suitco surface

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Barroso 11853753 - (D) BUI 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. TAYLOR, JOSHUA D

The broadest-construction rubric does not give the Examiner an unfettered license to ignore or misinterpret claim terms and replace therefore with a different meaning. In re Suitco Surface Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1644 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Suitco Surface, Inc., In re, 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111

2452 Ex Parte Li et al 11117403 - (D) ASTORINO 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE PLC WIDHALM, ANGELA M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Oettinger et al 11505958 - (D) HASTINGS 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED DOAK, JENNIFER L

2881 Ex Parte Bateman et al 12092601 - (D) WILSON 112(6)/103 Waters Technologies Corporation CHANG, HANWAY

2881 Ex Parte Makarov 12296746 - (D) GARRIS 103 THERMO FINNEGAN LLC IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2449 Ex Parte Even et al 11612182 - (D) FETTING 103 103 WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD, BRUCCULLERI L.L.P. WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 Ex Parte Burazin et al 12606268 - (D) KIMLIN 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. SANDERS, JAMES M

1747 Ex Parte Wang et al 11356522 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUSS P.A. ROGERS, MARTIN K.

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Degenaro et al 10665564 - (D) FETTING 102 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC SYED, FARHAN M

2184 Ex Parte Bragagnini et al 10535476 - (D) KUMAR 103 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. ROCHE, JOHN B

2188 Ex Parte Veazey 11554690 - (D) COURTENAY 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY KROFCHECK, MICHAEL C.

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Paxton et al 10640410 - (D) ELLURU 103 BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Drude 11814277 - (D) GAUDETTE 102/103 NXP B.V. KAYES, SEAN PHILLIP

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Ex parte Techtronic Floor Care Technology Ltd. Ex Parte 7,585,344 B2 et al 90012644 - (D) ADAMS 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (TTiFC) 3rd Party MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLING, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. TERRENCE TILL

american academy, bowles, suitco surface

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1621 Ex Parte BAEK et al 11678092 - (D) ADAMS 103 Kile Park Goekjian Reed & McManus PLLC KEYS, ROSALYND ANN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Brown et al 09967553 - (D) SMITH 102 IBM54 KONRAD RAYNES & VICTOR, LLP CHOJNACKI, MELLISSA M

2194 Ex Parte Sreejith 10431771 - (D) BENOIT 102 DOCKET CLERK HOANG, PHUONG N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte McMurry et al 11277201 - (D) ZECHER 102/103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. PHUNG, LUAT

2486 Ex Parte Fernandez et al 09823509 - (D) HUME 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. VO, TUNG T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Karabinis 11036230 - (D) McNAMARA 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC KARIKARI, KWASI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Field 11535092 - (D) GRIMES 103 Bard Biopsy Systems C. R. Bard, Inc. HOLWERDA, KATHLEEN SONNETT

3731 Ex Parte Frion et al 11943289 - (D) WALSH 103 SHAY GLENN LLP MILES, JONATHAN WADE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte King et al 12180262 - (D) GREEN 103 103 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP LOVE, TREVOR M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2188 Ex Parte Steely et al 10760659 - (D) COURTENAY Dissenting HOMERE 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHERY, MARDOCHEE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Hoornaert et al 09789197 - (D) POTHIER 103 103 RATNERPRESTIA SHAW, YIN CHEN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3618 ELESYS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Requester, Cross-Appellant v. AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95001002 6422595 09/639,299 FITZPATRICK 102/103 102/103 BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original SLITERIS, JOSELYNN Y

The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claims in Reexamination: A Standard Making It Easier to Invalidate Patent Claims

CAFC Applies The Wrong Claim Interpretation Standard in Patent Reexamination

“During reexamination, as with original examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant (or, in this case, the patentee), because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.” In re American Academy Of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (appeal from reexamination proceeding).4

Suitco Surface, Inc., In re, 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 2111


American Academy of Science Tech. Center, In re, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2111, 2111.01
...

fn4 We observe that although not pointed out or argued by the Patent Owner in its brief, the ‘595 patent expired in 2010 for failure to pay a maintenance fee. (See Notification of Expiration of Patent Under Reexamination filed Aug. 10, 2010). “[I]n reexaminations proceedings in which the PTO is considering the patentability of claims of an expired patent which are not subject to amendment, a policy of liberal claim construction may properly and should be applied. Such a policy favors a construction of a patent claim that will render it valid, i.e., a narrow construction, over a broad construction that would render it invalid.” Ex parte Bowles, 23 USPQ2d 1015, 1017 (BPAI 1991) (quoting Ex parte Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d 1655, 1656 (BPAI 1986)) (both nonprecedential). However, we decline to apply this policy to the present case. Such policy is premised on an inability to amend the claim, but the policy is not applicable in the present case wherein the Patent Owner had ample opportunity to amend the claims of the ‘595 patent prior to its expiration and the expiration of the ‘595 patent was volitional by the Patent Owner’s intentional failure to pay the required maintenance fee.

