griffin, hoffer, minton

the blogger search function has been broken for months, google knows this, to search for names (ie examiner's name or a company) use custom search (google cse) below.  to search for cases use tabs above

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Yano et al 11067290 - (D) DIXON 103 SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL PEREZ, JULIO R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Takiguchi et al 11126127 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 HOLTZ, HOLTZ, GOODMAN & CHICK PC CAROC, LHEIREN MAE ANGLO

2835 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11421825 - (D) MURPHY 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION PAPE, ZACHARY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Chun et al 11139591 - (D) STRAUSS 103 103 NSIP LAW CHBOUKI, TAREK

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Barsness et al 11833290 - (D) HUME 103 IBM CORPORATION KIM, TAELOR

The determination of whether recitations or clauses introduced by terms such as “wherein,” “whereby,” or, in the present appeal, “thereby” result in affirmative claim limitations which are to be given patentable weight depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a “wherein” clause limited a process claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”). In re Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Id.

Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2103, 2111.04
DONNER 10: 909, 916, 1018-24
HARMON 6: 25

Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 74 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111.04
HARMON 6: 112; 19: 511

Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2003)  2106,  2111.04,  2133.03(c)
HARMON 2: 215; 19: 373