REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Abe et al WALSH 103(a) H. JAY SPIEGEL AND ASSOCIATES PC

Ex Parte Lee et al GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON

Ex Parte Tzertzinis et al PRATS 103(a) HARRIET M. STRIMPEL. D. PHIL. NEW ENGLAND BIOLABS, INC.

Moreover, “obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l. Corp. , 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)).

CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int ’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 68 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2164

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Bodin et al THOMAS 103(a) INTERNATIONAL CORP (BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP

Ex Parte Dettinger et al BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

Ex Parte Li LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) CHRISTOPHER C. WINSLADE MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD

Ex Parte Mishra et al HOMERE 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

A computer data signal embodied in a carrier wave is a transitory, propagating signal not within any of the four statutory categories and, therefore, non-statutory. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357.

Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Scott et al DIXON 102(e) DOREEN J. GRIDLEY ICE MILLER

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Johnson NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.

"[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.’" In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; emphasis in original).

Cruciferous Sprout Litig., In re, 301 F.3d 1343, 64 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . 2111.02

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Chen et al FETTING 101/112(2)/103(a) HAYNES BEFFEL & WOLFELD LLP

The Examiner rejected the claims for failing to include necessary steps. The steps the Examiner found missing were the final replies back to the requesting process. Ans. 6-7. The Examiner cited to MPEP § 2172.01, which in turn cites In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956 (CCPA 1976) and In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003 (CCPA 1968).

The Appellants argue the steps that the Examiner found to be omitted were simply additional steps described, but not critical steps. App. Br. 7-8. We agree the Specification does not in any way suggest or describe the missing steps as critical to the operation of the claimed methods.

We point out for the benefit of the Examiner the citations in the MPEP following those above, Ex parte Nolden, 149 USPQ 378, 380 (Bd. Pat. App. 1965) ("[I]t is not essential to a patentable combination that there be interdependency between the elements of the claimed device or that all the elements operate concurrently toward the desired result") and Ex parte Huber, 148 USPQ 447, 448-49 (Bd. Pat. App. 1965) (“A claim does not necessarily fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph where the various elements do not function simultaneously, are not directly functionally related, do not directly intercooperate, and/or serve independent purposes.”), quoting MPEP 2172.01.

Venezia, In re, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05, 2172.01, 2173.05(g)

Collier, In re, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ266 (CCPA 1968) . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05, 2172.01,2173.05(k)

Nolden, Ex parte, 149 USPQ 378 (Bd. Pat. App. 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2172.01

Huber, Ex parte, 148 USPQ 447 (Bd. Pat. App. 1965). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2172.01

Ex Parte Emerling et al HORNER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP (LEAR)

A two-part test has been established for determining if the steps of a method claim that do not otherwise recite an order must nonetheless be performed in the order in which they are written. First, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, the recited steps must be performed in the order written. “If not, we next look to the rest of the specification to determine whether it ‘directly or implicitly requires such a narrow construction.”’ Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp. , 318 F.3d 1363, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. , 256 F.3d 1323, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)) (emphasis in original). If not, the sequence in which such steps are written is not a requirement of the claim. Id.

Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 65 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . 2111.01

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Fukasawa HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MARTINE PENILLA & GENCARELLA, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Mizuta et al NAPPI 103(a) MCGINN & GIBB, PLLC

Ex Parte Myers SAADAT 103(a) HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Nosaka et al HORNER 103(a) WOOD, PHILLIPS, VAN SANTEN, CLARK & MORTIMER

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Jenkins STAICOVICI 103(a) LEON D. ROSEN FREILICH, HORNBAKER & ROSEN