genentech, bond, schriber-schroth, omega

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Greff 10/068,812 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER GHALI, ISIS A D

1612 Ex Parte Torney et al 10/939,206 GRIMES 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER MAEWALL, SNIGDHA
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2112 Ex Parte Von Wendorff 10/491,072 DIXON 112(2)/101/102(b)/103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER TORRES, JOSEPH D
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Mostafa 10/149,639 WHITEHEAD, JR. 102(e)/103(a) AlbertDhand LLP EXAMINER HAMZA, FARUK

2445 Ex Parte Boehme et al 10/024,118 LUCAS 102(e)/102(a)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER COULTER, KENNETH R
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned against unreasonably broad claim construction:
Although the PTO emphasizes that it was required to give all “claims their broadest reasonable construction” particularly with respect to [the] use of the open-ended term “comprising,” see Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“the open-ended term comprising ... means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added”), this court has instructed that any such construction be “consistent with the specification, ... and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The PTO’s construction here, though certainly broad, is unreasonably broad. The broadest construction rubric coupled with the term “comprising” does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. See Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217 (1940).

In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . 2131, 2183, 2184

Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 2111.03, 2138.05, 2163
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Theiler 10/521,931 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Singhal 09/891,913 KIM 103(a) 103(a) Tara Chand Singhal EXAMINER MONFELDT, SARAH M

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Gertzmann et al 11/784,643 McKELVEY 103(a)/provisional double patenting CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2122 Ex Parte Fu 11/342,086 LUCAS 102(b) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER GAMI, TEJAL

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2471 Ex Parte Reinold et al 09/943,882 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. EXAMINER HYUN, SOON D

See Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (an express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by the negative limitation is required, such as an express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that provides support for the negative limitation).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Abbasi et al 11/005,683 KIM 103(a) SPRINT EXAMINER GORT, ELAINE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Minoguchi et al 10/836,892 SAINDON 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO