multiform, helmsderfer, brookhill-wilk

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte McCreight et al 12987953 - (D) KAISER 103 Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP KUDDUS, DANIEL A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Dvir et al 10536555 - (D) NAPPI 103 SOROKER-AGMON ADVOCATE AND PATENT ATTORNEYS ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Herrmann et al 12665572 - (D) OWENS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LEE, SHUN K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1779 Ex Parte Leito 11569921 - (D) HEANEY 103 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. BASS, DIRK R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Farco 12732181 - (D) HOELTER 112(1)/112(2)/102 102 Joseph Farco SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Etchegoyen 12813412 - (D) McMILLIN 102/103 Ellis B. Ramirez WANG, HARRIS C

2453 Ex Parte Zurko 12346688 - (D) MOORE 103 CRGO LAW GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C

2481 Ex Parte Takahashi 12775740 - (D) CRAIG 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP TEKLE, DANIEL T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Dong et al 13269935 - (D) HUME 103 McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP/Google Inc. NGUYEN, SEAN H

Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the
field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition
that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description."). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 2111.01

Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 67 USPQ2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2111.01

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2862 Ex Parte Stewart 12642426 - (D) SAADAT 103 The Caldwell Firm, LLC NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte TRIEB et al 12389159 - (D) KERINS 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. RUSSELL, DEVON L

goffe, skoll, gardner, comaper, bilstad, brookhill-wilk, texas digital

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Prosise 11/168,163 WALSH 103(a) William J. Davis, Esq. INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Farkas et al 10/614,856 LORIN 112(2)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALMATRAHI, FARIS S

The Examiner has not made the case that the claims are insolubly ambiguous. By the Examiner’s own construction of the claims, they cover a number of different possible embodiments. “The mere fact that the claims cover a large number of possible process steps and imaging member materials does not in and of itself make the claims indefinite.” In re Goffe, 188 USPQ 131 (C.C.P.A. 1975), citing In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1975). “Breadth is not indefiniteness.” In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (1970).

Goffe, In re, 542 F.2d 564, 191 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . 2164.08, 2164.08(c)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Albornoz et al 11/016,221 BARRY 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW EXAMINER HILLERY, NATHAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Hauri et al 10/665,514 COCKS 103(a) LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER WITCZAK, CATHERINE
AFFIRMED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Sezan et al 10/894,620 SAADAT 101/102(b)/103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L

2427 Ex Parte Augenbraun et al 11/071,426 DILLON 102(e)/103(a) Merchant & Gould - Cox EXAMINER KURIEN, CHRISTEN A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Rijn 11/145,503 FISCHETTI 103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER BORISSOV, IGOR N

3635 Ex Parte Hageman 10/864,225 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER WENDELL, MARK R

If the specification does not assign or suggest a particular definition to a claim term, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for guidance in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In Bilstad v. Wakalopulos, 386 F.3d 1116, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed a Board decision construing the term “plurality” for purposes of reviewing a written description rejection. The Board noted that the term “plurality” had a plurality of dictionary definitions consistent with the disclosure in the specification and construed the term as used in the claim so as to encompass all of the dictionary definitions. The Court held that, “[i]f more than one dictionary definition is consistent with the use of the words in the intrinsic record, the claim terms may be construed to encompass all consistent meanings.” Id. Implicit in this holding is approval to the Board’s decision to give the term “plurality” its broadest reasonable interpretation despite dueling dictionary definitions. See also Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Tex. Digital Sys. Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2002)) (“If more than one dictionary definition is consistent with the use of the words in the intrinsic record, the claim terms may be construed to encompass all consistent meanings”).

Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 67 USPQ2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . 2106, 2111.01
Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 64 USPQ2d 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . 2173.05(a)

REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Brooks et al 11/498,620 McCOLLUM 103(a) Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J