REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Haldar et al WALSH 103(a) INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS WILLIAM J. DAVIS, ESQ.

Ex Parte Hedding-Eckerich FREDMAN 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GREGORY TUROCY AMIN & TUROCY

However, a preamble is not limiting “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed.Cir.2002).

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02

Ex Parte Vesper PRATS 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) BROWDY AND NEIMARK, P.L.L.C.

Moreover, "[i]f the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim." Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co. , 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
On the other hand:

If . . . the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete
invention, including all of its limitations, and the preamble offers no distinct
definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, but rather merely
states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the
preamble is of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said
to constitute or explain a claim limitation.

Id.

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Singleton et al LUCAS 112(1)/103(a) ALEXANDER J. BURKE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Kaplan HOFF 103(a) KYOCERA Wireless Corp.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Graute et al McCARTHY 103(a) MATTHIAS SCHOLL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Englebienne et al FREDMAN 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Kuenzner LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP

"This court has held in a number of decisions that a United States patent speaks for all it discloses as of its filing date, even when used in combination with other references." In re Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924, 926 (CCPA, 1964) (internal citations omitted).

Zenitz, In re, 333 F.2d 924, 142 USPQ 158 (CCPA 1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.02(f)

Ex Parte Linder DIXON 102(b)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Chandrashekhar et al HOFF 112(2)/103(a) WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.

In determining the scope of the claim, a claim limitation within an ‘adapted to,’ ‘adapted for,’ ‘wherein’ and “whereby’ clause that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or limit the structure may be ignored. Specifically, "a ‘whereby’ clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited” Minton v. Nat'l Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). However, 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" Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp. , 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . .2111.04, 2133.03(c)

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

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Lansac SONG 102(b) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP