genentech, bond, schriber-schroth, E.I. dupont, hall, bruckelmeyer, wyer

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Sandhu 11/257,946 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) Wells St. John P.S. EXAMINER MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Butcher 10/392,698 LUCAS 103(a) MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP

(Oracle formerly d/b/a Sun Microsystems) EXAMINER MANOSKEY, JOSEPH D

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).

Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 2111.03, 2138.05, 2163

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

2154 Ex Parte Fox et al 11/026,358 HUGHES 102(e) DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER CHEN, TE Y

2191 Ex Parte Speare et al 10/806,779 BARRY 102(b) SENNIGER POWERS LLP (MSFT) EXAMINER VO, TED T

"The PTO Rules of Practice require the examiner to cite only what he considers the 'best references.'" E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Berkley & Co., 620 F.2d 1247, 1266-67 (8th Cir. 1980).

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Berkley and Co., 620 F.2d 1247, 205 USPQ 1 (8th Cir. 1980) . . . . . .2107.01
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Watrous 10/094,874 MOHANTY 101/112(2)/103(a) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER SEREBOFF, NEAL

3667 Ex Parte Fahrny et al 11/006,864 FISCHETTI 112(2)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER BADII, BEHRANG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Connor 11/285,883 O’NEILL 112(2)/103(a) FENNEMORE CRAIG EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Schmeling et al 10/011,524 KIM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD

3664 Ex Parte Seki 11/017,293 CHEN 112(2)/103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. EXAMINER PECHE, JORGE O

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Link 10/690,818 ZECHER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER DUFFY, DAVID W

3738 Ex Parte Stacchino et al 11/066,346 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D

3764 Ex Parte Habing et al 11/372,645 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER GANESAN, SUNDHARA M
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2761 Ex parte ePlus, Inc., Appellant and Assignee 90/008,104 6,023,683 TURNER 102(a)/102(b) PATENT OWNER: GOODWIN PROCTER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: LEE PATCH, ESQ. DAY CASEBEER MADRID & BATCHELDER EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R originally Cha & Reiter, LLC EXAMINER COSIMANO, EDWARD R

“The statutory phrase ‘printed publication’ has been interpreted to give effect to ongoing advances in the technologies of data storage, retrieval, and dissemination.” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). “Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Id. at 898-99 (citation omitted).

Our reviewing court has explained that a reference is “‘publicly accessible”’ upon a satisfactory showing that:

(1) the “document has been disseminated”; or

(2) “otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further research or experimentation.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)).

Hall, In re, 781 F.2d 897, 228 USPQ 453 (Fed. Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . .2128, 2128.01, 2128.02

Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F. 3d 1374, 78 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . 2127

Wyer, In re, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901.05, 2127, 2128

AFFIRMED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Smith 10/630,562 GREENHUT 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER GANESAN, SUBA

NEW

REVERSED

2186 Ex Parte Brownhill et al 11/025,413 HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER VERDERAMO III, RALPH

1625 Ex Parte Catinat et al 10/534,502 GRIMES 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER MABRY, JOHN

2188 Ex Parte NOYLE 11/364,691 THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER TRAN, DENISE

AFFIRMED

3627 Ex Parte Cachey et al 10/321,783 RUGGIERO 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER OBEID, FAHD A

2452 Ex Parte Ratcliff et al 10/413,618 FISCHETTI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.41 101 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER CHANKONG, DOHM

lighting world, texas instruments, unique concepts

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Akiyama et al 10/757,413 GUEST 103(a)/37 C.F.R § 41.50(b) 112(1) 112(2) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER HEITBRINK, JILL LYNNE

[W]e consider these claim terms to be nonce words or verbal constructs which are simply a substitute for the term “means” of § 112, paragraph 6. Specifically, the term “determinant” is no more than a verbal construct for the phrase “means for determining” and the phrase “marking applier” is no more than a verbal construct for the phrase “means for applying a marking.” See Lightning World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004);

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Golla 11/017,349 HOMERE 102(e) CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC EXAMINER FILIPCZYK, MARCIN R

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3752 Ex Parte Bennett 10/443,302 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) THE NOBLITT GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, DINH Q

3761 Ex Parte Olson et al 10/880,995 O’NEILL 102(a)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

3765 Ex Parte Siegl 11/270,377 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

3767 Ex Parte Gesler 11/230,433 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) Christopher J. Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, SHEFALI DILIP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Sakai et al 11/007,552 JEFFERY 103(a) STEVEN M. GREENBERG CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER CHOJNACKI, MELLISSA M

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3691 Ex Parte Chang et al 10/244,686 KIM 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER TINKLER, MURIEL S

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 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect).

