thorner, CCS, helmsderfer, butamax

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Letz et al 11750567 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C. PARKER, ALLEN L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Maziers 11922126 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(2)/102 102/103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC RAUDENBUSH, ELLEN SUZANNE

Generally, claim terms are:

Given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when
read in the context of the specification and prosecution history. There are only two exceptions to this general
rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. 

[Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)] (citation omitted). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 1365 (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 . . . (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 . . . (Fed. Cir. 2008)). 

Butamax(TM) Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., 109 USPQ2d 1701, 1706 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Kwong 11549347 - (D) ADAMS 103 Pabst Patent Group LLP CHOI, FRANK I
AFFIRMED 1718 Ex Parte Boroson 11735544 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 Global OLED Technology LLC TUROCY, DAVID P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Andrews 12573829 - (D) BUI 102/103 BERKELEY LAW & TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLP BHATIA, AJAY M

2193 Ex Parte Bardsley 11474842 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC JENKINS, WILSON, TAYLOR & HUNT, P.A. VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2488 Ex Parte Wan et al 10847834 - (D) BUI 112(2)/103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation PE, GEEPY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Xu et al 11956052 - (D) HOSKINS 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH GALT, CASSI J

inventio, trimed, personalized, CCS

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Sitzmann et al 11694000 - (D) HUME 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP SPITTLE, MATTHEW D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Frisa et al 11576487 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS HUNTLEY, DANIEL CARROLL

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

VACATED-IN-PART AND REMANDED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2684 2612 ENOCEAN GMBH, Appellant, v. FACE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Appellee. 2012-1645 10/304,121 7,084,529 10/188,633 PCT/GB01/00901 PCT/DE01/01965 PROST claims invoke 112(6)/no priority Foley & Lardner LLP; Byers Law Group BROWN, VERNAL U; EDWARDS JR, TIMOTHY

It is well established that the use of the term “means” triggers a rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 governs the construction of the claim term. Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Conversely, where, as here, the claim language does not recite the term “means,” we presume that the limitation does not invoke § 112, ¶ 6. Id. (citing Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703-04 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). However, this presumption can be overcome if the challenger demonstrates that “the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Id. (citing CCS Fitness v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). The correct inquiry is “whether skilled artisans, after reading the patent, would conclude that a claim limitation is so devoid of structure that the drafter constructively engaged in means-plus-function claiming.” Inventio, 649 F.3d at 1357. Therefore, “[u]ltimately, whether claim language invokes § 112, ¶ 6 depends on how those skilled in the art would understand the structural significance of that claim language.” Id. at 1360.

Personalized Media Communications LLC v. ITC, 161 F.3d 696, 48 USPQ2d 1880 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 2181
personalized HARMON 5: 234, 235; 6: 267, 357; 19: 423; 20: 181
DONNER 10: 757; 11: 16, 141, 142, 184, 200
CCS HARMON 6: 24, 35, 17, 225; 19: 416
DONNER 3: 465; 10: 1040, 1044-46; 11: 180-84

CCS, flo healthcare, greenberg, lighting world, MIT2

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Greenstein et al 11133943 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. C/O CARDINAL LAW GROUP, LTD GORDON, BRIAN R

1791 Ex Parte Yu et al 11279722 - (D) BEST 103 Hovey Williams LLP PADEN, CAROLYN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte SMITH 12579383 - (D) BENOIT 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Reed Smith LLP CLOUD, JOIYA M

When an inventor has not signaled an intent to invoke § 112, sixth paragraph, by using the term “means,” the presumption against its invocation is strong but can be overcome if “the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted)). A claim limitation that “essentially is devoid of anything that can be construed as structure” can overcome the presumption. Flo Healthcare, 697 F.3d at 1374. The presumption may be overcome by a claim limitation that uses a nonstructural term that is “simply a nonce word or a verbal construct that is not recognized as the name of structure” but is merely a substitute for the term “means for” associated with functional language. Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1360. Claim language that further defines a term that otherwise would be a nonce word can denote sufficient structure to avoid construction under § 112, sixth paragraph, MIT v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006), as can a claim limitation that contains a term that “is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure,” Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1359. Nor will claim language invoke a § 112, sixth paragraph, construction if persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification understand the term to be the name for a structure that performs the function, even when the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function. Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Many devices take their names from the functions they perform.”).

Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 39 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2181

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Andersen et al 12320348 - (D) ADAMS 103 LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO BOSWORTH, KAMI A

3771 Ex Parte Daly et al 10864869 - (D) GRIMES 103/obviousness-type double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC YU, JUSTINE ROMANG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Weber et al 11352643 - (D) BRADEN 102/103 L'Oreal USA VENKAT, JYOTHSNA A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Husemann et al 11917295 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, PA SHAH, SAMIR

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Stading et al 11226960 - (D) DIXON 112(2)/102 IBM CORPORATION NGUYEN, LOAN T

2175 Ex Parte Burckart et al 10733658 - (D) FRAHM 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP LONG, ANDREA NATAE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Whittaker et al 12030590 - (D) GREEN 102/103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON MEHTA, BHISMA

3775 Ex Parte Jackson 11110405 - (D) GREEN 103 LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. MCMAHON YANG, ANDREW

3775 Ex Parte Jackson 11187417 - (D) GREEN 103 LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. MCMAHON YANG, ANDREW

