ranbaxy

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2494 Ex Parte Carter et al 11208275 - (D) WINSOR 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 GARLICK & MARKISON GERGISO, TECHANE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Reid 11447625 - (D) FLOYD 103 BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A JOHNSON, VICKY A

3664 Ex Parte Hanson 11465710 - (D) BROWNE 103 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. KISWANTO, NICHOLAS

3692 Ex Parte Schmidt 11348637 - (D) PETRAVICK 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. MONFELDT, SARAH M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Austin et al 10380663 - (D) COURTENAY 112(2)/102/103 101 Haugen Law Firm LU,CHARLES EDWARD

Assuming arguendo that claim 35 is a proper multiple dependent claim, we agree with Appellants that it includes the subject matter of the claims from which it depends. (See App. Br. 17). 2

See also 35 U.S.C. § 112(e):

(e) REFERENCE IN MULTIPLE DEPENDENT FORM.—A claim in multiple dependent form shall contain a reference, in the alternative only, to more than one claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the particular claim in relation to which it is being considered. 3

2 A counter argument can be made that multiple dependent claim 35 is not a proper dependent claim because it arguably does not specify a further limitation of the subject matter of claim 1, but instead broadens the subject matter of claim 1 to extend the scope of coverage to a computer program embodiment not within the scope of apparatus claim 1. See Pfizer Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (when a claim relying on another claim “fails to ‘specify a further limitation of the subject matter’ of the [another] claim to which it refers because it is completely outside the scope of [the another claim,]” such claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph.).

3 Amended Sept. 16, 2011, Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, sec. 4(c), 125 Stat. 284 (effective Sept. 16, 2012).
 
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Yang 10939302 - (D) PRATS DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC 103 PARAS JR, PETER

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte GALLOWAY 11939700 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BEMIS COMPANY, INC. CHEN, VIVIAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2692 Ex Parte Berkel van 10516847 - (D) COURTENAY 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DINH, DUC Q

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Pedrazzoli Pazos 10325771 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS ABDELSALAM, FATHI K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3748 Ex Parte Iannizzaro et al 11760981 - (D) CAPP 102/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP DAVIS, MARY ALICE

3765 Ex Parte Cho 11403339 - (D) CALVE 103 FELLERS SNIDER BLANKENSHIP BAILEY & TIPPENS HADEN, SALLY CLINE

3783 Ex Parte Christain et al 11239561 - (D) FLOYD 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC MCMAHON, MARGUERITE J  

REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY Requester and Appellant and Cross-Respondent v. TDY INDUSTRIES Patent Owner and Respondent and Cross-Appellant 95001417 7244519 10/922,750 LEBOVITZ 102 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 102 ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES DIAMOND, ALAN D original TURNER, ARCHENE A