rodime

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Kuchinsky et al 10928494 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global DEJONG, ERIC S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Stirbu et al 11082633 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC LAI, MICHAEL C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte DESTAIN 12235746 - (D) HASTINGS 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY NEGRON, ISMAEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Maeda et al 10586598 - (D) DELMENDO 103 obviousness-type double patenting WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. MEHTA, MEGHA S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Bauer et al 11239732 - (D) STEPINA 103 102/103 THE GATES CORPORATION NGUYEN, PHONG H

The feature at issue in claim 20 begins with the language “means for.” This leads to a presumption that this feature invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. As the Federal Circuit explained:
Accordingly, in determining whether a claim element falls within § 112, ¶ 6, this court has presumed an applicant advisedly used the word “means” to invoke the statutory mandates for means-plus-function clauses. Two specific rules, however, overcome this presumption. First, a claim element that uses the word “means” but recites no function corresponding to the means does not invoke § 112, ¶ 6.
Second, even if the claim element specifies a function, if it also recites sufficient structure or material for performing that function, § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. Rodime PLC v. Seagate Technology, Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the presumption can be rebutted if the feature at issue (i) recites no function, or (ii) recites sufficient structure or material for performing the function recited.

The final clause in claim 20 recites only functional language after the term “means for.” Therefore, we agree with Appellants’ assertion that the final clause in claim 20 should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.

Rodime PLC v. Seagate Technology, Inc.,174 F.3d 1294, 50 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2181

3773 Ex Parte Hermann et al 10664273 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. RYCKMAN, MELISSA K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Alvarado et al 12439828 - (D) POLLOCK 103/obviousness-type double patenting COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY ROBINSON, LISBETH C

1616 Ex Parte Schmid-Schonbein et al 11850169 - (D) ADAMS 103 FISH & TSANG LLP SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

1674 Ex Parte Smith 12124943 - (D) ADAMS 112(1) DANN, DORFMAN, HERRELL & SKILLMAN MCGARRY, SEAN

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Knodel et al 11935918 - (D) GALLIGAN 112(2) 101/102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG DUNN, DARRIN D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Inoue et al 12212688 - (D) BEST 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. PAYEN, MARVIN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3733 Ex Parte GRADY et al 12832466 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex parte AKZO NOBEL COATINGS INTERNATIONAL B.V. Appellant Ex Parte 7,691,938 B2 et al 10/563,129 90012593 - (D) HANLON 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP Third Party Requester: Nixon & Vanderhye, P.C. DIAMOND, ALAN D original HARLAN, ROBERT D