Tech Center  4100 Patent Training Academy
4100 Ex Parte TOOMEY et al 11421178 - (D) GRIMES 103 MCKEE, VOORHEES & SEASE, P.L.C. WELCH, GARY L

CCS, McGuire, Phillips

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Duquette 10683013 - (D) HORNER 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

3721 Ex Parte Woodman et al 11803555 - (D) HORNER 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. GERRITY, STEPHEN FRANCIS

3764 Ex Parte Cassidy et al 11831265 - (D) FITZPATRICK 102/103 SHERRILL LAW OFFICES THANH, LOAN H


3767 Ex Parte Veasey et al 10315163 - (D) PLENZLER 102/103 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC GRAY, PHILLIP A

3775 Ex Parte Measamer 11742110 - (D) CALVE 103 WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC SCHAPER, MICHAEL T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2676 Ex Parte Reese et al 10141571 - (D) BENOIT 102/103 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DULANEY, BENJAMIN O

As such, the Specification does not set forth a definition of “a copy-protection template” to limit the claim term. See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Claim terms are properly construed to include limitations not otherwise inherent in the term when the Specification “clearly set[s] forth a definition of the disputed claim term.”). The exemplary embodiment is, however, an informative example of how to practice their invention. Cf. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (explaining that examples in a specification may be used to teach an ordinarily skilled artisan how to practice the invention, rather than intending to limit the claims to the embodiments disclosed in the specification).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Beck et al 11609517 - (D) CALVE 102 102/103 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON P.C. ARCE, MARLON ALEXANDER

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Wente et al 11650403 - (D) ASTORINO 112(1)/103 103 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP ALEXANDER, MELANIE P

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2454 Ex Parte Jung 11698804 - (D) DIXON 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. AFOLABI, MARK O

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Zeyher et al 11187785 - (D) DIXON 103 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP KHAN, OMER S

2688 Ex Parte Lee 10865952 - (D) FISHMAN 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP ALUNKAL, THOMAS D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Marshall et al 11536884 - (D) DIXON 103 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED POOS, JOHN W

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Kagan et al 10698148 - (D) GRIMES 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP GRAY, PHILLIP A

3769 Ex Parte Wang et al 12165025 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 Covidien LP JIAN, SHIRLEY XUEYING

REHEARING  

GRANTED Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 1639 Ex Parte van der Lelie 11925382 - (D) WALSH 102 BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY BOESEN, CHRISTIAN C

See also, In re McGuire, 416 F.2d 1322, 1327-28 (CCPA 1969) (“Appellants argue the century-old status of the references but this argument does not impress us, absent some showing that the art tried and failed to solve some problem notwithstanding its presumed knowledge of the references. For aught that appears, as soon as the need for an inside tubing cutter was perceived it was produced out of the accumulated skill of the art.”).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Lin et al 11398138 - (R) DANG 102 Sony Corp of America - EVS PHANTANA ANGKOOL, DAVID

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Nathans et al 10392849 - (D) TURNER 103 Pay Rent, Build Credit, Inc. MONFELDT, SARAH M

meitzner, pearson, omega, raytek, CCS, bell atlantic

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Zhong et al 10/811,277 HANLON 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Windl 11/136,629 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER WIENER, ERIC A

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 ELESYS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Requestor, Respondent v. AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,003 6,397,136 MEDLEY 112(2)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Brian Roffe, Esq. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Rickard K. DeMille BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE, GERTRUDE

Argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).

EXAMINER REVERSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 RAYSPAN CORPORATION and Netgear, Inc., Appellant-Reexamination Requester, v. Patent 7,193,562 of RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC., Owner 95/001,078 7,193,562 TORCZON 102/103(a) For the requester: Thomas C. Reynolds, SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER For the owner: Steve Bachmann, CARR & FERRELL LLP For the Commissioner of Patents: Deandra M. Hughes, with Albert J. Gagliardi and Eric S. Keasel, ART UNIT 3992 EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER CHEN, SHIH CHAO

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte English et al 11/818,103 PRATS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA

1782 Ex Parte Elder et al 11/344,992 LANE 112(1)/103(a) CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte St. Pierre et al 10/206,932 COURTENAY 103(a) MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP EXAMINER BATURAY, ALICIA

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that an express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by the negative limitation is required, such as an express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that provides support for the negative limitation. Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted):

Beyond the words of the claim, neither the district court nor Raytek has identified any express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation. See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Our independent review of the patent document, see Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2001), reveals no express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by this negative limitation. Accordingly, we must conclude that there is no basis in the patent specification for adding the negative limitation.

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Wong et al 10/519,278 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. EXAMINER MILLER, BRANDON J

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/870,375 KIM 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER JOSEPH, TONYA S
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Baeremaecker et al 10/968,130 WALSH 103(a) SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY LLP EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H

NEW

REVERSED

3761 Ex Parte Erspamer et al 10/135,936 McCARTHY 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F

3774 Ex Parte Lane et al 11/069,457 McCARTHY 103(a) Medtronic CardioVascular EXAMINER GANESAN, SUBA

1726 Ex Parte Ujiie et al 10/399,343 KRATZ 103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER DOVE, TRACY MAE

AFFIRMED

1781 Ex Parte Lundberg et al 11/484,263 OWENS 103(a) Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. EXAMINER CHAWLA, JYOTI

3686 Ex Parte Schoenberg 10/315,514 MOHANTY 103(a) King & Spalding LLP (Trizetto Customer Number) EXAMINER RANGREJ, SHEETAL