bj servs., union pac., venner, bell and howell

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1785 Ex Parte Kasperchik et al 10/783,610 TIMM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2161 Ex Parte Murashige et al 10/662,998 POTHIER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101/112(1) Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3718 Ex Parte Gilmore et al  10/641,368 BAHR 102(b) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER PANDYA, SUNIT 

3761 Ex Parte Rydenstam 10/904,359 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO

3772 Ex Parte Strait 10/834,492 GREENHUT 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAMTU TRAN

3775  Ex Parte Becker 10/259,300 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) EXAMINER BOLES, SAMEH RAAFAT 

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)

2162 Ex Parte 7096212 et al INTELLIGENT HOSPITAL SYSTEMS LTD. Requester and Appellant v. FORHEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent 95/000,333 CHANG 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103(a) Leason Ellis LLP EXAMINER LEE, CHRISTOPHER E  original EXAMINER TO, BAOQUOC N 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications

2612 Ex Parte Arik et al 11/275,188 RUGGIERO 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EXAMINER WU, DANIEL J

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry

1652  Ex Parte Lyamichev et al 11/489,665 WALSH 103(a) Casimir Jones, S.C. EXAMINER RAMIREZ, DELIA M 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering

1741  Ex Parte Kunert et al 10/362,045 HASTINGS 103(a) Todd T Taylor Taylor & Aust EXAMINER LAZORCIK, JASON L 

1783 Ex Parte Savicki et al 10/980,657 PRAISS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER OHERN, BRENT T 

A claim satisfies the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, when one skilled in the art understands the claim parameters as read in light of the specification. BJ Servs. Co. v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. 338 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 236 F.3d 684, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The definiteness inquiry focuses on whether those skilled in the art would understand the scope of the claim when the claim is read in light of the rest of the specification.”)).

Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 236 F.3d 684, 57 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . .2164.06(a)

2100 Computer Architecture and Software

2127 Ex Parte Schreder et al 10/729,774 COURTENAY 103(a) HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. EXAMINER NORTON, JENNIFER L 

Broadly providing an automatic way to replace a manual activity accomplishing the same result is not sufficient to distinguish an automated process over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958).

Venner, In re, 262 F.2d 91, 120 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1958) . . . . . . . . 2144.04

We are also mindful that an inventor’s self-serving statements are rarely relevant to the proper construction of a claim term. Bell & Howell Document Mgmt. Prods. v. Altek Sys.,132 F.3d 701, 706 (Fed.Cir.1997).

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review

3636 Ex Parte Combest 11/389,539 SAINDON 103(a) GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP EXAMINER MCPARTLIN, SARAH BURNHAM

3663  Ex Parte De Sousa et al 10/691,795 DILLON 102(a)/103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. EXAMINER EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design

3738 Ex Parte Masini 11/409,404 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD