schulhauser

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Shostak 12389762 - (D) ENGELS 102 DLA PIPER LLP (US) VILLENA, MARK

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1799 Ex Parte Rapp 13074936 - (D) ADAMS 103 Flocel Inc. MARCHESCHI, MICHAEL A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2124 Ex Parte BARRY et al 13731396 - (D) CUTITTA 103 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP FIGUEROA, KEVIN W

2183 Ex Parte Chung et al 12814025 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 Davidson Sheehan LLP Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. LINDLOF, JOHN M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2838 Ex Parte Wolf 13054477 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP GBLENDE, JEFFREY A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Guether 12000502 - (D) DIXON 103 MAIER & MAIER, PLLC WILLIAMS, THOMAS J

3663 Ex Parte Arcot et al 11455442 - (D) WINSOR 103 Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/HERE MUSTAFA, IMRAN K

We note as an initial matter that claim 1 is directed to a “method of collecting traffic data” (Br. (Claims App’x) 18) (a “process” (35 U.S.C. § 101)) and that the argued limitation is a conditional step that is only performed “when the location reference code has changed,” which need not happen. According to our precedent, as a matter of claim construction, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 encompasses a method in which the argued limitation is not performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3-5 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential).

Independent claims 16 and 17 recite limitations similar to the argued limitation of claim 1 and are argued similarly to claim 1. Compare Br. 9—18, with Br. 6—9. Unlike claim 1, however, claims 16 and 17 are directed to a “navigation system used in a vehicle” (Br. (Claims App’x) 20) and a “probe  vehicle for collecting traffic data” (id. at 21) respectively, placing them in a different statutory class from claim 1, i.e., a “machine” or system rather than a “process” or method under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The broadest reasonable interpretation of such machine claims requires that structure and logic be provided to perform all recited functions, even those that are conditional. See Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, at *6—7.

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 Ex Parte Kadykowski et al 13850429 - (D) FLAX 102/103 TERUMO CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS CORPORATION BOLER, RYNAE E