odetics

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Giordano et al 12/038,177 KIM 102(b) 102(b) MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC FOR BOFA EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Hershberger 10/758,997 FREDMAN 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

1618 Ex Parte KLUNK et al 12/046,070 FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP EXAMINER JONES, DAMERON LEVEST
REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Freeman et al 11/235,344 ZECHER 102(b) Mr. Christopher John Rourk Jackson Walker LLP EXAMINER OSBORNE, LUKE R

In the Request, Appellants allege that, in view of Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1999), the Decision improperly found “Froese’s algorithms are only similar in function to Appellant’s special purpose computer and are not identical in function.” (Request 4.) (Emphasis in original.)

In Odetics, the Federal Circuit instructs that a limitation recited in “means-plus function” format covers only structure which performs the identical function recited in the limitation and which is identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure described in the specification. Odetics, 185 F.3d at 1267. Equivalency is an issue of fact determined by assessing whether the prior art structure performs the recited function in substantially the same way as the corresponding structure so as to produce substantially the same result. Id.

Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 51 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . 2183, 2184

GRANTED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Hinnebusch 10/015,866 KIM 112(2) PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. EXAMINER NELSON, FREDA ANN