Monday June 14, 2010

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Beer et al 10/051,459 KRATZ 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER ALEXANDER, LYLE

Ex Parte Engesser 10/929,568 NAGUMO 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER MACARTHUR, SYLVIA

Ex Parte Freese et al 10/661,917 OWENS 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC EXAMINER CHACKO DAVIS, DABORAH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte West et al 10/535,493 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Schneider et al 11/092,368 BOALICK 103(a) SLATER & MATSIL, LLP EXAMINER WEISS, HOWARD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Fitzsimmons 11/519,739 THOMAS 103(a) Todd E. Fitzsimmons EXAMINER JABR, FADEY S

We note that claim terms are not interpreted in a vacuum, devoid of the context of the claim as a whole. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[p]roper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.”); ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“While certain terms may be at the center of the claim construction debate, the context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered....”).

ACTV, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 68 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01

Ex Parte Mau 10/619,748 LORIN 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP EXAMINER GOTTSCHALK, MARTIN A