howmedica, Phillips

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Courdy et al 11748125 - (D) HOFF 103 Bell & Manning, LLC The University of Utah Research Foundation MINA, FATIMA P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Panigrahi 12538681 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (EchoStar) SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Landry 11964368 - (D) WARREN 102/103 Cesari & Reed, L.L.P. MAI, TIEN HUNG

2854 Ex Parte Hoffman et al 11683835 - (D) OWENS 103 HID Global c/o Westman Champlin & Koehler, P.A CULLER, JILL E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Accardi 12359539 - (D) GUIJT 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1797 Ex Parte Roder et al 13373336 - (D) DERRICK 103 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP Biodesix, Inc. XU, XIAOYUN

Having carefully considered the Specification and Appellants’ arguments, we find no clear requirement that added calibrant is excluded. Our reviewing Court has “repeatedly held that the fact that the specification describes only a single embodiment, standing alone, is insufficient to limit
otherwise broad claim language.” Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (declining to impute a limitation into a disputed claim term in the absence of a clear requirement in the specification, even where “every disclosure of [the disputed term] in the specification shows [the alleged limitation]”); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[W]e have expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.”).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Smith et al 11534089 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 MMB/Purdue Research Foundation SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte To et al 12789137 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 Garg Law Firm, PLLC IBM END IPLAW (GLF) International Business Machines, Corp. LIN, SHEW FEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Marshall et al 10177825 - (D) FRAHM 101/103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN c/o CPA Global SAINT CYR, JEAN D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Kuhl et al 12852551 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 PERRY + CURRIER INC. (BlackBerry) Research in Motion Limited GU, YU

2658 Ex Parte Buck et al 12241837 - (D) TROCK 103 ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE LLP Harman Becker Automotive Systems GMBH DORVIL, RICHEMOND

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Cohan et al 11551458 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. Eyelab Group, LLC D'ANGELO, MICHAEL J

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 STRYKER CORPORATION Requester and Appellant v. HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7568246 et al 11/804,970 95002051 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 41.77(b) 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Hill-Rom) THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original TRETTEL, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Requester, Cross-Appellant and Respondent v. 454 LIFE SCIENCES CORPORATION Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent Ex Parte 8012690 et al 11/982,095 95001765 - (D) LEBOVITZ concurring GUEST 103/314(a) 41.77(b) 103 COOLEY LLP for THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 454 Life Sciences Corporation CAMPELL, BRUCE R original THOMAS, DAVID C