oetiker, unique concepts, texas instruments, paulsen, intellicall

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Baumann et al 09/819,462 KIM 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER MILEF, ELDA G

See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (during examination, the examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness); Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). ... See Texas Instr. Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (claim language cannot be mere surplusage. An express limitation cannot be read out of the claim); Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d at 1563.

Oetiker, In re, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .707.07(f), 716.01(d), 1504.01(a), 2106, 2107.02, 2142, 2145, 2164.07

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . 716.04
3694 Ex Parte Zhang 09/895,690 KIM 112(1)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MERCHANT, SHAHID R

See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” and, if done, must “set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).

Paulsen, In re, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . .716.03, 2106, 2144.08

Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 21 USPQ2d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1992). . . . . . . .2111.01, 2181
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 Ex Parte Bendall et al 10/768,761 ZECHER 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) MARJAMA MULDOON BLASIAK & SULLIVAN LLP EXAMINER SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART REVERSED-IN-PART 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3735 ABBOTT DIABETES CARE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of DEXCOM, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,038 7,276,029 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner: MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Third-Party Requester: JACKSON & CO., LLP EXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSEN & BEAR, LLP original EXAMINER MALLARI, PATRICIA C

AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Scarpelli et al 10/873,870 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER LIE, ANGELA M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2492 Ex Parte Joglekar et al 11/292,770 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) Caven & Aghevli LLC c/o CPA Global EXAMINER CHEA, PHILIP J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Borrego Bel et al 10/707,922 FRAHM 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION EXAMINER PARRIES, DRU M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Ampunan et al 11/062,404 HOELTER 103(a) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER MUSTAFA, IMRAN K

3685 Ex Parte Drummond et al 10/980,209 KIM 103(a) RALPH E. JOCKE Walker & Jocke EXAMINER KIM, STEVEN S

NEW

AFFIRMED

2165 Ex Parte Tang et al 10/705,932 BLANKENSHIP 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HICKS, MICHAEL J

3652 Ex Parte Wright et al 10/611,167 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER ADAMS, GREGORY W

capon, vaidyanathan, belkin

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Skraly 10/661,939 FREDMAN 112(1) Pabst Patent Group LLP EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, IQBAL HOSSAIN

“It is not necessary that every permutation within a generally operable invention be effective in order for an inventor to obtain a generic claim, provided that the effect is sufficiently demonstrated to characterize a generic invention.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 76 USPQ2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . .2163
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Kreyenschmidt et al 10/512,081 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER COONEY, JOHN M

see also, In re Vaidyanathan, 381 Fed.Appx. 985, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (nonprecedential) (“KSR did not free the PTO’s examination process from explaining its reasoning. In making an obviousness rejection, the examiner should not rely on conclusory statements that a particular feature of the invention would have been obvious or was well known. Instead, the examiner should elaborate, discussing the evidence or reasoning that leads the examiner to such a conclusion.”).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Genske et al 09/847,811 MacDONALD 102(e)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M

2467 Ex Parte Davis et al 11/962,558 MacDONALD 112(1)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2)/101 Driggs, Hogg, Daugherty & Del Zoppo Co., L.P.A. EXAMINER SCHEIBEL, ROBERT C

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2863 ABBOTT DIABETES CARE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of DEXCOM, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95/001,039 6,931,327 ROBERTSON 102(e)/103(a) Patent Owner: MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Third-Party Requester: JACKSON & CO., LLP EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original EXAMINER NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

In Belkin International, Inc. et al v. Optimumpath, LLC, an expanded panel recently considered whether the Board has jurisdiction to decide SNQ matters in the context of inter partes reexamination. ... In essence, Belkin held that an SNQ attaches to a particular rejection. Accordingly, the determination that an SNQ exists with respect to a particular rejection does not necessarily permit a third party requestor to pursue proposed rejections not found to raise an SNQ outside of the attached rejection, regardless of whether or not the additional rejections are directed to the same claims. Appeal 2011-003697 (BPAI March 29, 2011) (Reexamination Control 95/001,089, Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent 7,035,281 B1, Panel expanded for consideration of substantial new question of patentability jurisdictional issue).