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . .716.04
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Miller et al 10/346,698 SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER ELEY, TIMOTHY V
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3627 MICROBLEND TECHNOLOGIES Requester and Respondent v. ROHM & HAAS COMPANY Patent Owner and Appellant 95/001,027 7,250,464 DELMENDO 103(a) Patent Owner: STEPHEN E. JOHNSON, ESQ. ROHM & HAAS COMPANY Third Party Requester: ALBERT L. SCHMEISER SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS LLP EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER JASMIN, LYNDA C

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Wehr et al 11/136,991 PRATS 103(a) CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO EXAMINER ZEMEL, IRINA SOPJIA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Himmel et al 11/871,362 CHEN 102(b)/103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER NELSON JR, MILTON

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Boylan et al 10/764,841 O’NEILL 103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/Abbott EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

3761 Ex Parte Van Dyke 11/116,654 O’NEILL 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER CHAPMAN, GINGER T

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Coppinger et al 11/189,192 JEFFERY 101/102/103 STEVEN M. GREENBERG CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP EXAMINER TANK, ANDREW L

NEW

REVERSED


2186 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/008,316 HOMERE 103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART3632 Ex Parte Cavello et al 10/728,674 GREENHUT 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER STERLING, AMY JO

1713 Ex Parte Fortin et al 11/457,911 HASTINGS 103(a) MARKS & CLERK EXAMINER DAHIMENE, MAHMOUD

AFFIRMED

2185 Ex Parte Sen et al 11/132,081 HOMERE 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DOAN, DUC T
2617 Ex Parte Sylvain 10/999,392 RUGGIERO 103(a) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER GONZALEZ, AMANCIO
2185 Ex Parte Thayer 11/115,675 ZECHER 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J

3689 Ex Parte Borg et al 09/820,457 OWENS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN D

paulsen, jansen, batteux, whittaker, ACS

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Vishlitzky et al 10/306,706 DIXON 102 MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Burton et al 10/132,403 THOMAS 103(a)/112(1) David A. Mims International Business Machines Corporation EXAMINER HUSSAIN, TAUQIR

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Freudenthal et al 11/428,878 LEBOVITZ 103(a) Beck & Thomas, P.C. EXAMINER WOO, JULIAN W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Thomas et al 11/144,898 SAINDON 103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER VAN, QUANG T

See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (an inventor must define specific terms with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” in order to be his own lexicographer, as opposed to merely describing “in a general fashion certain features”).
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1621 Ex parte BAYER CROPSCIENCE, LP Appellant 90/008,317 5,700,460 LEBOVITZ 102(b) FOR PATENT OWNER: BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFREY S. MELCHER MANELLI, DENISON & SELTER, PLLC EXAMINER KUNZ, GARY L BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC original EXAMINER BURN, BRIAN M

Appellant contends that Jansen v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 342 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) demands a different result (Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) 8, dated January 21, 2011).

The preambles “for attracting insects” and “for attracting and killing insects” set forth the objective of the method, and the body of each claim directs that the method be performed on “said insects.” The recitation of “said insects” In [sic] both claims 1 and 15 gives life and meaning to the preambles' statement of purpose.

In Jansen, the claims were directed to methods of treating or preventing macrocytic-megaloblastic anemia comprising administering effective amounts of folic acid and vitamin B12 “to a human in need thereof.” Jansen at 1333. The Federal Circuit stated that the claim must be interpreted to require the method be practiced with the intent to achieve the objective stated in the preamble. Id. “The preamble is therefore not merely a statement of effect that may or may not be desired or appreciated. Rather, it is a statement of the intentional purpose for which the method must be performed.” Id.

The reason why Jansen does not require a different result has already been addressed in Ex parte Batteux, Appeal No. 2007-0622, 2007 WL 5211675 (BPAI, Mar. 27, 2007, Informative Opinion).

Jansen was an infringement case, requiring the court to construe the subject claim “so as to sustain [its] validity, if possible.” Whittaker Corp. v. UNR Indus., 911 F.2d 709,712, 15 USPQ2d 1742, 1743 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 932 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In contrast, during prosecution, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Unlike the case here, in Jansen, the patentee was arguing a broad construction to establish infringement. 342 F.3d at 1331, 68 USPQ2d at 1156. However, the court “strictly construed” the claim against the inventor, in view of statements made during prosecution. Id. at 1334, 68 USPQ2d at 1158.

