Dossel, Donaldson

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Arndt et al 10/939,803 TIMM 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER CHEUNG, WILLIAM K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3684 Ex Parte Laudato et al 11/695,742 KIM 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER MARCUS, LELAND R

3688 Ex Parte Warren et al 11/557,758 PETRAVICK 103(a) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP EXAMINER VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Kropf et al 10/597,847 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP EXAMINER WOLF, MEGAN YARNALL
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Mleziva et al 11/303,029 HASTINGS 112(1) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER CHRISS, JENNIFER A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3651 Ex Parte Saurer et al 10/512,275 BAHR 112(2)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) RONALD E. GREIGG GREIGG & GREIGG P.L.L.C. EXAMINER BIDWELL, JAMES R

As stated in In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994)), [a]lthough paragraph six statutorily provides that one may use means-plus-function language in a claim, one is still subject to the requirement that a claim “particularly point out and distinctly claim” the invention. Therefore, if one employs means-plus-function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112.

Dossel, In re, 115 F.3d 942, 42 USPQ2d 1881 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2181, 2185

Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . .2106, 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182