REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Chappa et al 12109139 - (D) OWENS 103 PAULY, DEVRIES SMITH & DEFFNER, L.L.C. BOWMAN, ANDREW J
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2681 Ex Parte Campagne et al 12145793 - (D) WHITEHEAD JR. 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. NGUYEN, HUNG T
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Hawkins et al 12756788 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 HENRICKS SLAVIN AND HOLMES LLP CHENEVERT, PAUL A
3693 Ex Parte Paulsen et al 11609792 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 ALSTON & BIRD LLP AMELUNXEN, BARBARA J
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Karve et al 12541760 - (D) KATZ 103 103 F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC (IBM) NGUYEN, PHUOC H
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Gordon et al 11972232 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 102/103 ALCON WILSON, LARRY ROSS
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2144 Ex Parte Kohar et al 12531157 - (D) COURTENAY 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS AMIN, MUSTAFA A
2144 Ex Parte Fux et al 11694361 - (D) WINSOR 103 BLACKBERRY (Finnegan) TAPP, AMELIA L
2157 Ex Parte LeTourneau 11007139 - (D) SAADAT 103 BERKELEY LAW & TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLP LE, JESSICA N
2159 Ex Parte Boroczky et al 12747615 - (D) MCMILLIN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS REYES, MARIELA D
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Du 12744461 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 Oppedahl Patent Law Firm, LLC- China Pat LIU, JUNG
2487 Ex Parte Iddan et al 11295491 - (D) NAPPI 103/double patenting Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP DIEP, NHON THANH
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2673 Ex Parte Price et al 11469833 - (D) TROCK 103 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP HUNTSINGER, PETER K
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Bruch 11819233 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP KING, BRADLEY T
3683 Ex Parte OSULLIVAN 12631431 - (D) FETTING 103 BAINWOOD HUANG & ASSOCIATES LLC LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE WALKER III, GEORGE H
3695 Ex Parte Feinstein et al 12425282 - (D) KIM 102/103 112(2) Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. PUTTAIAH, ASHA
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Davis et al 13368677 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M
3741 Ex Parte Porte et al 12307881 - (D) JESCHKE 103 Dickinson Wright PLLC MEADE, LORNE EDWARD
3752 Ex Parte Strong 11077273 - (D) MURPHY 112(1)/112(2) 112(1)/102 FLETCHER YODER KIM, CHRISTOPHER S
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 WINEGARD CO. Requester and Respondent v. ELECTRONIC CONTROLLED SYSTEMS d/b/a KING CONTROLS Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7679573 et al 12/004,099 95000560 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Skaar Ulbrich Macari, P.A. For THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P TON, MY TRANG original MANCUSO, HUEDUNG XUAN CAO
REHEARING
GRANTED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Requester and Cross Appellant v. VOLTSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7960648 et al 12/251,882 95002378 - (D) BAUMEISTER 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 Schneider Rothman IP Law Group Third Party Requester: Snell & Wilmer MENEFEE, JAMES A original MAYO III, WILLIAM H
Unlike the two newly-cited Abdelatti Ali and Ikeda patent documents, which we refuse to consider, we will consider the two dictionary definitions. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.30 (“Evidence means something (including testimony, documents and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact, except that for the purpose of this subpart Evidence does not include dictionaries, which may be cited before the Board.” See also the explanatory comments regarding new Rule § 41.30 (2011):
Final Bd.R. 41.30 adopts the definition of ‘‘Evidence’’ from Black’s Law Dictionary to provide clarity regarding the use of that term in Subpart B. Toward that end, final Bd.R. 41.30 makes clear that for the purposes of Subpart B, ‘‘Evidence’’ does not encompass dictionaries. Excluding dictionaries from the definition of ‘‘Evidence’’ thus allows appellants to refer to dictionaries in their briefs, which would otherwise be precluded under final Bd.R. 41.33(d)(2) (absent existence of one of the enumerated exceptions). It further allows examiners to refer to dictionaries in the examiner’s answers without automatically rendering a rejection a new ground under final Bd.R. 41.39(a)(2). Treating dictionaries in this manner is consistent with Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent, which contemplate that such materials may be consulted by tribunals “at any time.” See, e.g., Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 307 (1893) (citations omitted) (admitting dictionaries to understand the ordinary meaning of terms “not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[J]udges are free to consult dictionaries and technical treatises at any time in order to better understand the underlying technology and may also rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.”) (citation omitted); In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 727–28 (CCPA 1971) (holding citation to dictionary was not tantamount to the assertion of a new ground of rejection “where such a reference is a standard work, cited only to support a fact judicially noticed and, as here, the fact so noticed plays a minor role, serving only to fill in the gaps which might exist in the evidentiary showing made by the Examiner to support a particular ground for rejection.” (emphasis and internal quotations omitted)). Thus, the Office feels it is logical to permit the applicant and examiner to submit them to the Board during the briefing stage.
Federal Register (Vol. 76; No. 225; 72270 at 72272–73).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258