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1784 Ex Parte Nakayoshi et al 10598967 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC LAM, CATHY FONG FONG

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Butler et al 11261752 - (D) JEFFERY 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MCCUE, BRITTANY N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Davis et al 10123383 - (D) ARPIN 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. RAMAN, USHA

2432 Ex Parte Alone et al 10898634 - (D) KUMAR 103 LENOVO (US) IP Law LANIER, BENJAMIN E

2448 Ex Parte Brownholtz et al 10894526 - (D) DROESCH 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP WHIPPLE, BRIAN P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Marston 11094851 - (D) FETTING 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP MILLER, ALAN S

3632 Ex Parte Raby 11963828 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 Schramm-Personal-ACT KING, ANITA M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Tsukamoto et al 10730095 - (D) SAINDON 101/102 VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC HU, KANG

3731 Ex Parte Moser et al 11576376 - (D) GREEN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS TANNER, JOCELIN C

suitco surface

REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Mariani et al 11/847,446 KRATZ 103(a) Cabot Corporation/ LAK EXAMINER EMPIE, NATHAN H

In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The broadest-construction rubric coupled with the term “comprising” does not give the PTO an unfetter license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed Invention.” )

1722 Ex Parte Somervell et al 11/111,211 PER CURIAM 102(a)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER CHU, JOHN S Y

1771 Ex Parte David et al 11/275,277 KRATZ 103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER BOYER, RANDY

1781 Ex Parte Zhong et al 11/344,469 PAK 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Waddington 10/349,766 HOMERE 103(a) ACCENTURE CHICAGO 28164 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER ROBERTSON, DAVID

2127 Ex Parte Weinrich et al 11/412,158 HOFF 102(b)/103(a) INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC. , IP DEPARTMENT EXAMINER ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ, CARLOS R

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Keohane et al 10/640,849 POTHIER 112(2)/103(a) Greg Goshorn, P.C. EXAMINER HUSSAIN, TAUQIR

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Kaplan et al 11/125,833 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER SHEDRICK, CHARLES TERRELL

2629 Ex Parte Budd et al 10/764,638 HUGHES 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER LEFKOWITZ, SUMATI
 
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Werder et al 11/414,153 PRATS 102(b)/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER ALTER, ALYSSA MARGO

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2618 Ex Parte 7274926 et al HTC CORP. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. IPCOM GMBH Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,210 10/089,623 TURNER 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) JOHN S. PRATT, ESQ KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER CHAN, RICHARD
 
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Sheridan 10/923,865 COLAIANNI 101/112(1)/112(2) 102(b)/103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2193 Ex Parte Shapiro 11/428,376 HAHN 103(a) obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) LEMAIRE PATENT LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER VU, TUAN A
 
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1623 Ex Parte Berger et al 10/498,946 BONILLA 102(b) Robert M Barrett Attorneys for Applicants Bell Boyd & Lloyd EXAMINER MAIER, LEIGH C

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Ivanov 11/199,620 KATZ 103(a) DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP EXAMINER HORNING, JOEL G

1716 Ex Parte Richardson et al 11/318,122 DELMENDO 102(e)/103(a) MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

1734 Ex Parte Horton et al 11/042,679 COLAIANNI 103(a) AKERMAN SENTERFITT EXAMINER KOSLOW, CAROL M

1765 Ex Parte Yang et al 11/235,624 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Smith et al 11/023,318 HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER PHANTANA ANGKOOL, DAVID

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Dai et al 10/875,970 HUGHES 103(a) EXAMINER NGUYEN, DUSTIN STEVEN M. GREENBERG CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Amir et al 11/349,413 MORGAN 102(e)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER SELLERS, DANIEL R

2614 Ex Parte Hirschburger et al 10/685,280 DILLON 103(a) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD. EXAMINER PAUL, DISLER

2617 Ex Parte Newbury et al 11/263,578 BARRY 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent EXAMINER DANIEL JR, WILLIE J

2617 Ex Parte Chaudhri et al 11/188,435 JEFFERY 103(a) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER PEACHES, RANDY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Nenov et al 10/250,696 CRAWFORD 112(2)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) James W. Hill, M. D. McDermott Will & Emery EXAMINER RAJ, RAJIV J

suitco surface, dunbar, rowe

REVERSED 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Ho et al 10/646,289 JEFFERY Dissenting DANG 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. EXAMINER PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M 

“[W]ith original examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” In re Suitco, No. 2009-1418, 2010 WL 1462294, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2010) (internal quotations and citation omitted). When a claim uses the open-ended term, “comprising,” “this court has instructed that any such construction be consistent with the specification . . . and that the claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at *4 (citations, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted). 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Imura et al 10/697,041 COURTENAY 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER KIM, ANDREW

Invention or discovery is the requirement which constitutes the foundation of the right to obtain a patent . . . unless more ingenuity and skill were required in making or applying the said improvement than are possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there is an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute the essential elements of every invention.

Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 197 (1876) (citing Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248, 267 (1850)) 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Lamont et al 10/491,811 GRIMES 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J 

“Where . . . a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

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

REEXAMINATION 

EXAMINER REVERSED 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte MERITOR LIGHT VEHICLE SYSTEMS 6,273,501 90/008,657 SONG 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY, & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester: Webasto AG EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C