pitney bowes, paulsen, marrin, bell comm, kropa, corning glass, rowe

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Dobler et al 10/258,006 MILLS 103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SHEIKH, HUMERA N 

Ex Parte Selvin et al 10/976,546 SPIEGEL 103(a) RICHARD ARON OSMAN EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Giffin 10/629,094 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP EXAMINER DEUBLE, MARK A 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Kuivasto et al 10/572,393 BARRETT 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER MILLER, BENA B 

Ex Parte Ma et al 11/390,978 O’NEILL 102(b)/nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER GIMIE, MAHMOUD 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Sakata et al 10/518,814 GREEN 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER JAVANMARD, SAHAR 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Vizzini et al 11/472,153 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER RABAGO, ROBERTO 

Ex Parte Berkowitz et al 10/306,765 DELMENDO 103(a) FRANK J. BONINI, JR. EXAMINER JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN 

REEXAMINATION 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex parte REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY 90/006,283 6,283,044 LEBOVITZ Opinion Dissenting SONG 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester UNGARETTI & HARRIS LLP EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ANDRES

Precedent establishes that the preamble limits the claims when it distinguishes the use of the claimed article from the prior art . . . . [Internal citations omitted] The preamble limits the claimed invention if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . .

Generally stated, “terms appearing in a preamble may be deemed limitations of a claim when they give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . .

Marrin v. Griffin, 94 USPQ2d 1140, 1143-44 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (dissent by J. Newman).

[W]here 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, the preamble is not a claim limitation. See Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 (1951).

The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d [1251] at 1257 [(Fed. Cir. 1989)]. The inquiry involves examination of the entire patent record to determine what invention the patentee intended to define and protect. [Internal citations omitted.]

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

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

Paulsen, In re, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . .716.03, 2106, 2144.08

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2163

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303