REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Deutsch et al 11/249,169 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP EXAMINER ZIMMERMAN, JOSHUA D

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Breed 11/025,501 SILVERBERG 103(a) BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ EXAMINER TO, TUAN C

Thus, we find that the Examiner has not rebutted the Appellant’s argument that structured light is not similar to scattered light. In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175-1176 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Once the examiner or Board carries the burden of making out a prima facie case of unpatentability, ‘the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant.’ . . . ‘After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by a preponderance of the evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument[,]’” including any and all rebuttals of the evidence of argument submitted by applicant.)

Alton, In re, 76 F.3d 1168, 37 USPQ2d1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2145, 2163, 2163.06, 2164.05

3663 Ex Parte Lahoda et al 11/429,697 BAHR 103(a) Joseph C. Spadacene Westinghouse Electric Company LLC EXAMINER PALABRICA, RICARDO J

See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970) (where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a “minor capacity,” there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of rejection).

Hoch, In re, 428 F.2d 1341, 166 USPQ 406 (CCPA 1970) . . . . 706.02(j), 1207.03, 2144.08

3635 Ex Parte Luttrell et al 11/213,113 SILVERBERG 103(a) JON M. DICKINSON, P.C. EXAMINER GILBERT, WILLIAM V

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Michelson 10/098,683 SILVERBERG 112(1)/103(a) MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
EXAMINER TYSON, MELANIE RUANO

3727 Ex Parte Wridt et al 10/950,066 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) SEYFARTH SHAW LLP EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Oldani et al 11/111,499 ROBERTSON 103(a) Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, PC EXAMINER HUSON, MONICA ANNE

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Wong et al 10/271,226 JEFFERY 102(e) Michael J. Mallie Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor, & Zafman LLP EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Benitsch et al 11/732,873 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION EXAMINER HANSEN, JAMES ORVILLE

Thus, the theory of claim differentiation supports the interpretation that the rods of claim 1 are not limited to a rounded cross section. See generally Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.)

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1617 Ex Parte Wong et al 11/432,952 FREDMAN 103(a) ALLERGAN, INC. EXAMINER BROWN, COURTNEY A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Brown et al 10/941,384 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION DAVID CATE EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

1727 Ex Parte Cutright et al 10/342,149 GAUDETTE 102(e)/103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER MARTIN, ANGELA J

1761 Ex Parte Deetman 09/801,883 ROBERTSON 251/103(a) HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP EXAMINER OGDEN JR, NECHOLUS

MBO Labs, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 602 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“MBO's arguments distinguishing the prior art based on its safety flange do not affect its surrender of another subject matter: a patentee's arguments that emphasize one feature cannot cure arguments that clearly surrender another.”)

2600 Communications
2628 Ex Parte Ueda et al 10/497,507 MacDONALD 103(a) PEARNE & GORDON LLPEXAMINERHARRISON, CHANTE E

2612 Ex Parte Agapi et al 11/314,395 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER LU, SHIRLEY

2625 Ex Parte Haines et al 09/981,117 MacDONALD 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER GARCIA, GABRIEL I

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Egan 10/366,248 STAICOVICI 103(a) KRIEG DEVAULT LLP EXAMINERA, PHI DIEU TRAN

3652 Ex Parte Nigam 11/422,815 SILVERBERG 102(b) SHAY GLENN LLP EXAMINER KRAMER, DEAN J

Things which may be done are not required to be done in the claims. Therefore, intended use statements cannot be regarded as structural limitations and are not positive limitations in a claim drawn to structure. Intended use statements cannot be relied on to distinguish a claim from the prior art. In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 1006 (CCPA 1968).

Collier, In re, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ266 (CCPA 1968) . . . . . . . 2163, 2163.05, 2172.01,2173.05(k)

3676 Ex Parte Zahn 11/178,988 SILVERBERG BAHR Concurring 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) EXAMINER PATEL, VISHAL A HEAD, JOHNSON & KACHIGIAN