REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Kanz et al 11/222,366 NAGUMO 103(a)
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

1762 Ex Parte Kanz et al 11/222,362 OWENS 103(a)
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Griffen et al 11/121,027 HORNER 103(a)
VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER HOUSTON, ELIZABETH

3773 Ex Parte Jacobs et al 09/816,641 PATE III 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. EXAMINER WOO, JULIAN W

A structure may be expressed as one of several alternatives if those alternatives present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. 35 U.S.C. §112, 2nd paragraph; see also In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 724 (CCPA 1980). The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1958).

Harnisch, In re, 631 F.2d 716, 206 USPQ 300 (CCPA 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . 803.02, 2173.05(h)

Ruff, In re, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.06

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Nguyen-Kim et al 10/541,157 OWENS 103(a)
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP EXAMINER PEZZUTO, HELEN LEE

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Walker et al 10/924,409 MANTIS MERCADER 102(e)/103(a)
Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER ALAM, FAYYAZ

REEXAMINATION

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1713 Ex parte TAKASHI YASUKOCHI, TOSHIRO YAMAGUCHI, TETSURO TATEISHI, and NARUHITO HIGO 90/008,491 7,034,083 SCHAFER 103(a)
THE HARRIS FIRM EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D original EXAMINER CHOI, LING SIU

Notice, Clarification on the Procedure for Seeking Review of a Finding of a Substantial New Question of Patentability in Ex Parte Reexamination Procedures, 75 Fed. Reg. 36,357 (June 25, 2010).

An argument made to the Office constitutes a disclaimer only if it is “clear and unmistakable.” Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co., 593 F.3d 1275, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms., Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An “ambiguous disavowal” will not suffice. Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Tamiya et al 10,469,046 GARRIS 103(a)
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO MORIN & OSHINSKY EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Dybsetter et al 10/814,392 JEFFERY 103(a)
Maschoff Gilmore & Israelsen EXAMINER CAMPOS, YAIMA

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Bates et al 10/879,920 MacDONALD 102(e)/103(a)
WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM) EXAMINER CHAN, RICHARD

2627 Ex Parte Dovek et al 10/781,000 RUGGIERO 103(a)
SAILE ACKERMAN LLC EXAMINER KLIMOWICZ, WILLIAM JOSEPH

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2852 Ex Parte Aoki 11/046,732 HAHN 103(a)
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER WONG, JOSEPH S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Garrett 10/838,529 BARRETT 103(a)
ROBERT GARRETT EXAMINER QUINN, COLLEEN M

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Wyrobek et al 11/528,296 GREEN 112(2)
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER POHNERT, STEVEN C