Thursday October 7, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Berg et al 10/856,564 MILLS 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER BRUSCA, JOHN S

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Coutts et al 09/884,523 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) MICHAEL CHAN NCR CORPORATION EXAMINER DENNISON, JERRY B

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Nguyen et al 10/857,188 COLAIANNI 102(b)/112(1) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Punaganti Venkata et al 10/700,365 HOMERE 101/102(e)/103(a) HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK EXAMINER LIU, LIN

We also note that the nominal recitation to a “system” in the preamble does not limit the body of the claim as it only states the invention’s purpose or intended use. See Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc., v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002).3 Additionally, even if the preamble to the “system” were given weight and thus literally fit within the machine or an article of manufacture categories set forth in § 101, that alone is not sufficient to determine if claim 8 recites statutory subject matter. See In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Claim 8 must be construed in its entirety, and, as discussed above, the claim’s body recites nothing more than software.

3 See also Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., No. 2009-1323, slip op. at 9 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2010) (citations omitted) (noting that a preamble that “merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that has completely set forth the invention” has no separate limiting effect).

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02