REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Hikata 10590011 - (D) GARRIS 103 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP HORNING, JOEL G
1721 Ex Parte Goebel et al 10973043 - (D) HANLON 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY VAJDA, PETER L
1782 Ex Parte Fearing et al 11143372 - (D) HOUSEL 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP FROST, ANTHONY J
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Eytchison et al 10763701 - (D) HOFF 103 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP LONG, ANDREA NATAE
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte PILKINGTON 12041904 - (D) SCANLON 102 Krieg DeVault LLP SWINNEY, JENNIFER B
3766 Ex Parte Moffitt 11752898 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Vista IP Law Group LLP LEE, ERICA SHENGKAI
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Moyer 11619294 - (D) THOMAS Concurring BOALICK 103 103 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP SADLER, NATHAN
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Sohn 11732192 - (D) COURTENAY 103 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2800 Ex Parte Kashihara et al 10560244 - (D) THOMAS 103 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC TAMAI, KARL I
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Ihle 11919917 - (D) PLENZLER 103 112(2)/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION TYLER, CHERYL JACKSON
3781 Ex Parte Schessl et al 10575297 - (D) SAINDON 103 112(1)/102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Karl 12159991 - (D) SMITH 112(2)/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN
1786 Ex Parte Burrow et al 11958871 - (D) PRAISS Concurring WARREN 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON CHOI, PETER Y
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Watanabe 10716622 - (D) BRANCH 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP HOTELLING, HAROLD A
2166 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10365098 - (D) COURTENAY 103 IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 William J. McGinnis, Jr AHLUWALIA, NAVNEET K
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Chouanard et al 11209290 - (D) BENOIT 101/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK MEANS, JAREN M
2448 Ex Parte Fung et al 11272603 - (D) BRANCH 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy STRANGE, AARON N
2471 Ex Parte Izumi 12858009 - (D) GARRIS 251 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. HYUN, SOON D
To decide whether a patentee surrendered certain subject matter, we must determine "whether an objective observer viewing the prosecution history would conclude that the purpose of the patentee's amendment or argument" concerning a particular claim was for reasons of patentability, that is, "to overcome prior art and secure the patent." Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 465 F.3d 1312, 1323 (Fed. Cir.2006).
Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. XICOR LLC, 692 F. 3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Suzuki et al 11062807 - (D) BENOIT 102 MYERS WOLIN, LLC ZEWARI, SAYED T
2648 Ex Parte Nagy 10755814 - (D) GONSALVES 101/103 DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. HUANG, WEN WU
2649 Ex Parte Won et al 11219884 - (D) DIXON 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. CHEN, JUNPENG
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Courtney et al 11220162 - (D) PETRAVICK 112(2) 103 Patient Practitioners, LLC KANAAN, MAROUN P
“[A] general purpose computer is sufficient structure if the function of a term such as ‘means for processing’ requires no more than merely ‘processing,’ which any general-purpose computer may do without any special programming.” Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation 639 F.3d 1303, 1316-17 (Fed.Cir.2011)).
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Gray et al 10791345 - (D) PRATS 102/obviousness-type double patenting JOHNSON & JOHNSON BUI, VY Q
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2687 Ex Parte Becker et al 10564607 - (D) WINSOR 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP SHERWIN, RYAN W
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 APPLE, INC. Requester v. ZAPMEDIA SERVICES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95001144 7020704 09/679,688 WEINBERG 102/103 PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: TRACY W. DRUCE NOVAK DRUCE + QUIGG LLP FERRIS III, FRED O original PRIETO, BEATRIZ
Our reviewing court, however, has held that “[i]n reexamination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2011), quoting In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Baxter Intern., Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that because District Court proceedings and reexamination proceedings in the PTO apply different burdens of proof and rely on different records, the PTO did not err by failing to provide a detailed explanation as to why the PTO came to a different determination than did the court system). We will follow the Federal Circuit’s holding.
American Academy of Science Tech. Center, In re, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2111, 2111.01
2161 GOOGLE, INC., APPLE, INC., and NAPSTER, INC. Requesters, Respondents v. INTERTAINER, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95000313 6925469 09/947,592 MOHANTY 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP Third Party Requester: Fish & Richardson, PC FERRIS III, FRED O original COBY, FRANTZ
No comments :
Post a Comment