multiform, altiris, langmyr, gottschalk,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Blume et al 10/790,658 LEBOVITZ 112(1)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) VINSON & ELKINS, L.L.P. EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA 

Ex Parte Gall et al 11/337,866 McCOLLUM 103(a) LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER BLUMEL, BENJAMIN P 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Megerle et al 10/282,370 WARREN Concurring OWENS 103(a) BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP EXAMINER YOO, REGINA M 

Ex Parte Turi et al 10/938,079 KIMLIN 103(a) AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP EXAMINER COLE, ELIZABETH M 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Papanyan et al 10/601,353 SIU 102(e) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER GORTAYO, DANGELINO N 

Any special meaning assigned to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd. , 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1998).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2111.01 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Howard et al 10/404,583 JEFFERY 103(a) AUSTIN RAPP & HARDMAN EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R 

Ex Parte Curry et al 09/683,995 LUCAS 102(e) LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL DRYJA EXAMINER DINH, KHANH Q 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Cutler et al 10/184,499 HOFF 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION C/O LYON & HARR, LLP EXAMINER RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR 

Ex Parte Pettinato 11/043,229 BARRETT 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, PC EXAMINER HUYNH, CHUCK 

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

Ex Parte Walker et al 10/232,647 LORIN 103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Ghercioiu et al 10/283,548 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert, & Goetzel PC EXAMINER DAO, THUY CHAN 

“Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 65 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . 2111.01 

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components 

Ex Parte Phillips et al 10/577,938 HAHN 102(b) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WEISS, HOWARD 

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

Ex Parte Anderson et al 10/061,354 CRAWFORD 101/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD 

Nominal recitations of structure in an otherwise ineligible method fail to make the method a statutory process. Ex parte Langmyr, 89 USPQ2d 1988, 1996 (BPAI 2008) (informative) (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972)). 

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). . . . .2106, 2106.01, 2106.02 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Kennedy 10/662,599 STAICOVICI 103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER SMITH, PHILIP ROBERT 

REEXAMINATION 

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART ex parte 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) 

Ex parte SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 90/007,189 6,166,667 LEE 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R