howmedica, ventana, Phillips

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Bello et al 13306570 - (D) SMITH 103 Greenberg Traurig, LLP LIANG, ANTHONY M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte Irnich et al 14110365 - (D) CRAIG 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson HOUSHMAND, HOOMAN

2486 Ex Parte TRUDEAU et al 14609324 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 IP-MEX Inc. CHIO, TAT CHI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Bevot et al 13704650 - (D) TIMM 102/103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch) PHAN, TRUONG D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Gough 12316604 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY PASCHALL, MARK H

3752 Ex Parte RETZLOFF et al 14190861 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. KIM, CHRISTOPHER S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Okabe et al 12367581 - (D) HANLON 103 HOWSON & HOWSON LLP HEVEY, JOHN A

1787 Ex Parte Takeda et al 13809279 - (D) HANLON 103 BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP FUNG, CHING-YIU

Appellants do not provide any persuasive reasoning or evidence that such an upper surface as depicted in Matsuda that includes tabs is not encompassed by the claim language. For example only, Appellants have not recited that the upper surface is planar and exclusive of any projections/tabs. Cf. 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 Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. BiogenexLabs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he mere fact that the [asserted] patent discloses [only certain] embodiments . . . does not in and of itself mean that the method claims at issue are limited to the disclosed embodiments.”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[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
2665 Ex Parte Meinel 13813232 - (D) NAPPI 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SCHWARTZ, RAPHAEL M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Takahashi et al 14369038 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 OSHA LIANG L.L.P.2833 SAEED, AHMED M

2864 Ex Parte Vandermeijden 13101915 - (D) OWENS 101/102 Osha Liang LLP/Synaptics SUGLO, JANET L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Clayton et al 12620875 - (D) THOMAS 101 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. OYEBISI, OJO O

3696 Ex Parte Carlson et al 14203382 - (D) HUTCHINGS 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP/VISA CHANG, EDWARD

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte CHOU 13158310 - (R) CUTITTA 101 Ledell Ansari, LLP SHAAWAT, MUSSA A