Wednesday July 28, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Scott et al 11/440,746 GRIMES 103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
Examiner Name:
HADDAD, MAHER M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Thompson-Colon et al 11/106,937 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC
Examiner Name:
HAIDER, SAIRA BANO

"Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach." In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[I]t would be unreasonable for the PTO to ignore any interpretative guidance afforded by applicant’s written description.").

Cortright, In re, 165 F.3d 1353, 49USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999). . . . . 2111, 2164.04

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 904.01, 2106, 2111, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

Ex Parte Geisler et al 10/639,480 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
Examiner Name:
ALEXANDER, LYLE

Ex Parte Michl et al 10/571,699 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
Examiner Name:
REDDY, KARUNA P

Ex Parte Minamihaba et al 11/340,494 TIMM 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
Examiner Name:
ANGADI, MAKI A

Ex Parte Rapier et al 10/706,645 TIMM 103(a) CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY
Examiner Name:
WARTALOWICZ, PAUL A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Chang 10/832,757 HOMERE 102(e)/103(a) Haynes and Boone, LLP
Examiner Name:
LE, JESSICA N

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Hoffman et al 10/518,907 SAADAT 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
Examiner Name:
FIGUEROA, FELIX O

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Vendetti 11/250,699 BAHR 103(a) NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
Examiner Name:
KENNEDY, JOSHUA T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Frey et al 11/021,954 O’NEILL 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP
Examiner Name:
HYLTON, ROBIN ANNETTE

Ex Parte Sanchez et al 10/706,481 KERINS 103(a) DARRELL F. MARQUETTE
Examiner Name:
HUNTER, ALVIN A

Ex Parte Weber et al 10/411,558 PATE III 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC
Examiner Name:
HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

When an explicit limitation in a claim is not present in the written description, it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that the description requires that limitation. Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 47USPQ2d 1128 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . .2106, 2138.05,2163, 2163.03

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Haney 11/141,289 HORNER 112(1)/102(e)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) MARRELL HANEY
Examiner Name:
LOWE, MICHAEL S

In Mayhew, the rejected claim omitted reference to an element (use of a specially-located cooling bath) that the Specification made clear was an essential element of the invention. Mayhew, 527 F.2d at 1233. In Mayhew, an enablement rejection was upheld where an essential element was missing from the claim while, in contrast, in this case, the elements the Examiner states are essential are in claim 4.

Mayhew, In re, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . 2163, 2163.05, 2164.08(c), 2172.01, 2174
NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Endo et al
Ex Parte Thompson-Colon et al
Ex Parte van Zee

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ex Parte Kennedy
Ex Parte Klein et al
Ex Parte PACETTI

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Beyerstedt et al
Ex Parte Boldy et al
Ex Parte Choi et al
Ex Parte Cullen
Ex Parte Cullen
Ex Parte Cullen
Ex Parte Fairhurst
Ex Parte Harville et al
Ex Parte Mital et al
Ex Parte Revie et al
Ex Parte Sankruthi
Ex Parte Uchikubo
Ex Parte Wang et al
Ex Parte van de Winkel et al

VACATED

Ex Parte Fellenstein et al