REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Jordens et al KIMLIN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORP.

Ex Parte Munnelly et al HANLON 103(a) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY

Ex Parte Meyer et al KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C.

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Iwatani et al MANTIS MERCADER 102(e) SUGHRUE MION, PLL

"The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Reece et al WARREN, HANLON dissenting-in-part 102(b)/103(a) INTEL/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP

Ex Parte Vreede et al KRIVAK 102(b) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP

Ex Parte Namiwaka et al WARREN 102(b)/103(a) KATTEN MUCHIN ROSEMANN LLP

In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13 (CCPA 1971) (there is nothing intrinsically wrong in defining something by what it does rather than by what it is).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Mayes MOHANTY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Ex Parte Van Wulfften Palthe BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS

Ex Parte Harris HORNER 103(a) PAUL M. DENK

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Sayama et al PRATS 112(1)/103(a) LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP

While the Specification must enable the skilled artisan to practice the full scope of the claimed subject matter, "[i]t is well settled that patent applicants are not required to disclose every species encompassed by their claims, even in an unpredictable art." In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 496 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Moreover, a claim does not lack enablement merely because it encompasses inoperative embodiments. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Thus, as our reviewing court has noted:

[T]here must be sufficient disclosure, either through illustrative examples or terminology, to teach those of ordinary skill how to make and how to use the invention as broadly as it is claimed. This means that the disclosure must adequately guide the art worker to determine, without undue experimentation, which species among all those encompassed by the claimed genus possess the disclosed utility.

Vaeck, 947 F.2d at 496 (footnote omitted).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Yamada et al HOFF 102(b) SUGHRUE-265550

Ex Parte Philbrook HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A.

Ex Parte Jimarez et al HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Keller PATE, III 112(1)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C.

A patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally. See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212 (CCPA 1971) (“[T]here is nothing intrinsically wrong with [defining something by what it does rather than what it is] in drafting patent claims.”). Yet, choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As stated in Swinehart:

where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation
asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter
may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the
authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be
in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. 439 F.2d at 213.

While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477-78.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs

Ex Parte Wong LEBOVITZ 103(a) FRANCIS EDWARD MARINO

Ex Parte Cumming et al PATE, III 103(a) FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Ex Parte Lattner et al LEBOVITZ 103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS