REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Gale 11/841,789 McCOLLUM Concurring ADAMS 103(a) Samuel E.Webb STOEL ROVES LLP EXAMINER GULLEDGE, BRIAN M
1615 Ex Parte Koenig et al 10/836,449 ADAMS 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER MERCIER, MELISSA S
1634 Ex Parte Barrett et al 11/400,481 ADAMS 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER BHAT, NARAYAN KAMESHWAR
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Oommen 10/890,340 DIXON 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER VU, VIET DUY
2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Ramachandran et al 10/696,626 FRAHM 103(a) Smith Risley Tempel Santos LLC EXAMINER WONG, LINDA
2624 Ex Parte Hasegawa 11/260,276 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER RAHMJOO, MANUCHER
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Yuan 11/099,460 RUGGIERO 103(a) POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC EXAMINER LUU, AN T
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Nusbaum et al 11/103,884 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) PLUMSEA LAW GROUP, LLC EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA
3761 Ex Parte Jensen 11/049,047 O’NEILL 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CRAIG, PAULA L
3773 Ex Parte Eidenschink et al 11/221,559 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER OU, JING RUI
3784 Ex Parte Fry 11/049,391 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) Warren C. Fry EXAMINER RAHIM, AZIM
The primary purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure that the claims are written in such a way that they give notice to the public of the extent of the legal protection afforded by the patent, so that interested members of the public, e.g., competitors of the patent owner, can determine whether or not they infringe. All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., Inc., 309 F.3d 774, 779-80 (Fed. Cir. 2002). If the language of a claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.”). In addition, if the claims are inherently inconsistent with the description, definitions, and examples appearing in the specification, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is likewise appropriate. In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993 (CCPA 1971).
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . 2173.02, 2173.05(b)Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . 2173.05(b)Cohn, In re, 438 F.2d 984, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Akers 11/626,473 BAHR 112(2)/103(a) BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC EXAMINER PALABRICA, RICARDO J
Nevertheless, as correctly pointed out by Appellant on page 16 of the Appeal Brief, merely that a claim is broad does not mean that it is necessarily indefinite. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17 (CCPA 1977); In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970).
Johnson, In re, 558 F.2d 1008, 194 USPQ 187 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.08, 2173.05(i)
Miller, In re, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.04
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1761 LEPRINO FOODS CO. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of LAND O’ LAKES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,003 90/006,317 6,319,526 LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: TOWNSEND & TOWNSEND & CREW, LLP EXAMINER KUNZ, GARY L original EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A
To establish an actual reduction of practice, the patent owner has the burden of demonstrating that the method reduced to practice includes all the elements of the claimed method (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 715.07 & 2185.05, Eighth Edition (August 2001), revised July 2010). See also In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718-19 (CCPA 1974).
Borkowski, In re, 505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.07
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2132 Ex parte TSE Ho Keung Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,772 6,665,797 TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: HO KEUNG TSE THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOESTER LLP EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original EXAMINER BARRON JR, GILBERTO
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Perricone et al 11/506,137 MILLS dissenting-in-part McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER
ARNOLD, ERNST V
1615 Ex Parte Moore et al 11/287,653 ADAMS 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER TRAN, SUSAN T
1616 Ex Parte Hovey et al 10/768,194 WALSH 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER HOLT, ANDRIAE M
1617 Ex Parte Bruins et al 10/535,108 ADAMS 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER SOROUSH, ALI
1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 10/925,904 GREEN 101/102(b) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER LIN, JERRY
1651 Ex Parte Poo et al 10/410,954 MILLS 112(1)/103(a) Gregory A. Nelson Novak Druce & Quigg LLP EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K
1655 Ex Parte Malnoe et al 10/607,330 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, DEBORAH A
1655 Ex Parte Nagasawa 11/234,222 NAGUMO 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, DEBORAH A
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Ludewig et al 11/512,487 WALSH 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LOEWE, ROBERT S
1796 Ex Parte Dvorchak et al 12/117,827 WALSH 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Lee et al 10/245,229 DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Yarbrough 11/211,012 KIM 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DA) EXAMINER KHATTAR, RAJESH
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Dosmann 10/367,690 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN
3753 Ex Parte Watts et al 10/775,033 LEE 102/103(a) PAMELA A. KACHUR EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C
REHEARING
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Mehlhorn 10/759,222 WALSH 103(a) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER WEDDINGTON, KEVIN E
DENIED
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Rees 10/722,648 PATE III 103(a) PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J
NEW
REVERSED
3754
Ex Parte McBroom et al 11/228,000 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER JACYNA, J CASIMER
3637
Ex Parte Schneider 11/656,730 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP EXAMINER RODDEN, JOSHUA E
3694
Ex Parte Usher et al 09/858,844 FETTING 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) INNOVATION DIVISION CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. EXAMINER APPLE, KIRSTEN SACHWITZ
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3745
Ex Parte Hetherington et al 11/355,032 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER LOPEZ, FRANK D
3774
Ex Parte Malaviya et al 10/195,794 GRIMES 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B
2477
Ex Parte Moore et al 10/404,113 FRAHM 102(e)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER PHUNKULH, BOB A
AFFIRMED
2456
Ex Parte Barrett 10/887,971 ZECHER 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER FAN, HUA
3754
Ex Parte Johnston 11/374,563 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Scott E. Johnston EXAMINER
HOOK, JAMES F
2889
Ex Parte Seichter et al 10/771,378 HAHN 102(e)/103(a)/112(1) Viering, Jentschura & Partner - OSR EXAMINER QUARTERMAN, KEVIN J
3775
Ex Parte Sengun et al 10/905,351 SAINDON 103(a) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER WOODALL, NICHOLAS W
REHEARING
DENIED
3762
Ex Parte Harris et al 10/773,121 PATE III 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. EXAMINER ALTER, ALYSSA MARGO
