REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1727 Ex Parte Alp et al 11928608 - (D) SMITH 103 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION BEST, ZACHARY P
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Zato et al 11588934 - (D) SHIANG 112(1)/102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PENG, HSIUNGFEI
2443 Ex Parte Kumaran et al 12342732 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. BELANI, KISHIN G
2488 Ex Parte MacInnis 10850911 - (D) DESHPANDE 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) PE, GEEPY
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2897 Ex Parte PAL et al 12209056 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. c/o Davidson Sheehan LLP NEWTON, VALERIE N
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Ohta 11495595 - (D) NAPPI 103 112(1) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. SHAPIRO, LEONID
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Kinkade et al 11457656 - (D) CURCURI 103 MITCH HARRIS, LLC - GENERAL PENG, HUAWEN A
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Gaydos et al 11497639 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 PHILIP H. BURRUS, IV SHELEHEDA, JAMES R
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2631 Ex Parte Kent et al 11173502 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. PATEL, DHAVAL V
2682 Ex Parte Abraham et al 12019088 - (D) DANG 103 HITT GAINES, PC ALCATEL-LUCENT NGUYEN, NAM V
We find such “configured to” language merely represents a statement of intended use of the RFID readers comprised in the network, which does not limit the claim. Additionally, we find the recited “to be deployed” language merely represents a statement of intended use of the equipment, which does not limit the claim (Claim 1). Particularly, 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). Thus, we give claim 1 its broadest reasonable interpretation as merely requiring RFID readers capable of reading tag identifiers relating to equipment capable of being deployed in a group of fixed locations.
HARMON 6: 84, 347
DONNER 8: 482; 10: 910-18
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Spartiotis et al 10420834 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. LEE, SHUN K
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Baldwin 12210231 - (D) IPPOLITO 102 MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD HLAVKA, DAVID J
We are also not apprised of Examiner error by Appellant’s argument that the Specification defines “driveably connected” to mean “directly connected.” Our reviewing court has instructed that “[t]o act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations and quotations omitted). Appellant has not pointed to, and we do not see, where the Specification clearly sets forth that “driveably connected” means something other than its plain and ordinary meaning.
3688 Ex Parte Schrewelius 11774624 - (D) FISCHETTI 112(2)/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP VIG, NARESH
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Lataille et al 11526870 - (R) PER CURIAM 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Sandoval 11257098 - (D) DILLON 102 Great Lakes Intellectual Property, PLLC /CableLabs ALATA, YASSIN
2497 Ex Parte Britton et al 11359212 - (D) KUMAR 102 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP PARTHASARATHY, PRAMILA
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Shockey et al 12139377 - (R) TARTAL 103 Parsons Behle & Latimer PAINTER,BRANON C
Thus, “faux finish” is accorded its ordinary and customary meaning, and no express definition of “faux finish” is necessary to conclude that Appellants failed to overcome the Examiner’s determination that Cymbala discloses the structure as claimed. Cf. Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)
HARMON 6: 47, 99, 298; 10: 341, 345; 11: 45, 115, 128, 141, 145, 146; 20: 352, 356
DONNER 10: 1162
FEDERAL CIRCUIT
REVERSED-IN-PART, AFFIRMED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1615 TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA, INC., TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC., AND ETHYPHARM, S.A., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. AND CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED, Defendants-Appellants. 2013-1406 6328994 09/355,781 PROST literal infringement no invalidity Hogan Lovells US LLP; Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP TRAN, SUSAN T
REVERSED AND REMANDED
3502 RING & PINION SERVICE INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARB CORPORATION LTD., Defendant-Appellant. 2013-1238 5591098 08/386,269 MOORE granting SJ non-infringement, claim vitiation remand with instructions to grant SJ of infringement under doctrine of equivalents Lowe Graham Jones, PLLC; Davis Wright Tremaine LLP RODRIGUEZ, SAUL
No comments :
Post a Comment