rubin, kao2, cordis2, gosteli, vas-cath

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security

2443 Ex Parte Holmeide et al 10/465,945 HOMERE 103(a) Michael M Rickin ABB Inc EXAMINER FEARER, MARK D

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2893 Ex Parte Meyer et al 11/009,575 KRIVAK 103(a) GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC.
c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T

The Examiner asserts there is no difference between Lee’s unitary heat treatment and the claimed invention’s two-step heat treatment (Ans. 11). In support of this conclusion, the Examiner cites Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (BPAI 1959) (Ans. 8, 11, 15, and 16). However, the Examiner’s reliance on Rubin, is misplaced, as Rubin does not address splitting one step into two, only the transposition of two steps.

Rubin, Ex parte, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Haynes et al 10/717,888 HUGHES 102(b)/103(a) STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER WIENER, ERIC A

2183 Ex Parte Schwinn 10/932,730 HOMERE 112(1)/102(b) Leslie J. Payne IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 EXAMINER LINDLOF, JOHN M

“To fulfill the written description requirement [under 35 U.S.C. § 112], the patent specification must describe an invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented what is claimed.” Kao Corp. v. Unilever U.S., Inc., 441 F.3d 963, 967-968 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Our reviewing court has cautioned, however, that “[t]he disclosure as originally filed does not … have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Cordis Corp., 339 F.3d at 1364 (internal citation omitted). “Although [the applicant] does not have to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). Put another way, “the applicant must … convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original).

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . . 1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

Gosteli, In re, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . 608.01(p), 715.03, 2131.02, 2136.05, 2163.02, 2163.03, 2163.05

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Johnson et al 10/361,767 BAHR 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) David B. Johnson EXAMINER HOEY, ALISSA L

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1747 Ex Parte Fujii et al 10/532,424 HASTINGS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER MAKI, STEVEN D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Brewer et al 10/862,684 MacDONALD 103(a) HAMILTON & TERRILE, LLP EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Rush et al 10/756,664 MacDONALD 102(e) INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GM) EXAMINER FEILD, JOSEPH H