REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Patel PRATS 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP

Furthermore, “[e]ven when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Ex Parte Choo et al GRIMES 103(a) ROBINS & PASTERNAK

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Phillips et al ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) Vista IP Law Group LLP

Ex Parte Sengupta et al HANLON 103(a) HAMMER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Ex Parte Pavel et al PAK 103(a) MOSER IP LAW GROUP / APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he specification ‘acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.”); Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Even when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, the specification may define claim terms by implication such that the meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.”). Indeed, our reviewing court stated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1315:

The specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a
disputed term.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Belknap et al MACDONALD 102(b)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION PLLC

Ex Parte Lindsay et al BARRY 103(A) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Haapoja KRIVAK 103(a) Hollingsworth & Funk

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Sutardja et al KRIVAK 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Blattner et al BAHR 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) 112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Perman & Green, LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Winkel et al McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.

Ex Parte Slezak O'NEILL 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Fellers, Snider, et al

Ex Parte Sundholm BAHR 102(b)/103(a) LADAS & PARRY LLP

BILSKI - AFFIRMED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Schrader FISCHETTI 101/103(a) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION

NUIJTEN - AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Childress et al COURTENAY 101/102(a) IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC

In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. §101, a computer-readable medium (or media) comprising instructions is directed to statutory subject matter so long as the language of the claims is not supported in the specification with non-statutory embodiments (i.e., signals, transmission mediums and the like). See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (A claim directed to computer instructions embodied in a signal is not statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Khan et al WARREN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) FENNEMORE, CRAIG, P.C.

Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038-40 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("The meaning of the word ‘about’ is dependent on the facts of a case, the nature of the invention, and the knowledge imparted by the totality of the . . . disclosure to those skilled in the art." (citation omitted)).

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Saccomanno et al HAIRSTON 103(a) HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Bonutti KERINS 103(a) FLEIT GIBBONS GUTMAN BONGINI & BIANCO, PL

Ex Parte Koo GRIMES 103(a) JOSEPH SWAN