1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Murphy et al 10989721 COLAIANNI 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYDE, P.C. EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
Ex Parte Tsai et al 10382032 PAK 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER ZHENG, LOIS L
Ex Parte Maydan et al 10867591 COLAIANNI 103(a) MOSER IS LAW GROUP APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. EXAMINER KUNEMUND, ROBERT M
Ex Parte Burns et al 11108274 COLAIANNI 112(1)/103(a) FLETCHER YODER (CHEVRON PHILLIPS) EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K
As stated in Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. . . . The term "possession," however, has never been very enlightening. It implies that as long as one can produce records documenting a written description of a claimed invention, one can show possession. But the hallmark of written description is disclosure. Thus, "possession as shown in the disclosure" is a more complete formulation. Yet whatever the specific articulation, the test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.598 F. 3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Linzer 11122426 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) CHRISTOPHER P MAIORANA, PC LSI CORPORATION EXAMINER CHOW, JEFFREY J
Ex Parte Turetzky et al 10154138 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) THE ECLIPSE GROUP LLP EXAMINER PEREZ, ANGELICA
Ex Parte Endoh et al 10239188 SAADAT 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLANDMAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER AGUSTIN, PETER VINCENT
Ex Parte Shiono 10882316 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC EXAMINER HSU, JONI
Ex Parte Lee et al 11033845 SAADAT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER ARORA, AJAY
Ex Parte Iwamoto et al 10543051 KERINS 103(a)/112(1)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER CULLER, JILL E
Ex Parte Tsukagoshi 10796394 HAIRSTON 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER LAVARIAS, ARNEL C
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Joye et al 10867986 McCARTHY 112(1)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRATT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2600 Communications
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
REEXAMINATION
inter parties
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
SHIMANO, INC. Requester and Respondent v. ROLF DIETRICH Patent Owner and Appellant
95000008 6,428,113 LEBOVITZ 120 Priority/112(1)/103(a)/305 314(a) Enlarging the scope of the claims PURDUE LAW OFFICES THIRD PARTY REQUESTER David L. Tarnoof Global IP Counselors, LLP EXAMINER ENGLISH, PETER C
When a claim term merely states a purpose, an intended use, or a result, the term may not be considered a limitation of the claim. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Texas Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716.04