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Gaudiana et al 11/302,634 OWENS obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER TAI, XIUYU

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Kwon et al 11/163,313 NAPPI 102(e) LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU EXAMINER MANDALA, VICTOR A

2893 Ex Parte Bhattacharya et al 10/195,527 NAPPI 102(e) STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Bogl 10/517,711 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER MCDONALD, SHANTESE L
REHEARING

GRANTED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Kajita 11/237,909 NAPPI 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER ALMO, KHAREEM E

NEW

REVERSED

1717 Ex Parte Skszek et al 11/140,752 OWENS 103(a)/112(1) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PADGETT, MARIANNE L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3751 Ex Parte Harris 11/000,121 TIERNEY 103(a)/112(1) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

AFFIRMED

1781 Ex Parte Chou et al 11/375,675 FREDMAN 103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

3782 Ex Parte Schneider 10/154,221 GARRIS 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP EXAMINER PASCUA, JES F

crown packaging, budde, cardiac pacemakers, med. instrumentation, b. braun

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Zeng et al 11/347,003 GAUDETTE 112(1) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

cf. Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., 98 USPQ2d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]hile Ball is correct in noting that the embodiment drawings in the specification all show chuck drive outside the reinforcing bead, that does not compel the conclusion that the written description is so narrowly tailored as to preclude Crown from claiming an embodiment that only utilizes the angled chuck wall solution.”).

1736 Ex Parte Elwart et al 10/767,339 GAUDETTE 103(a) ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE, LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, EDWARD M

1742 Ex Parte Boucherie 10/530,351 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER HUSON, MONICA ANNE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Brummel et al 09/950,242 PETRAVICK 102(e) Epic c/o Boyle Fredrickson S.C. EXAMINER MORGAN, ROBERT W

3691 Ex Parte Carroll et al 10/680,020 LORIN 102(b)/103(a) Mr. Christopher John Rourk Jackson Walker LLP EXAMINER CAMPEN, KELLY SCAGGS
Construing means-plusfunction claim language in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, is a two-step process.

The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation. Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed.Cir.2001). “The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.” Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed.Cir.2002). . . . The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function. “Under this second step, ‘structure disclosed in the specification is “corresponding” structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.’ ” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed.Cir.2003) (quoting B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997)).

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 58 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . 2181, 2182

Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 63 USPQ2d 1725 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . .2181, 2182

Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 68 USPQ2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . 2181, 2182

B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419, 43 USPQ2d 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . 2163, 2181, 2182Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Yao et al 11/375,966 NAPPI 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER KLIMOWICZ, WILLIAM JOSEPH

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2743 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, L.P. Appellant 90/008,229, 90/010,044 and 90/010,130 5,974,120 BOALICK 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: REENA KUYPER, ESQ. BYARD NILSSON, ESQ. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTERS: NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG LLP WELSH & FLAXMAN, LLC EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Allawi et al 11/266,723 McCOLLUM 103(a) Casimir Jones, S.C. EXAMINER
WOOLWINE, SAMUEL C

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1747 Ex Parte Laskoski et al 11/851,411 PRATS 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER SHEH, ANTHONY H

1764 Ex Parte Laskoski et al 11/850,854 PRATS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER PAK, HANNAH J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Baek 10/970,517 LUCAS 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER CHAU, DUNG K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Lo et al 09/961,879 LUCAS 103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Naghshineh et al 10/097,828 LORIN 112(2)/103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

3686 Ex Parte Gortler et al 11/064,743 DESHPANDE 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER LE, LINH GIANG

NEW

REVERSED
1765 Ex Parte Pelliconi 10/551,679 GAUDETTE 102(e) DILWORTH IP, LLC EXAMINER NUTTER, NATHAN M
1778 Ex Parte Patil et al 11/339,106 103(a) GAUDETTE Gregory N. Clements Clements Walker EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O
2816 Ex Parte Welty 11/382,995 NAPPI 102(b) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER ALMO, KHAREEM E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1798 Ex Parte Bunyard et al 11/413,446 GARRIS 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEELE, JENNIFER A

2611 Ex Parte Agazzi 10/282,447 NAPPI 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER HA, DAC V

AFFIRMED
1622 Ex Parte Telschow 10/534,156 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER LOEWE, SUN JAE Y

1761 Ex Parte Kalyanasundaram et al 11/013,872 GAUDETTE 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER KOPEC, MARK T

