orthokinetics, miyazaki

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Wachs 11/098,775 SCHEINER 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER STEELE, AMBER D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Fuller et al 11/053,714 TIMM 103(a) CARY W. BROOKS General Motors Corporation EXAMINER ECHELMEYER, ALIX ELIZABETH

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/733,016 HOFF 103(a) THE LAW OFFICE OF KIRK D. WILLIAMS EXAMINER LE, DEBBIE M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/219,045 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER ATALA, JAMIE JO

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Fellon 11/160,846 LORIN 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER AHMED, AFFAF

3622 Ex Parte Fellon 11/160,847 LORIN 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER AHMED, AFFAF

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 Ex Parte Shepard et al 10/747,420 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Martens et al 11/239,125 BARRETT 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER KUMAR, KALYANAVENKA K
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Jorgensen et al 11/129,953 FRANKLIN 103(a) NOVOZYMES NORTH AMERICA, INC. EXAMINER ARIANI, KADE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/675,467 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER RYAN, PATRICK A

2486 Ex Parte Jeon 10/335,331 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Marshall et al 09/969,000 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Intellectual Property and Licensing NXP B.V. EXAMINER THIER, MICHAEL

2625 Ex Parte Brown 10/255,631 KRIVAK 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HUNTSINGER, PETER K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Gadkaree et al 11/494,206 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER SINCLAIR, DAVID M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Murakami 10/558,321 CRAWFORD 103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K

3727 Ex Parte Hsu 11/479,255 HORNER 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).

Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . 2173.02, 2173.05(b)

[W]e employ a lower threshold of ambiguity when reviewing a pending claim for indefiniteness than those used by post-issuance reviewing courts. In particular, rather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we hold that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.

The USPTO, as the sole agency vested with the authority to grant exclusionary rights to inventors for patentable inventions, has a duty to guard the public against patents of ambiguous and vague scope. Such patents exact a cost on society due to their ambiguity that is not commensurate with the benefit that the public gains from disclosure of the invention. The USPTO is justified in using a lower threshold showing of ambiguity to support a finding of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because the applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend the claims during prosecution to more clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and to more clearly and precisely put the public on notice of the scope of the patent.

Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211-12 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).