packard

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Bryden et al 12029729 - (D) PAK 103 HENKEL CORPORATION TUROCY, DAVID P

1793 Ex Parte Foo et al 13061051 - (D) PAK 102/103 K&L Gates LLP-Chicago PRAKASH, SUBBALAKSHMI

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte McManus et al 12014142 - (D) POTHIER 103 IBM CORPORATION JAROENCHONWANIT, BUNJOB

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Lundberg 11661859 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 VENABLE LLP CHOY, PAN G

3687 Ex Parte Dolan et al 12343857 - (D) LORIN 103 41.50 112(b) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) DANZIG, REVA R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte WAKAGURI et al 12828681 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 CARRIER BLACKMAN AND ASSOCIATES MORILLO, JANELL COMBS

1784 Ex Parte Kugo et al 12312498 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 CARRIER BLACKMAN AND ASSOCIATES KRUPICKA, ADAM C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2138 Ex Parte Maalempati et al 12643819 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 IBM CORPORATION SAVLA, ARPAN P

2177 Ex Parte Aureglia et al 12258501 - (D) DEJMEK 101/103/double patenting BAINWOOD HUANG & ASSOCIATES LLC LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE QUELER, ADAM M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2498 Ex Parte Akkanen 11963968 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Core Wireless Licensing Ltd GOLDBERG, ANDREW C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Bae et al 12209838 - (D) HOUSEL 103 Atkins and Associates, P.C. STATS ChipPAC/PATENT LAW GROUP: PAYEN, MARVIN

2824 Ex Parte Lee et al 12393397 - (D) GARRIS 103 F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC Samsung NGUYEN, VAN THU T

2872 Ex Parte Drinkwater 12499277 - (D) DERRICK 112(1)/112(2)/103 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP CHANG, AUDREY Y

Having carefully considered Appellant's arguments, we find Appellant has failed to squarely address the identified ambiguity leading to indefiniteness.

Section 112, second paragraph, requires that "[t]he specification ... conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention."  "As the statutory language of 'particular[ity]' and 'distinct[ness]' indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear - as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite - terms."  In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir 2014). 

Our reviewing court has held that when the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which initially the language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention, and thereafter the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory response, the USPTO can properly reject the claim as failing to meet the statutory requirement that the claims be definite.  Id. at 1313-1314.  The court explained a satisfactory response can take the form of modification of the language identified as unclear, a separate definition of the unclear language, or, in appropriate circumstances, "persuasive explanation for the record of why the language at issue is not actually unclear."  Id. at 1311.