1776 Ex Parte Cadours et al 11/014,788 GAUDETTE 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER
WU, IVES J

3744 Ex Parte Buckley et al 11/564,895 CHEN 102(b)/103(a) HITT GAINES P.C. EXAMINER ROGERS, LAKIYA G

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Gorte et al 10/053,085 HANLON 103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP EXAMINER WANG, EUGENIA

1745 Ex Parte Yamamoto et al 10/705,228 PAK 103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL

1746 Ex Parte Byrne 11/473,555 OWENS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER AFTERGUT, JEFF H

1762 Ex Parte Koepnick et al 11/384,184 WALSH 103(a) HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER NGUYEN, VU ANH

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/016,203 HUGHES 102(b) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER LE, THU NGUYET T

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Lemma et al 10/509,414 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER LAFORGIA, CHRISTIAN A

2444 Ex Parte Hetzel et al 10/406,983 MacDONALD 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Italia et al 10/801,309 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) General Motors Corporation EXAMINER HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Siess et al 10/549,385 STAICOVICI 103(a) FULWIDER PATTON LLP EXAMINER VU, QUYNH-NHU HOANG

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Schultes et al 10/539,132 COLAIANNI 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P

1786 Ex Parte Ricciardelli et al 10/815,944 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. EXAMINER THOMPSON, CAMIE S

1796 Ex Parte Cink et al 10/593,111 WALSH 103(a) Gary C. Cohn, PLLC EXAMINER NEGRELLI, KARA B

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Cucerzan 11/094,078 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a)/101 WESTMAN CHAMPLIN (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER BULLOCK, JOSHUA

2168 Ex Parte Dietz et al 10/713,726 STEPHENS 101/102(b) J. B. Kraft EXAMINER SANDERS, AARON J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Alfonso et al 11/692,515 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC EXAMINER TRUONG, THANH K

3724 Ex Parte Szczepanowski et al 10/956,752 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER LEE, LAURA MICHELLE

REEXAMINATION

REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3736 Ex parte Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/007,910 6,175,752 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: PENG CHEN MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original EXAMINER ASTORINO, MICHAEL C

REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3736 Ex parte Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Patent Owner and Appellant 90/007,903 6,565,509 ROBERTSON 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: PENG CHEN MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original EXAMINER NATNITHITHADHA, NAVIN

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1638 OPQA Ex Parte Malvar et al 11/057,069 WALSH nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting 112(1)/103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER MEHTA, ASHWIN D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Luten et al 11/007,583 KRATZ 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P

1722 Ex Parte Xu et al 10/967,740 COLAIANNI 103(a) MOLECULAR IMPRINTS EXAMINER JOHNSON, CONNIE P

1731 Ex Parte Watanabe et al 11/594,829 SMITH 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER ABU ALI, SHUANGYI

1765 Ex Parte Haas et al 11/352,549 COLAIANNI 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

1783 Ex Parte Hingst et al 11/800,505 COLAIANNI 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER MILLER, DANIEL H

1784 Ex Parte Takayama et al 11/042,187 COLAIANNI 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER SAVAGE, JASON L

1785 Ex Parte Zhou et al 11/122,543 COLAIANNI 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HIGGINS, GERARD T

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Cheng et al 11/232,768 POTHIER 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION (SWP) C/O SUITER SWANTZ PC LLO EXAMINER KUDDUS, DANIEL A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Ferman et al 09/952,921 NAPPI 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q

2432 Ex Parte Porcari et al 10/441,941 DANG 102(e)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL EXAMINER DINH, MINH

2442 Ex Parte Marce et al 09/969,579 DANG 102(e)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Bogner et al 10/529,675 KOHUT 102(e)/103(a) COHEN, PONTANI, LIEBERMAN & PAVANE LLP EXAMINER NEGRON, ISMAEL

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Luu et al 11/297,201 WALSH 112(2)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting Georgia-Pacific LLC EXAMINER FISHER, ABIGAIL L

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Uhrlandt et al 10/516,308 SMITH 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER QIAN, YUN

1792 Ex Parte Ettinger et al 11/298,555 KRATZ 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting DUGAN & DUGAN, PC EXAMINER PATEL, RITA RAMESH

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Torabi 10/386,530 HOFF 103(a) FAY SHARPE/LUCENT EXAMINER BATURAY, ALICIA