Batteux, 2007 WL 5211675 at *5.

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Platz et al 11/426,927 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a) NOVARTIS EXAMINER HAGHIGHATIAN, MINA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Arya et al 11/035,250 GARRIS 102(e)/103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER ALANKO, ANITA KAREN

1713 Ex Parte Arya et al 11/037,755 GARRIS 103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER ALANKO, ANITA KAREN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Inoue 10/812,177 LUCAS 101/112(2)/102(b) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER ALHIJA, SAIF A

2167 Ex Parte Vishlitzky et al 10/306,706 DIXON 102 MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M

2173 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/001,140 DIXON 103(a) CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP EXAMINER BONSHOCK, DENNIS G

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Singh et al 10/267,978 LUCAS 112(2)/103(a) ROPES & GRAY LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUONG

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Arya et al 11/037,753 GARRIS 103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER MILLER, BRIAN E

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte O'GORMAN 11/200,931 DROESCH 103(a) Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. EXAMINER AMAYA, CARLOS DAVID
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Shimizu et al 11/586,604 GREENHUT 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER BOLDA, ERIC L

3689 Ex Parte Jamison 10/128,375 KIM 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Tucker Ellis & West LLP EXAMINER FISHER, PAUL R

NEW

REVERSED

3742 Ex Parte Blankenship et al 11/181,616 STAICOVICI 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H

1629 Ex Parte Brusilow 10/758,415 FREDMAN 103(a) ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. EXAMINER VAKILI, ZOHREH

1612 Ex Parte Faour et al 10/851,866 McCOLLUM 103(a) INNOVAR, LLC EXAMINER MAEWALL, SNIGDHA

1714 Ex Parte Gast 11/096,935 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) KAGAN BINDER, PLLC EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

3725 Ex Parte Hoyaukin 10/548,882 McCARTHY 102(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER EKIERT, TERESA M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1734 Ex Parte Kato et al 11/185,879 NAGUMO 112(2)/102(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER KOSLOW, CAROL M

AFFIRMED

3624 Ex Parte Blackwood et al 10/739,564 DESHPANDE 103(a) IBM Corporation EXAMINER
MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

2436 Ex Parte Muttik et al 10/403,013 DIXON 103(a) Patent Capital Group EXAMINER REZA, MOHAMMAD W

3744 Ex Parte O'NEILL et al 10/449,173 SAINDON 103(a) HONEYWELL/UOP EXAMINER DUONG, THO V

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

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Saeki et al 10/566,253 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ORWIG, KEVIN S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2482 Ex Parte Kojo et al 10/362,142 KOHUT 102(e) WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2817 Ex Parte Pietig 10/538,580 BAUMEISTER 103(a) NXP, B.V. NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING EXAMINER JONES, STEPHEN E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Hind et al 10/923,964 POTHIER 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER TOLENTINO, RODERICK

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Han 10/027,727 LEE 102/103(a) SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS EXAMINER JOHNSON, STEPHEN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Lindsay 11/245,752 GREENHUT 102(b)/103(a) TERUMO CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS CORPORATION ATTN: GAEL DIANE TISACK EXAMINER WIEST, PHILIP R

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Bury et al 12/132,204 GRIMES 103(a) GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD. EXAMINER KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C

1726 Ex Parte Dossas et al 10/454,864 OWENS 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Clifford Kraft EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D

1747 Ex Parte Lee et al 11/020,660 HASTINGS 103(a) H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R

1765 Ex Parte Rooshenas 11/039,217 KRATZ nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF DELIO & PETERSON, LLC. EXAMINER SELLERS, ROBERT E

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Kumar et al 09/852,360 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L

2455 Ex Parte Kondo 10/494,598 GONSALVES 103(a) William S Frommer Frommer Lawrence & Haug EXAMINER HUQ, FARZANA B

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Fogarty et al 10/622,437 CHEN 103(a) LEVINE BAGADE HAN LLP EXAMINER DOWE, KATHERINE MARIE

3736 Ex Parte Sirimanne et al 11/283,310 MILLS 103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER FOREMAN, JONATHAN M

NEW

REVERSED

3691 Ex Parte Cordery et al 10/714,802 PETRAVICK 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER PRESTON, JOHN O

AFFIRMED

3679 Ex Parte Moore 11/232,195 STAICOVICI 112(2)/103(a) Prass LLP EXAMINER
STODOLA, DANIEL P

2121 Ex Parte Wechter et al 10/693,965 BARRY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DUNN, DARRIN D

REHEARING

2473 Ex Parte Hosur et al 11/454,181 HOFF 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER NGUYEN, HANH N

kuhle, mraz

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Cooper et al 10/656,192 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER LONG, SCOTT

