REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Stamler et al ADAMS 112(1)/103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Hicks et al MOHANTY 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC

Ex Parte Marsh BAHR 102(e)/103(a) KINNEY & LANGE, P.A.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Racenet et al O’NEILL 103(a) TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte VanderVelde et al STEPHENS 103(a) PANDUIT CORP.

Ex Parte Bello et al THOMAS 112(1)/103(a) KUNZLER & McKENZIE

In other words, Claim 1’s “if” statement sets forth a necessary prelude to reordering the requests. Thus, the “if” statement must be given weight. “[E]very limitation positively recited in a claim must be given effect in order to determine what subject matter that claim defines.” In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450 (CCPA 1970). See also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) (“All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.”); Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. , 822 F.2d 1528, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (the court can not ignore a plethora of meaningful limitations).

Wilson, In re, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, (CCPA 1970).. . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Fang et al TURNER 103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP

Ex Parte Grundfest MOHANTY 103(a) SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.