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Freeman 10/574,185 KRIVAK 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER MEHMOOD, JENNIFER

2629 Ex Parte Stromberg 10/312,959 FRAHM 112(1)/103(a) RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP EXAMINER PHAM, TAMMY T

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2858 Ex Parte Al-Anbuky et al 10/477,534 BAUMEISTER 102(b)/103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER BERHANU, SAMUEL

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Royall et al 10/428,097 LORIN 102(e)/103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP - DC EXAMINER CASLER, TRACI

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Sterchi et al 10/821,269 ASTORINO 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER SUHOL, DMITRY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1723 Ex Parte Ploeg et al 11/609,732 SMITH 102(b)/102(e) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER AKRAM, IMRAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3747 Ex Parte Crary 11/972,927 BROWN 102(e)/103(a) REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER BACON, ANTHONY L

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

2837 CLUB CAR, INC. Respondent v. TEXTRON INNOVATIONS INC. Patent Owner, Appellant
95/001,278 7,332,881 EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffee, LLP Third Party Requester: Michael Best & Friedrick, LLP EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER LEYKIN, RITA

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2608 Ex parte TracFone Wireless, Inc. Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,064 5,577,100 TURNER 112(1)/102(b)/102(e) PATENT OWNER: GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP (LA) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFERY L. CAMERON BROOKS & CAMERON, PLLC EXAMINER WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS original EXAMINER MAUNG, NAY AUNG

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1627 Ex Parte Grassetti et al 10/044,463 MILLS 102(b)/103(a) QUINE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, P.C. EXAMINER WANG, SHENGJUN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Miller et al 11/431,486 GARRIS 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER ORLANDO, MICHAEL N

1782 Ex Parte Holloway 11/293,225 WARREN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER DYE, RENA

1782 Ex Parte Kazich 10/800,225 NAGUMO 112(1)/103(a) PATENTS+TMS, P.C. EXAMINER DYE, RENA

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Ure 11/145,713 EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) Michael J. Ure EXAMINER CHBOUKI, TAREK

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Keohane et al 10/611,021 DIXON 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) International Business Machines Corporation EXAMINER BOUTAH, ALINA A

2444 Ex Parte Peer 10/449,283 MacDONALD 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Bejerano et al 11/026,904 HAHN 103(a) CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC EXAMINER TAYLOR, BARRY W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Jo 10/029,240 FISCHETTI 102(e)/103(a) KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP EXAMINER FISCHER, ANDREW J

3662 Ex Parte Leach et al 10/950,209 TIERNEY 103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC EXAMINER BARKER, MATTHEW M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3761 Ex Parte Yang et al 11/011,716 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

REHEARING

DENIED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2421 Ex Parte Stuckman et al 10/313,998 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - Roebuck EXAMINER SCHNURR, JOHN R

VACATED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Merten et al 11/281,259 TIERNEY 102(e)/103(a) Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP EXAMINER SPISICH, MARK

Phillips, gulack, diamond1, ngai, lowry, cruciferous, MEHL

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Pacetti et al 11/487,059 GRIMES 103(a) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER GULLEDGE, BRIAN M
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Leistra et al 10/698,659 KRATZ 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. EXAMINER LIGHTFOOT, ELENA TSOY
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Gernold 10/784,196 MacDONALD 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Keohane et al 10/406,651 MacDONALD 103(a) DILLON & YUDELL LLP EXAMINER BATURAY, ALICIA

While a general-usage dictionary can be helpful in understanding claim language, a general dictionary “cannot overcome art-specific evidence of the meaning of a claim term.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

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

2471 Ex Parte Barron 10/401,236 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HYUN, SOON D
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Cheung et al 10/893,216 SAADAT 103(a) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. EXAMINER PATEL, NIMESH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Gass 10/944,535 TIMM 112(1)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. EXAMINER MCCLELLAND, KIMBERLY KEIL
2600 Communications
2624 Ex Parte Barbour 11/045,703 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLP EXAMINER WOLDEMARIAM, AKILILU K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Booth et al 11/250,043 KOHUT 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER KIM, SU C

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Bruck 10/912,302 GRIMES 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, TU MINH

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Hamamjy et al 11/114,261 OWENS 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH

1767 Ex Parte Haider et al 11/315,667 GRIMES 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER RIOJA, MELISSA A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Barghouthi 11/186,600 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S

2175 Ex Parte Balinsky et al 11/190,436 DANG 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ORR, HENRY W

2186 Ex Parte Xu et al 11/224,418 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP (MICROSOFT) EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R
2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Cross et al 11/154,897 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. EXAMINER SERROU, ABDELALI

The subject matter presented in claim 1 on appeal relates to features that differ from the prior art solely on the basis of “non-functional descriptive material,” which is generally not given patentable weight when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The PTO may not disregard claim limitations comprised of printed matter. See id. at 1384; see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981). However, the Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed Cir. 1994).

Gulack, In re, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01, 2112.01

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981) . . 2106, 2106.01, 2106.02, 2107.01

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01Lowry, In re, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106.01
2629 Ex Parte Goodwin et al 11/122,610 RUGGIERO 103(a) IBM CORPORATION (RVW) EXAMINER CHOW, YUK

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Viswanathan 11/400,850 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER NGUYEN, HAI L

REHEARING

GRANTED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Gass 10/984,643 PATE III 103(a) SD3, LLC EXAMINER ALIE, GHASSEM

In order for the Examiner to show that a claim limitation is inherent in the prior art, the Examiner must establish that the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with or includes the claim limitation. See In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). “Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” Id. (quoting MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).

Cruciferous Sprout Litig., In re, 301 F.3d 1343, 64 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . 2111.02

lantech, robertson

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Kim 11/207,126 PRATS 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HUGH MCTAVISH MCTAVISH PATENT FIRM EXAMINER ORWIG, KEVIN S

As stated in TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2001):
The written description requirement and its corollary, the new matter prohibition of 35 U.S.C. § 132, both serve to ensure that the patent applicant was in full possession of the claimed subject matter on the application filing date. When the applicant adds a claim or otherwise amends his specification after the original filing date . . ., the new claims or other added material must find support in the original specification.
...We acknowledge that it is improper to base an obviousness rejection on an unknown inherent property present in the prior art. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“'That which may be inherent is not necessarily known. Obviousness cannot be predicated on what is unknown.' Such a retrospective view of inherency is not a substitute for some teaching or suggestion supporting an obviousness rejection.”) (quoting In re Spormann, 363 F.2d 444, 448 (CCPA 1966)).

Rijckaert, In re, 9 F.3d 1531, 28 USPQ2d 1955 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . .2112, 2141.02, 2144.08
1625 Ex Parte Singh et al 10/931,481 McCOLLUM 112(1) McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP EXAMINER SEAMAN, D MARGARET M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex Parte Hutter et al 10/474,022 MORGAN 102(e)/103(a) Joseph S Tripoli Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc EXAMINER PARK, ILWOO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Trampuz et al 11/083,196 GRIMES 103(a) MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. EXAMINER MACAULEY, SHERIDAN R
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Selwyn et al 11/317,374 WALSH 103(a) COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC EXAMINER HAMMER, KATIE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Rummel et al 11/007,634 KERINS 102(b)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER NDUBIZU, CHUKA CLEMENT

See Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Mach. Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in infringement context, a single conveyor held to not meet claim element requiring at least two conveyors); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 746 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim requiring three separate means not anticipated by structure containing two means where one of the two means was argued to meet two of the three claimed means).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Vargo et al 10/291,279 NAGUMO 103(a) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY EXAMINER KNABLE, GEOFFREY L

1786 Ex Parte Schmidt et al 11/347,406 OWENS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Weissman et al 10/689,903 STEPHENS 101/102(e) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. EXAMINER SHECHTMAN, CHERYL MARIA

2162 Ex Parte Baek et al 10/973,959 DANG 101/103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER KERZHNER, ALEKSANDR

