REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte Bar-Ness et al 13110989 - (D) WINSOR 103 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP JOSEPH, JAISON
2692 Ex Parte Nakamura et al 11783063 - (D) HOMERE 103 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP MERKOULOVA, OLGA VLADIMIROVNA
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2463 Ex Parte Raju et al 12127600 - (D) BARRETT 103 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Mabey et al 12586472 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY BOYLE, KARA BRADY
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Udell et al 12197892 - (D) SMITH 103 Mentor Graphics Corporation NGUYEN, STEVE N
2155 Ex Parte Moerchen et al 12072222 - (D) BEAMER 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION HERSHLEY, MARK E
2161 Ex Parte CHAUDHURI et al 12487434 - (D) KUMAR 102 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. LU, CHARLES EDWARD
2164 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12218627 - (D) KIMBERLY J. McGRAW 102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC ADAMS, CHARLES D
We reject Appellants argument that the Examiner must demonstrate that the identical language of claim 75 appears in the cited reference in order for the reference to anticipate. See e.g., App. Br. 26. The test of whether a reference teaches a claim limitation is not whether the exact language of the
limitation is present in the reference. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the limitation is taught or suggested by the prior art when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See e.g., In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (interpretation of references “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test); Akzo N. V. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 & n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(“An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims.”)
Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2131 , 2152.02(b) , 2183 , 2184
Akzo N.V. v. International Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2131.02
2166 Ex Parte LIPPINCOTT et al 12044775 - (D) GALLIGAN 101/103 41.50 103 WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. IBM CORP. (WIP) GMAHL, NAVNEET K
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Card et al 12261662 - (D) SHIANG 102/103 Lowe Graham Jones PLLC MONTOYA, OSCHTA I
2424 Ex Parte Hill et al 11937901 - (D) COURTENAY 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES TILAHUN, ALAZAR
2438 Ex Parte Shah et al 11566125 - (D) HOMERE 103 Oblon/Broadcom Corporation JEUDY, JOSNEL
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2659 Ex Parte BOO 11837244 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. ARMSTRONG, ANGELA A
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Stripling et al 12648899 - (D) HOELTER 103 AT & T Legal Department - FKM GILLS, KURTIS
3624 Ex Parte Ritter et al 11735739 - (D) KIM 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. PRASAD, NANCY N
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3746 Ex Parte Nakamura 12374725 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 BGL/Panasonic BAYOU, AMENE SETEGNE
3782 Ex Parte Harrelson 12474779 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP ELKINS, GARY E
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex parte LAWRENCE B. LOCKWOOD Ex Parte 7010508 et al 08/418,772 90012671 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. Third Part Requestor: Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/Reexams REICHLE, KARIN M original CHUNG TRANS, XUONG MY
During reexamination before the USPTO, we decline to consider the prosecution history (as a court would in patent infringement litigation) for purposes of claim construction because reexamination is de novo examination without deference to the previous examination which determined patentability in the first instance. See 35 U.S.C. §305. Cf. with prosecution history estoppel which prevents a patentee from recapturing through the doctrine of equivalents the subject matter that the applicant
surrendered during prosecution. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722, 734 (2002). Cf. also with the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer: “[W]here the patentee has unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning to obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches and narrows the ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the surrender.” Omega Engineering, Inc., v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Claims may not be construed one way in order to obtain their allowance and in a different way against accused infringers.” Southwall Technologies, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Thus, we find statements by both Owner and the Examiner that purport to give deference to the prosecution history for purposes of claim construction during reexamination are misplaced. See, e.g., App. Br. 14–15; Final Rejection 14. However, we note that prosecution history is considered by the USPTO for the purpose of determining attempted recapture of surrendered subject matter in reissue examinations. See, e.g., In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 62 USPQ2d 1705 (2002) 1302.14 , 2173.02
Clement, In re, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 1412.02
