johnston, altiris

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Huey et al 11/592,477 PRATS 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER RAO, SAVITHA M

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1765 Ex Parte Barkac et al 11/113,682 PAK Concurring SMITH 102(e)/103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 11/290,895 FRAHM 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER PADMANABHAN, KAVITA

2164 Ex Parte Singh 10/882,721 FRAHM 101/103(a)/112(1) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MAHMOOD, REZWANUL

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 Ex Parte Lagnado et al 11/344,296 CHANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KARACSONY, ROBERT

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Brosius et al 11/044,708 HOELTER 102(e) LAW OFFICE OF DUANE S. KOBAYASHI EXAMINER MANCHO, RONNIE M

The Examiner further notes that both claims 10 and 31 contain ‘if’ clauses in their limitations (b) and (c) and states that they “are optional statements” such that they “do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted” (Ans. 8-9, 13 citing MPEP § 2106 II C and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006))....
Regarding the “if” clauses found in limitations (b) and (c) of claims 10 and 31, we are not persuaded that these clauses are optional statements as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 8-9, 13). Optional statements include those limitations “stated in the permissive form ‘may’” as in Johnston (“said wall may be smooth”) and “do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted” (Johnston 435 F.3d at 1384). Conditional statements, on the other hand, leave open the situation where the condition is not satisfied; but if the condition is satisfied, then a stated action occurs (Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp, 318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). In Altiris, the court stated that “[t]he body of the claims, by using conditional language in the ‘booting normally’ step (‘if said testing step indicates a normal boot sequence’) indicates that the ‘testing’ step must occur before the computer boots normally” (Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1372). The court continued stating that “[i]t is the result of this ‘testing’ step that determines whether the automation boot sequence….occurs, or whether the ‘booting normally’ step occurs” (Id.). This is consistent with MPEP § 2106 II C relied on by the Examiner which states “[l]anguage that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed…does not limit the scope of a claim” (italics added). Here, limitations (b) and (c) are not optional because if their condition is satisfied, these limitations require certain steps to be performed. For example, if the mobile terminal is in view of a communication satellite, then transmission of the location data to the satellite occurs and if the mobile terminal is in view of a more terrestrial cellular mobile telephone network, then transmission of the location data to a cell tower occurs. We thus disagree with the Examiner that limitations (b) and (c) of claim 10 are optional (i.e. are stated in the permissive form) as found in Johnston.

Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 65 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . 2111.01
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Wickramanayake 11/239,728 TIMM 102(e)/103(a) nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FAISON, VERONICA F

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte MONSHEIMER et al 11/671,820 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER BROWN II, DAVID N

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2122 Ex Parte Keshavmurthy et al 10/623,330 DROESCH 102(b)/102(e) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER BARNES-BULLOCK, CRYSTAL JOY

2159 Ex Parte Wilhelm 11/431,685 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER SOMERS, MARC S

2173 Ex Parte Seurig et al 11/315,381 SMITH 102(e)/103(a) Greg Goshorn, P.C. EXAMINER RIEGLER, PATRICK F

2187 Ex Parte Symanczyk et al 11/133,716 DROESCH 103(a) DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Jeong et al 10/914,451 HAHN 103(a) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. EXAMINER CHAN, RICHARD

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Arndt et al 10/927,949 DANG 102(b)/103(a) Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP EXAMINER WELLS, KENNETH B

2822 Ex Parte Matsunami 11/426,157 DANG 103(a) TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED EXAMINER PATTON, PAUL E

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte McEwen et al 11/153,667 GRIMES 103(a) HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP EXAMINER MCEVOY, THOMAS M
REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Taieb et al 11/426,100 JEFFERY 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER TILLERY, RASHAWN N