2186 Ex Parte Bellows et al 11/008,768 COURTENAY 103(a) Leslie Payne IBM Corporation EXAMINER CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/281,056 HOMERE 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - HFZ EXAMINER HIGA, BRENDAN Y

danly, haas, desilva, young2, sneed

REVERSED

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Smith et al 10/891,883 SAADAT 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER THIER, MICHAEL
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Sperry et al 10/979,583 STAICOVICI 103(a) Sealed Air Corporation EXAMINER PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Piepgras et al 11/419,660 SAADAT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Philips Intellectual Property and Standards EXAMINER PAYNE, SHARON E
The Examiner, citing MPEP § 2114, found that the phrase “to provide the at least one control signal to the at least one lighting unit” is functional language not entitled to patentable weight as it merely describes an intended use of the apparatus (Ans. 5, 23-24). Appellants contend that “a conductor ‘provid[ing] the at least one control signal’ claims what a conductor is, not what a conductor does” (Reply Br. 13 (brackets in original); see also App. Br. 14). ... We find that this distinction between the conductors for the power and the control signal is a structural distinction that must be given patentable weight, see In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847 (CCPA 1959).

Danly, In re, 263 F.2d 844, 120 USPQ 528 (CCPA 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2114

AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Hakiel et al 10/667,581 DANG 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BELANI, KISHIN G
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Nordstrand 10/302,564 BARRETT 103(a) MERCHANT & GOULD PC EXAMINER KATCHEVES, BASIL S
3684 Ex Parte Campbell et al 10/237,424 LORIN 102(b) TIMOTHY P. O'HAGAN EXAMINER VIZVARY, GERALD C
Cf. Ernst Haas Studio, Inc. v. Palm Press, Inc., 164 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Appellant's Brief is at best an invitation to the court to scour the record, research any legal theory that comes to mind, and serve generally as an advocate for appellant. We decline the invitation."); DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[An appeal] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”)
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Gauthier et al 11/415,333 COCKS 103(a) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER ESHETE, ZELALEM

The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable, without change, to render obvious the invention under review. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Sneed, In re, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1445, 2145

Young, In re, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2143.01
3751 Ex Parte Adelman 11/650,711 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER LE, HUYEN D

Jung, hyatt, frye, PPG, herz, de lajarte, hoffman, schreiber, ludtke, hallman

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/702,607 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER KERNS, KEVIN P
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Chalupsky et al 10/656,652 DANG 102(e)/103(a) Caven & Aghevli LLC c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WHIPPLE, BRIAN P
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brady et al 10/217,795 KRIVAK 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - JW EXAMINER TRAN, QUOC DUC
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2163 Ex parte NETAPP, INC. 90/009,129 7,174,352 EASTHOM 112(2)/305/102(b) PATENT OWNER CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER RONALD L. YIN DLA PIPER US LLP EXAMINER CHOI, WOO H original EXAMINER LE, UYEN T

By failing to "articulate what gaps, in fact exist" between Gait and these claims, Appellant fails to show error, when as here, the Examiner put Appellant on notice as to how the claims were being treated. See In re Jung, No. 2011-1019, 2011 WL 1235093 * 4, 5 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2011). In Jung, the appellant at least alleged a gap existed, "but chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this difference." Id. at * 7. The failure to allege such a gap exists constitutes an effective waiver. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.")

Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . . 2163.04

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Bamba et al 10/182,908 McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER VERA AFREMOVA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Guthrie 10/816,403 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) M. P. Williams EXAMINER

WALKER, KEITH D

1761 Ex Parte Yang et al 10/951,849 KRATZ 103(a) ARKEMA INC. EXAMINER SZEKELY, PETER A

Concerning the first issue and the claim term “consisting essentially of”, it is well settled that the term “consisting essentially of” is interpreted as allowing for the inclusion not only of those ingredients specifically recited, but also those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of a claimed invention. PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52 (CCPA 1976). However, the burden is on Appellants to show what the basic and novel characteristics are and how they would be materially changed by the ingredient of the reference sought to be excluded from inclusion by Appellants’ use of this term. See In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74 (CCPA 1964); Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d 1061, 1063-64 (BPAI 1989).

PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 48 USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir.1998) . . . . . .2111.03, 2163

Herz, In re, 537 F.2d 549, 190 USPQ 461 (CCPA 1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03

De Lajarte, In re, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). . . . . . . . . . 2111.03, 2163

Hoffman, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1061 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.03
1767 Ex Parte Haider et al 11/315,639 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER HEINCER, LIAM J

1789 Ex Parte De Haan et al 10/380,883 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

Choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk: Where there is reason to conclude that the structure of the prior art is inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

Ludtke, In re, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112.01
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Zilavy 10/984,478 DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J