crown packaging, budde, cardiac pacemakers, med. instrumentation, b. braun

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Zeng et al 11/347,003 GAUDETTE 112(1) General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

cf. Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., 98 USPQ2d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]hile Ball is correct in noting that the embodiment drawings in the specification all show chuck drive outside the reinforcing bead, that does not compel the conclusion that the written description is so narrowly tailored as to preclude Crown from claiming an embodiment that only utilizes the angled chuck wall solution.”).

1736 Ex Parte Elwart et al 10/767,339 GAUDETTE 103(a) ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE, LLP EXAMINER JOHNSON, EDWARD M

1742 Ex Parte Boucherie 10/530,351 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER HUSON, MONICA ANNE

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Brummel et al 09/950,242 PETRAVICK 102(e) Epic c/o Boyle Fredrickson S.C. EXAMINER MORGAN, ROBERT W

3691 Ex Parte Carroll et al 10/680,020 LORIN 102(b)/103(a) Mr. Christopher John Rourk Jackson Walker LLP EXAMINER CAMPEN, KELLY SCAGGS
Construing means-plusfunction claim language in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, is a two-step process.

The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation. Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed.Cir.2001). “The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.” Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed.Cir.2002). . . . The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function. “Under this second step, ‘structure disclosed in the specification is “corresponding” structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.’ ” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed.Cir.2003) (quoting B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997)).

Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 58 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . 2181, 2182

Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 63 USPQ2d 1725 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . .2181, 2182

Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 68 USPQ2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . 2181, 2182

B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419, 43 USPQ2d 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . 2163, 2181, 2182Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Yao et al 11/375,966 NAPPI 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC EXAMINER KLIMOWICZ, WILLIAM JOSEPH

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2743 Ex parte RONALD A. KATZ TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, L.P. Appellant 90/008,229, 90/010,044 and 90/010,130 5,974,120 BOALICK 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: REENA KUYPER, ESQ. BYARD NILSSON, ESQ. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTERS: NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG LLP WELSH & FLAXMAN, LLC EXAMINER KIELIN, ERIK J original EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Allawi et al 11/266,723 McCOLLUM 103(a) Casimir Jones, S.C. EXAMINER
WOOLWINE, SAMUEL C

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1747 Ex Parte Laskoski et al 11/851,411 PRATS 103(a) NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER SHEH, ANTHONY H

1764 Ex Parte Laskoski et al 11/850,854 PRATS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY EXAMINER PAK, HANNAH J

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2169 Ex Parte Baek 10/970,517 LUCAS 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER CHAU, DUNG K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Lo et al 09/961,879 LUCAS 103(a) Siemens Corporation EXAMINER ENG, DAVID Y

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Naghshineh et al 10/097,828 LORIN 112(2)/103(a) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

3686 Ex Parte Gortler et al 11/064,743 DESHPANDE 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER LE, LINH GIANG

NEW

REVERSED
1765 Ex Parte Pelliconi 10/551,679 GAUDETTE 102(e) DILWORTH IP, LLC EXAMINER NUTTER, NATHAN M
1778 Ex Parte Patil et al 11/339,106 103(a) GAUDETTE Gregory N. Clements Clements Walker EXAMINER SAVAGE, MATTHEW O
2816 Ex Parte Welty 11/382,995 NAPPI 102(b) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER ALMO, KHAREEM E

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1798 Ex Parte Bunyard et al 11/413,446 GARRIS 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEELE, JENNIFER A

2611 Ex Parte Agazzi 10/282,447 NAPPI 112(1)/102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER HA, DAC V

AFFIRMED
1622 Ex Parte Telschow 10/534,156 FREDMAN 102(b)/103(a) AKZO NOBEL INC. EXAMINER LOEWE, SUN JAE Y

1761 Ex Parte Kalyanasundaram et al 11/013,872 GAUDETTE 103(a) MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. EXAMINER KOPEC, MARK T

1776 Ex Parte Cadours et al 11/014,788 GAUDETTE 103(a) ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP EXAMINER
WU, IVES J

3744 Ex Parte Buckley et al 11/564,895 CHEN 102(b)/103(a) HITT GAINES P.C. EXAMINER ROGERS, LAKIYA G