REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Choi et al KRATZ 103(a) JOHN L. CORDANI CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP

Ex Parte Henninge et al WARREN 103(a)/ obviousness-type double patenting OBLON SPIVAK MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.

Ex Parte Oshiyama et al HASTINGS 103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Ford et al SIU 102(b)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Anthe et al SAADAT 103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Kordel et al OWENS 102(b)/103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Abusamra et al BAHR 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.

Ex Parte Sharp CRAWFORD 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP

A proper claim interpretation gives full effect to the recitation of two distinct elements in the claimed structure. Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1561-62 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Buban et al STEPHENS 102(e) MICROSOFT CORPORATION

“Teaching away” is irrelevant to anticipation. Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp. , 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citations omitted) (“[T]he question whether a reference ‘teaches away’ from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.”).

Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 47 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . 2123, 2131.05

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Halim et al STEPHENS 102(e)/103(a) DUKE W. YEE

Ex Parte Poletto et al BAUMEISTER non-statutory double patenting/103(a) Riverbed Technology Inc. - PVF c/o Park, Vaughan & Fleming LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Morciniec et al CRAWFORD 101/102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Banbury et al MILLS 102(b)/103(a) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP

The determination of whether a "whereby" clause or similar clause1 is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp. , 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In Hoffer, the court held that when a "whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention." Id.

1 See MPEP 2111.04 [R-3] stating that an "adapted to" clause is subject to a similar claim interpretation.

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . 2111.04

Ex Parte Paskar SCHEINER 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS LLP