REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Hwang et al GREEN 103(a) THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP

Ex Parte Masuda et al GREEN 103(a) KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Patel et al SAADAT 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Kapur HAHN 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Bray et al SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Balogh CRAWFORD 112(2)/103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Alexander J. Burke

The context of the surrounding words of the claim must be considered in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of those terms. ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

ACTV, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 68 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01

Ex Parte Oddsen STAICOVICI 103(a) DESIGN IP, P.C.

An overly broad interpretation, as the Examiner suggests, would eviscerate the meaning of the phrase integrally formed because it would mean that all components of APA’s channel 14 as modified by the boss of Matsubara or Schwartztrauber are integrally formed merely because they are interconnected to each other in some manner. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions which render phrases in claims superfluous).

Ex Parte Wang et al LORIN 102(b)/103(a) NIXON PEABODY, LLP

Ex Parte Webster et al BAHR 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) K&L Gates LLP

The description requirement found in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement of that provision. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The purpose of the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is to convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Id.

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

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

Ex Parte Kroese et al STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Ashcraft et al HOMERE 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) DUKE W. YEE YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Ex Parte Serlet et al DIXON 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Shu et al MARTIN 102(e)/103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Dennis et al KERINS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP

Ex Parte Fisher et al CRAWFORD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) O'BANION & RITCHEY LLP/ SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Fabian et al LEBOVITZ 103(a) ERNEST D. BUFF

Ex Parte Rittner et al GREEN 102(b)/103(a) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC

Ex Parte Schramm ROBERTSON 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Michael R. Schramm