bell comm, rowe, corning glass, kropa

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Narayanan et al 10990995 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PURDY, KYLE A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1758 Ex Parte Casali et al 12972007 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 102 Streets & Steele - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. DAM, DUSTIN Q

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Ungureanu et al 12669393 - (D) NEW 103 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA RICCI, CRAIG D

We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the language of the preamble is a limitation on the claim. “[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.” Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In instances where a patentee uses the claim preamble to recite structural limitations of his claimed invention, the PTO and courts give effect to that usage. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation. Id. (citing Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 (1951).

Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 2111.02 ,   2163

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 , 2303

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2111.02 , 2163

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) 707.07(f) , 2111.02

allen eng'g, bell comm jacoby

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Roth 12752630 - (D) GARRIS 103 KURT ROTH C/O M. SLAVIN BECKER, DREW E

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Naick et al 10992517 - (D) GRIMES 103 Greg Goshorn, P.C. NGUYEN, THU N

2174 Ex Parte Eschbach et al 11315993 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Basch & Nickerson LLP TILLERY, RASHAWN N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Hansen 11140288 - (D) BROWN 102/103 CLOCK TOWER LAW GROUP ASHRAF, WASEEM

2483 Ex Parte Hahm et al 10890865 - (D) NAPPI 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. HOLDER, ANNER N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Brandenburg et al 10529271 - (D) OWENS 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD MARINI, MATTHEW G

“[T]he preamble may be limiting ‘when the claim drafter chooses to use both the preamble and the body to define the subject matter of the claimed invention.’” Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell Industries Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995). That is what the claim drafter did in the present case.

Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 63 USPQ2d 1769 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 2133.03(e), 2133.03(e)(4)
HARMON 3: 219, 246, 265, 269; 5: 221, 232; 7: 83; 11: 265; 12: 101; 19: 338

Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 2111.02, 2163
DONNER 2: 371, 373; 7: 909; 8: 785, 786; 10: 80, 82, 884, 887
HARMON 6: 335, 338; 7: 120

2892 Ex Parte Kunii 12216081 - (D) BEST 103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC GORDON, MATTHEW E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Ruiz Diaz 11674797 - (D) BROWN 103 NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA NGUYEN, SON T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Kim 12094640 - (D) KERINS 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP HAWTHORNE, OPHELIA ALTHEA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Zuckerman et al 12580129 - (D) STAICOVICI obviousness-type double patenting/112(2)/103 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. JAROENCHONWANIT, BUNJOB

An artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references disclose. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2123 Ex Parte Ananny et al 11149710 - (D) STRAUSS 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP KIM, EUNHEE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Stratton et al 11219248 - (D) SMEGAL 102 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global NGUYEN, STEVEN C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2127 Ex Parte Nettles et al 10992962 - (D) HUME 102/103 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. c/o Davidson Sheehan LLP LAUGHLIN, NATHAN L

2168 Ex Parte Gruhl et al 12062096 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(2) 101/103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES TRAN, ANHTAI V

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Ramakesavan 12615495 - (D) BAUMEISTER 103 103/251 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. KOSTAK, VICTORR

2442 Ex Parte Heidloff et al 11002578 - (D) ASTORINO 103 LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE SURVILLO, OLEG

2455 Ex Parte Garcia-Martin et al 11350088 - (D) CRAWFORD 112(2)/102 102 Mintz Levin/San Diego Office BAROT, BHARAT

2456 Ex Parte Kamperman et al 10565663 - (D) BROWNE 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS KEEHN, RICHARD G

2478 Ex Parte Moody et al 10745483 - (D) LORIN 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC LI, GUANG W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2696 Ex Parte Willis 11038292 - (D) JEFFERY 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. HOLTON, STEVEN E

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex parte KOTTMAN GOSLA GmbH 90009986 7849884 12/583,788 McCARTHY 103 COLLARD & ROE, P.C. KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A original BRINSON, PATRICK F

REHEARING

DENIED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Maxygen, Inc. Requester v. Amgen, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000440 7381804 10/032,108 GUEST 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP TURNER, SHARON L original LUCAS, ZACHARIAH

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1624 GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC (formerly known as SmithKline Beecham Corporation), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BANNER PHARMACAPS, INC. AND IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND MYLAN INC. AND MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. FLORIDA, Defendant-Appellant. 2013-1593, -1594, -1595, -1598 5,565,467 08/405,120 TARANTO 112(a) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP; Morrison & Foerster, LLP RAYMOND, RICHARD L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 STARHOME GMBH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, ROAMWARE, INC., AND T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2012-1694 6,920,487 09/739,881 SCHALL SJ non-infringement claim construction Willkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP; Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP original G. E. Ehrlich (1995) Ltd. c/o Anthony Castorina BAROT, BHARAT

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 ELCOMMERCE.COM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAP AG AND SAP AMERICA, INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2011-1369 6,947,903 09/546,347 NEWMAN SJ indefiniteness (system claims) 112(2)/112(6) SJ indefiniteness (method claims) 112(2)/112(6)/jurisdiction and venue Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P.; Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP original HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. SMITH, JEFFREY A

pitney bowes, paulsen, marrin, bell comm, kropa, corning glass, rowe

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Dobler et al 10/258,006 MILLS 103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SHEIKH, HUMERA N 

Ex Parte Selvin et al 10/976,546 SPIEGEL 103(a) RICHARD ARON OSMAN EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Giffin 10/629,094 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP EXAMINER DEUBLE, MARK A 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Kuivasto et al 10/572,393 BARRETT 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER MILLER, BENA B 

Ex Parte Ma et al 11/390,978 O’NEILL 102(b)/nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER GIMIE, MAHMOUD 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Sakata et al 10/518,814 GREEN 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER JAVANMARD, SAHAR 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Vizzini et al 11/472,153 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER RABAGO, ROBERTO 

Ex Parte Berkowitz et al 10/306,765 DELMENDO 103(a) FRANK J. BONINI, JR. EXAMINER JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN 

REEXAMINATION 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex parte REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY 90/006,283 6,283,044 LEBOVITZ Opinion Dissenting SONG 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester UNGARETTI & HARRIS LLP EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ANDRES

Precedent establishes that the preamble limits the claims when it distinguishes the use of the claimed article from the prior art . . . . [Internal citations omitted] The preamble limits the claimed invention if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . .

Generally stated, “terms appearing in a preamble may be deemed limitations of a claim when they give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . .

Marrin v. Griffin, 94 USPQ2d 1140, 1143-44 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (dissent by J. Newman).

[W]here a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation. See Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 (1951).

The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d [1251] at 1257 [(Fed. Cir. 1989)]. The inquiry involves examination of the entire patent record to determine what invention the patentee intended to define and protect. [Internal citations omitted.]

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02

Paulsen, In re, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . .716.03, 2106, 2144.08

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2163

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303