REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Vaidyanathan et al HOMERE 103(a) IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL)
System, apparatus and method of enhancing priority boosting of scheduled threads
Bak US 6,167,424 Dec. 26, 2000
Gosalia US 2004/0160446 A1 Aug. 19, 2004 (filed Jan. 22, 2004)

Ex Parte Sluiman HOMERE 103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP IBM RSW
Automation and isolation of software component testing
Kobayashi US 6,633,888 B1 Oct. 14, 2003

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Park WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE, L.L.P.
Liquid crystal display of line-on-glass type
Choi US 5,657,041 Aug. 12, 1997
Watanabe US 5,870,163 Feb. 9, 1999
Kang US 6,621,547 B2 Sep. 16, 2003
Kim US 6,639,589 B1 Oct. 28, 2003

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Faour et al 103(a) KATHY MANKE AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
Temperature measurement of an integrated circuit
Audy US 5,195,827 Mar. 23, 1993
Davidson US 5,639,163 Jun. 17, 1997
Vergis US 6,453,218 B1 Sep. 17, 2002
Deng US 6,911,861 B2 Jun. 28, 2005 (filed Aug. 7, 2003)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Velke et al HORNER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
Walk-behind lawn mower
Velke 5,810,371 (issued Sep. 22, 1998)
Klingier 6,622,354 B1 (issued Sep. 23, 2003)
Brainerd 5,878,834 (issued Mar. 9, 1999)
Gray 5,966,911 (issued Oct. 19, 1999)
Dunn 4,156,339 (issued May 29, 1979)

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Yardley et al KERINS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC
Single-ply dispenser napkin
Lazar US 1,256,334 Feb. 12, 1918
Ito US 4,469,243 Sep. 4, 1984
Chan US 5,716,691 Feb. 10, 1998

The primary purpose of the definiteness requirement set forth in the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is to ensure that the claims are written in such a way that they give notice to the public of the extent of the legal protection afforded by the patent, so that interested members of the public, e.g., competitors of the patent owner, can determine whether or not they infringe. All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., Inc., 309 F.3d 774, 779-80 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The test for definiteness is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Ogburn et al MEDLEY 103(a) Konstantine J. Diamond
Pallet Assembly
Pigott et al. 4,843,976 Jul. 4, 1989
Ohanesian 6,446,563 Sep. 10, 2002

“[A]n indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising’ . . . . Unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements, the article ‘a’ receives a singular interpretation only in rare circumstances when the [applicant] evinces a clear intent to so limit the article . . . . Under this conventional rule, the claim limitation ‘a,’ without more, requires at least one.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).