custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Eisenhut et al 11294332 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC OCHYLSKI, RYAN M
1766 Ex Parte Heeney et al 12094895 - (D) SMITH 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. KAHN, RACHEL
1777 Ex Parte Beatty 11197960 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FRITCHMAN, REBECCA M
1779 Ex Parte Gaid 12088501 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC ANDERSON, DENISE R
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Abuzaina et al 12147046 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien BOSQUES, EDELMIRA
Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3636 Ex parte Lear Corporation, Patent Owner and Appellant 90011745 6955397 10/950,711 ROBERTSON 103 LEAR CORPORATION BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original BROWN, PETER R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Geng 10728393 - (D) DANG 102 102/103 Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy PETERSON, CHRISTOPHER K
That is, such “being configured to” language merely represents a statement of intended use of the light projector. An intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
...
Although claim 73 claims a “3D imaging camera” in the preamble, “[w]hether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is ‘determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.’” Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held generally that “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2133.03(e), 2133.03(e)(4)
We do not find that the body of the claim depends on the preamble for completeness; since the preamble does not provide more than just “a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Therefore, we find that the preamble has no separate limiting effect.
IMS Technology Inc. v. Haas Automation Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 54 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2181, 2183, 2184
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2873 Ex Parte Matsuzawa et al 10152930 - (D) HOFF 103 103 CIBA VISION CORPORATION STULTZ, JESSICA T
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Caldwell et al 11115968 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 EPA - Bozicevic Field & Francis LLP BREDEFELD, RACHAEL EVA
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Tran Quoc et al 11573162 - (D) SCHAFER 103 Pearne & Gordon LLP LOUIE, MANDY C
1744 Ex Parte Curdy et al 10574003 - (D) SMITH 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC LE, NINH V
1745 Ex Parte Giacometti 10552360 - (D) SMITH 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC TOLIN, MICHAEL A
1746 Ex Parte Bauer 11805444 - (D) SMITH 103 Avery Dennison Corporation DODDS, SCOTT
1762 Ex Parte Ung et al 11094102 - (D) KATZ 103 Mintz Levin/Palo Alto HARLAN, ROBERT D
1765 Ex Parte Wei et al 12708368 - (D) PRAISS 103/obviousness-type double patenting THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MCGINTY, DOUGLAS J
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Kottapalli 11638315 - (D) BENOIT 102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP HUISMAN, DAVID J
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2661 Ex Parte Lim et al 10419984 - (D) DANG 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. PASIEWICZ, DANIEL M
2686 Ex Parte Karr et al 11265629 - (D) FRAHM 103 SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A. KLIMOWICZ, WILLIAM JOSEPH
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, so as to meet the notice required of 35 USC § 132, requires (1) “set[ting] forth the statutory basis of the rejection”; (2) “the reference or references relied upon”; and (3) explaining the references “in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, there must be (4) “a reason to combine prior art references[, which] is a question of fact.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted).
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Carrison 10793694 - (D) JENKS 103 VISTA IP LAW GROUP LLP SZPIRA, JULIE ANN
No comments :
Post a Comment