWENS 103(a) Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. EXAMINER CHAWLA, JYOTI

3686 Ex Parte Schoenberg 10/315,514 MOHANTY 103(a) King & Spalding LLP (Trizetto Customer Number) EXAMINER RANGREJ, SHEETAL