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Richey et al 10/944,209 GRIMES 103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

The Examiner’s argument that the configuration of the strands is a matter of design choice is not persuasive. Design choice may be an acceptable rationale for an obviousness rejection when a claimed product merely arranges known elements in a configuration recognized as functionally equivalent to a known configuration. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (“The manner in which electrical contact is made for Smith’s battery would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art…. As the board pointed out, use of a spring-loaded contact in the manner claimed is well known with the common flashlight.”). Here, the Examiner has not provided evidence that the strand configuration recited in the claims was a known alternative to the designs shown by Mills, Kretchmer, and Soderlund.

Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Ouyang et al 10/746,658 ZECHER 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Momosaki et al 10/934,380 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER TRAN, BINH Q

While patent drawings alone may be used to reject claims, the value of the drawing sin that context extends only to what is clearly shown therein. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972).

Mraz, In re, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2125
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Kelley et al 10/777,961 STEPHENS 103(a) SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS EXAMINER PILLAI, NAMITHA

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Nickerson et al 11/168,784 DROESCH 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER TRAN, MINH LOAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Scirica 11/544,519 CHEN 103(a) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M

REVERSED

2817 Ex Parte Pietig 10/538,580 BAUMEISTER 103(a) NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING EXAMINER JONES, STEPHEN E

3717 Ex Parte Rose 10/341,110 SILVERBERG 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER
HARPER, TRAMAR YONG

3721 Ex Parte Schneider et al 11/106,806 SILVERBERG 103(a) DAY PITNEY LLP ACCOUNT: ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

3685 Ex Parte Suermondt et al 10/175,469 TURNER 102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER WORJLOH, JALATEE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3714 Ex Parte Darby 10/339,096 SILVERBERG 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER COBURN, CORBETT B

AFFIRMED

3627 Ex Parte Bross et al 10/495,633 MOHANTY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DANNEMAN, PAUL

2155 Ex Parte Campbell et al 11/019,336 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HOFFLER, RAHEEM

3724 Ex Parte Gilder 11/147,000 SILVERBERG 102(e)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER DEXTER, CLARK F

1612 Ex Parte Jentzsch et al 10/515,636 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E

1796 Ex Parte Jo et al 11/674,390 WALSH 103(a) F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUY-AI N

3745 Ex Parte REIMER et al 11/535,162 SILVERBERG 103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. EXAMINER LOPEZ, FRANK D

Morris, leapfrog, KSR

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Saito et al 11/052,881 KERINS 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER

JOHNSON, MATTHEW A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Sakamoto et al 11/047,818 KAUFFMAN 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HALL, ARTHUR O

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Baniecki et al 11/343,121 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION EXAMINER MARCANTONI, PAUL D

REEXAMINATION

REHEARING DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2182 Ex parte POWERS INTEGRATION, INC. 90/008,326 6,249,876 SIU 102(b) James Y. Go

BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN. LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original EXAMINER BUTLER, DENNIS

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Brooks et al 11/498,620 McCOLLUM 103(a) Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Allen et al 11/239,596 JEFFERY 101/102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting IBM (ROC-BLF) C/O BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP EXAMINER DILLON, SAMUEL A

2600 Communications
2629 Ex Parte Kleen 10/927,812 WINSOR 102(e) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER SIM, YONG H

[T]he [US]PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 Ex Parte Laubner et al 09/966,221 KOHUT 103(a) CHRISTOPHER P. MAIORANA, P.C. EXAMINER WIMER, MICHAEL C

Appellants have presented no convincing evidence that modifying Openlander’s antenna containing a prism wherein the antenna is elevated as taught by Murphy was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).

Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fischer Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) . . . 2143.01

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) . . . . . . . . .2141 to 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Chick 10/884,350 HOELTER 103(a) Paul M. Denk EXAMINER CHIN SHUE, ALVIN C

NEW

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1793 Ex Parte Baniecki et al 11/343,121 NAPPI 103(a) SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION EXAMINER MARCANTONI, PAUL D

AFFIRMED
1777 Ex Parte Okuda 11/050,766 GARRIS 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER WALLENHORST, MAUREEN

REHEARING

DENIED
1777 Ex Parte Gupta 11/028,114 PAK 102 PRICE HENEVELD LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

caveney, bosies, papesch

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Keum et al 10/619,512 TIMM 103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

1727 Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/068,489 GARRIS 103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER LAIOS, MARIA J

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2832 Ex Parte Ludwig 10/703,023 JEFFERY 102(e) Lester F. Ludwig EXAMINER FLETCHER, MARLON T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Vanderhye 10/970,991 SPAHN 112(2)/103(a) ROBERT A. VANDERHYE EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3655 Ex Parte Gmirya 10/621,129 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) Carlson, Gaskey, & Olds, P.C./Sikorsky EXAMINER PANG, ROGER L

An examiner's burden of proving unpatentability when rejecting claims in a patent application is by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In order to satisfy this standard, the evidence must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the alleged facts are actually true. See Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539, 541-42 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (the preponderance of the evidence standard requires the finder of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence).

Caveney, In re, 761 F.2d 671, 226 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2133.03(b)

Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539, 30 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . 2138.04

3682 Ex Parte Levy et al 10/028,751 FETTING 102(b)/103(a) Foley & Lardner LLP EXAMINER BROWN, ALVIN L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/969,392 SPAHN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, PHONG H

3743 Ex Parte Srinivasachar et al 10/961,697 BAHR 103(a) MICHAUD-KINNEY GROUP LLP EXAMINER RINEHART, KENNETH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Stumvoll et al 10/027,625 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP EXAMINER ROONEY, NORA MAUREEN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Yoneda et al 10/203,620 FETTING 103(a) KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP EXAMINER VALENTI, ANDREA M

3682 Ex Parte Hind et al 09/859,359 FETTING 103(a) MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC For IBM EXAMINER BOVEJA, NAMRATA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Everett 10/932,523 SPAHN 103(a) Christopher M. Goff EXAMINER PAYER, HWEI SIU CHOU

3727 Ex Parte Nouvel 11/785,758 BAHR 103(a) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP EXAMINER SHAKERI, HADI

REEXAMINATION

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

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3672 TESCO CORPORATION Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of WEATHERFORD/LAMB, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/001,117 7,213,656 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: BRACEWELL & GIULIANI EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C original EXAMINER STEPHENSON, DANIEL P

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Fregonese et al 11/233,638 GARRIS 103(a) Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus P.A. EXAMINER HEITBRINK, JILL LYNNE

1761 Ex Parte Shoaf et al 10/738,960 GUEST 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R

See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391 (CCPA 1963) (“a compound and all of its properties are inseparable”).

Papesch, In re, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) . . . . .716.02(a), 2141.02, 2144.08, 2144.09

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Ortiz et al 10/174,597 LUCAS 103(a) Milton S. Sales Eastman Kodak Company EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2823 Ex Parte Ahn et al 11/372,597 RUGGIERO 103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER EXAMINER CLARK, SHEILA V

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Costa 10/420,350 FETTING 112(1) AT&T Legal Department - GMG EXAMINER SHAH, AMEE A

3626 Ex Parte Vonk et al 09/881,041 FETTING 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) David W. Highet, VP & Chief IP Counsel Becton, Dickinson and Company EXAMINER SEREBOFF, NEAL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Pesce et al 11/106,402 SILVERBERG 102(e)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

3764 Ex Parte Datta 10/836,489 BAHR 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 Ex Parte Bubnis et al 11/090,486 PRATS 102 WYETH LLC EXAMINER WAX, ROBERT A

NEW

REVERSED

2629 Ex Parte Aufranc et al 10/693,287 NAPPI 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SIM, YONG H

3742 Ex Parte Haas et al 11/162,615 SILVERBERG 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER PAIK, SANG YEOP

3685 Ex Parte Lundvik et al 11/220,380 FETTING 112(1)/103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER QAYYUM, ZESHAN

3762 Ex Parte Phillips et al 10/693,001 SILVERBERG 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. EXAMINER MANUEL, GEORGE C

3627 Ex Parte Todd et al 09/962,408 FETTING 112(2)/103(a) EMC CORPORATION c/o DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP EXAMINER SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3691 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/667,036 FETTING 103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER HAMILTON, LALITA M

AFFIRMED

3691 Ex Parte Gilbert 09/728,152 FETTING 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER KAZIMI, HANI M

2193 Ex Parte Nanja et al 10/327,848 BARRY 103(a) Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC EXAMINER VU, TUAN A

3684 Ex Parte Phelan et al 10/112,208 FETTING 102(b)/103(a) CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP EXAMINER VIZVARY, GERALD C

