johnston

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1634 Ex Parte Labgold et al 11703103 - (D) MILLS 102 41.50 103 Steven B. Kelber CROW, ROBERT THOMAS

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2181 Ex Parte Herlein et al 12736122 - (D) SHIANG 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC FRANKLIN, RICHARD B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte LIN et al 12419761 - (D) JURGOVAN 102 Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA MARTELLO, EDWARD

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Era et al 12077641 - (D) HILL 103 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. MAYE, AYUB A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2144 Ex Parte Kermani 12277778 - (D) BUI 103 WALL & TONG, LLC / ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC AMIN, MUSTAFA A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2461 Ex Parte Karczewicz 11868009 - (D) SMITH 102/103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED LAMONT, BENJAMIN S

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Thomas 12790673 - (D) FISHMAN dissenting THOMAS concurring KAISER 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm BUTTRAM, ALAN T

We are not persuaded the Examiner erred.  We begin our analysis by construing the steps reciting "responsive to" in claim 1.  Claim 1 recited two sets of steps each responsive to one of two mutually exclusive conditions. ... see also In re Johnston, 435 F..3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.").  In particular, claim 1 recites steps to be performed "responsive to determining ... that the cursor is present in the input field" and steps responsive to determining the opposite condition (cursor not in the input field.) 
...
I do not believe In re Johnston supports the Majority's position.

Distinguishable from the present application, In re Johnston analyzed the linguistic precision of optional elements, i.e., the claimed "said wall may be smooth, corrugated, or profiled ...." and affirmed the Board's ruling that such limitations "did not narrow the scope of the claim because these limitations are stated in the permissive form 'may'" (see In re Johnston at 1384)(emphasis added).  The majority has not identified any similar permissive language in the present application and in any case, fails to point out precisely what they consider to be "optional" language in claim 1.  I believe the facts of In re Johnston highlights the concept of being "optional" when the claim language indicated that a limitation may be chosen and the Majority has not explained why the presently claimed responsive to steps are similarly optional, i.e., how the claim language signifies choosing between the different responsive to steps. 

2613 Ex Parte Redmann 12737191 - (D) FISHMAN 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC COBB, MICHAEL J

2625 Ex Parte Baik 13250405 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. SCHNIREL, ANDREW B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Ver Hage et al 12472547 - (D) ABRAMS 103 SOFER & HAROUN LLP KIM, SHIN H