REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Marvin et al 13808920 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 CARLSON GASKEY & OLDS BERHANE, ADOLF D
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Memmott et al 13495069 - (D) JESCHKE 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC DAVIS, SHARON M
3657 Ex Parte Reinke et al 13090872 - (D) JESCHKE 103 Walter Ottesen, P.A. MOMPER, ANNA M
3669 Ex Parte Aixala et al 13130712 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 WRB-IP LLP CASS, JEAN PAUL
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Giuliani 11916066 - (D) BROWN 103 41.50 112(2) MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC COMINGS, DANIEL C
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte Joshi 13279174 - (D) WINSOR 103 112(1) Hewlett Packard Enterprise MORLAN, ROBERT M
We agree with the Examiner. The limitation “only” idle voice clients does not appear in the claims as originally filed, but rather was added during prosecution. Compare Spec. 5—6 (original claims), with Amendment after Final Rejection 2—5 (Jan. 26, 2015) (amended claims). The language at lines 2—3 of claim 28 recites “to send the transition management message only to voice clients that are idle and not to voice clients that are not idle” (Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added)). The ordinary meaning of “only,” which is consistent with claim 28, is “adverb ... 1 a : as a single fact or instance and nothing more or different. . . b : solely, exclusively.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 812 (10th ed. 1999). Sending a transition management message to “only” voice clients that are idle is sending the transition management message exclusively to idle voice clients, and not to voice clients that are not idle — a negative limitation.
It is well settled that negative limitations are permissible forms of expression to define the scope of a claimed invention. See generally Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 923 (Fed. Cir. 1991). But the mere absence of a positive recitation in the original disclosure is not basis to exclude the limitation. MPEP § 2173.05. Rather, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added). “The ‘reason’ required by Santarus is provided, for instance, by properly describing alternative features of the patented invention.” Inphi v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added).
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte SANTINATO et al 12886618 - (D) MEYERS 103 101 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 ALLEN, AKIBA KANELLE
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte McCulloch et al 13252072 - (D) TOWNSEND 101/103 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY HARWARD, SOREN T
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Taniguchi et al 13616317 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP MALLOY, ANNA E
1768 Ex Parte BARNES et al 13937317 - (D) ROSS 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY FIGUEROA, JOHN J
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Sinnema et al 10559360 - (D) KERINS 112(2) 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS DEXTER, CLARK F
3771 Ex Parte Fine et al 12541148 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP WOODWARD, VALERIE LYNN
REEXAMINATION
REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF LLC Requester, Respondent v. PPC BROADBAND, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8192237 et al 95/002,400 13/033,127 95002400 - (S) SONG 103 Barclay Damon, LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC ANDUJAR, LEONARDO original CHAMBERS, TRAVIS SLOAN
No comments :
Post a Comment