3628 Ex Parte Ryan et al 10/707,509 FETTING 103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER VETTER, DANIEL

3686 Ex Parte Vanderveen et al 10/361,704 FETTING 102(b) McDermott Will & Emery LLP EXAMINER RANGREJ, SHEETAL

scaltech, weber, haas, harnisch, kronig

REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Peterson 10/246,851 GRIMES 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA

“Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to establish inherency.” Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra L.L.C., 178 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1999). ]

Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 269 F.3d 1321, 60 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . .2133.03(c)
3765 Ex Parte Nunn 11/650,365 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Timothy T. Tyson Freilich, Hornbaker & Rosen EXAMINER QUINN, RICHALE LEE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Kong et al 10/852,448 TIMM 102(b) WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK P.C. EXAMINER PIERY, MICHAEL T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Doll et al 10/926,155 SCHAFER 102(b)/103(a) MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC EXAMINER PETTITT, JOHN F

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Makadia et al 11/267,540 FREDMAN 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP (MTC) EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Sell et al 10/437,267 GREENHUT 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER KISH, JAMES M

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1627 Ex Parte DeGrado et al 10/801,951 SCHAFER 121 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER CHONG, YONG SOO

Applicants ... argued that requiring a restriction between independent inventions present in a single claim was improper under In re Weber, 580 F.2d 455 (C.C.P.A. 1978) and In re Haas, 580 F.2d 461 (C.C.P.A. 1978).

We require that Applicants brief the apparent conflict between the plain language of § 121 and the Weber and Haas opinions. As part of the briefing applicants are required to address whether the language of the second paragraph of § 112, requiring “one or more claims . . . claiming the subject matter the applicant regards as his invention” necessarily precludes the Director from exercising his statutory discretion “to require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions” when more than one independent and distinct inventions are encompassed within a single claim.

Weber, In re, 580 F.2d 455, 198 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803.02

Haas, In re, 580 F.2d 461, 198 USPQ 334 (CCPA 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803.02
We also require additional briefing on whether Claims 16-48 are proper Markush Claims. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716 (C.C.P.A. 1980) notes that the body of law relating to Markush-type claims is concerned with the concept of “unity of invention.” Harnisch, 631 F.2d at 721.

Harnisch, In re, 631 F.2d 716, 206 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . 803.02, 2173.05(h)

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Frutos et al 11/437,477 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER YU, MELANIE J

See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302 (CCPA 1976) (“[T]he ultimate criterion of whether a rejection is considered „new‟ in a decision by the board is whether appellants have had fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the rejection.”)

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Ni et al 09/821,753 TIMM Dissenting Opinion KRATZ 112(1)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN GILMAN & BERNER, LLP EXAMINER ALEJANDRO MULERO, LUZ L

NEW

REVERSED
2444 Ex Parte Betge-Brezetz et al 10/434,056 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

3753 Ex Parte Strattan et al 10/972,923 KAUFFMAN 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN LLP EXAMINER RIVELL, JOHN A

AFFIRMED
1781 Ex Parte Makadia et al 11/267,540 FREDMAN 103(a) SENNIGER POWERS LLP (MTC) EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

3734 Ex Parte Terry et al 11/135,824 STAICOVICI 102(b) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER DOWE, KATHERINE MARIE

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Nathoo 10/300,624 GRIMES 112(1)/103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER JAGOE, DONNA A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Tosaki et al 10/364,371 PRATS 102(b) SUGHRUE-265550 EXAMINER EGWIM, KELECHI CHIDI

2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Munteanu et al 11/087,376 KRIVAK 103(a)/37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER SMITS, TALIVALDIS IVARS
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte McBride et al 10/901,441 McCOLLUM 103(a) IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2438 Ex Parte Gass et al 09/922,041 BARRY 102(e)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER ARANI, TAGHI T

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Jo et al 10/312,833 PAK 102(b)/103(a) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP EXAMINER PERRIN, JOSEPH L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Jadric et al 11/688,456 CHEN 103(a) MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC EXAMINER BENSON, WALTER

NEW

REVERSED

3766 Ex Parte Sullivan 10/396,023 CHEN 112(1)/103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P.A. EXAMINER MALAMUD, DEBORAH LESLIE

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1741 Ex Parte Elp 10/740,831 GARRIS obviousness-type double patenting/102(e)/103(a) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP EXAMINER LAZORCIK, JASON L

AFFIRMED

2617 Ex Parte Stephens 10/832,715 FRAHM 103(a) COOL PATENT, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR

1762 Ex Parte Yamamoto et al 11/188,696 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER YOON, TAE H