REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Vishlitzky et al 10/306,706 DIXON 102 MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Burton et al 10/132,403 THOMAS 103(a)/112(1) David A. Mims International Business Machines Corporation EXAMINER HUSSAIN, TAUQIR
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3773 Ex Parte Freudenthal et al 11/428,878 LEBOVITZ 103(a) Beck & Thomas, P.C. EXAMINER WOO, JULIAN W
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Thomas et al 11/144,898 SAINDON 103(a) Patrick S. Yoder FLETCHER YODER EXAMINER VAN, QUANG T
See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (an inventor must define specific terms with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” in order to be his own lexicographer, as opposed to merely describing “in a general fashion certain features”).
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1621 Ex parte BAYER CROPSCIENCE, LP Appellant 90/008,317 5,700,460 LEBOVITZ 102(b) FOR PATENT OWNER: BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: JEFFREY S. MELCHER MANELLI, DENISON & SELTER, PLLC EXAMINER KUNZ, GARY L BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC original EXAMINER BURN, BRIAN M
Appellant contends that Jansen v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 342 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) demands a different result (Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) 8, dated January 21, 2011).
The preambles “for attracting insects” and “for attracting and killing insects” set forth the objective of the method, and the body of each claim directs that the method be performed on “said insects.” The recitation of “said insects” In [sic] both claims 1 and 15 gives life and meaning to the preambles' statement of purpose.
In Jansen, the claims were directed to methods of treating or preventing macrocytic-megaloblastic anemia comprising administering effective amounts of folic acid and vitamin B12 “to a human in need thereof.” Jansen at 1333. The Federal Circuit stated that the claim must be interpreted to require the method be practiced with the intent to achieve the objective stated in the preamble. Id. “The preamble is therefore not merely a statement of effect that may or may not be desired or appreciated. Rather, it is a statement of the intentional purpose for which the method must be performed.” Id.
The reason why Jansen does not require a different result has already been addressed in Ex parte Batteux, Appeal No. 2007-0622, 2007 WL 5211675 (BPAI, Mar. 27, 2007, Informative Opinion).
Jansen was an infringement case, requiring the court to construe the subject claim “so as to sustain [its] validity, if possible.” Whittaker Corp. v. UNR Indus., 911 F.2d 709,712, 15 USPQ2d 1742, 1743 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 932 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In contrast, during prosecution, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Unlike the case here, in Jansen, the patentee was arguing a broad construction to establish infringement. 342 F.3d at 1331, 68 USPQ2d at 1156. However, the court “strictly construed” the claim against the inventor, in view of statements made during prosecution. Id. at 1334, 68 USPQ2d at 1158.
Batteux, 2007 WL 5211675 at *5.
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Platz et al 11/426,927 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a) NOVARTIS EXAMINER HAGHIGHATIAN, MINA
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Arya et al 11/035,250 GARRIS 102(e)/103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER ALANKO, ANITA KAREN
1713 Ex Parte Arya et al 11/037,755 GARRIS 103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER ALANKO, ANITA KAREN
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Inoue 10/812,177 LUCAS 101/112(2)/102(b) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK EXAMINER ALHIJA, SAIF A
2167 Ex Parte Vishlitzky et al 10/306,706 DIXON 102 MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC EXAMINER TIMBLIN, ROBERT M
2173 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/001,140 DIXON 103(a) CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP EXAMINER BONSHOCK, DENNIS G
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Singh et al 10/267,978 LUCAS 112(2)/103(a) ROPES & GRAY LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUONG
2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Arya et al 11/037,753 GARRIS 103(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER MILLER, BRIAN E
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte O'GORMAN 11/200,931 DROESCH 103(a) Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. EXAMINER AMAYA, CARLOS DAVID
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Shimizu et al 11/586,604 GREENHUT 103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER BOLDA, ERIC L
3689 Ex Parte Jamison 10/128,375 KIM 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Tucker Ellis & West LLP EXAMINER FISHER, PAUL R
NEW
REVERSED
3742 Ex Parte Blankenship et al 11/181,616 STAICOVICI 103(a) BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. c/o CPA Global EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H
1629 Ex Parte Brusilow 10/758,415 FREDMAN 103(a) ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. EXAMINER VAKILI, ZOHREH
1612 Ex Parte Faour et al 10/851,866 McCOLLUM 103(a) INNOVAR, LLC EXAMINER MAEWALL, SNIGDHA
1714 Ex Parte Gast 11/096,935 KRATZ 102(b)/103(a) KAGAN BINDER, PLLC EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE
3725 Ex Parte Hoyaukin 10/548,882 McCARTHY 102(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER EKIERT, TERESA M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1734 Ex Parte Kato et al 11/185,879 NAGUMO 112(2)/102(b) RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC EXAMINER KOSLOW, CAROL M
AFFIRMED
3624 Ex Parte Blackwood et al 10/739,564 DESHPANDE 103(a) IBM Corporation EXAMINER
MANSFIELD, THOMAS L
2436 Ex Parte Muttik et al 10/403,013 DIXON 103(a) Patent Capital Group EXAMINER REZA, MOHAMMAD W
3744 Ex Parte O'NEILL et al 10/449,173 SAINDON 103(a) HONEYWELL/UOP EXAMINER DUONG, THO V
