REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Fanning 12790502 - (D) GARRIS 103 BGL/Detroit YANG, JIE
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2656 Ex Parte Ohashi et al 11277200 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC JAMAL, ALEXANDER
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Laub 12139075 - (D) WORTH 103 Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC DAVIES, SAMUEL ALLEN
3766 Ex Parte Gerber 11261443 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A GHAND, JENNIFER LEIGH-STEWAR
3773 Ex Parte Feinberg 10674653 - (D) SCHOPFER 112(1)/103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. RYCKMAN, MELISSA K
3774 Ex Parte Chuter et al 12338020 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 MATTHEWS, WILLIAM H BGL/Cook - Chicago
The Examiner’s reasoning is not persuasive. Patent drawings are not necessarily intended to show accurate relative dimensions and “arguments based on mere measurement of the drawings [are] of little value.” In re Chitayat, 408 F.2d 475, 478 (CCPA 1969).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte Ould-Brahim 12064477 - (D) MacDONALD 103 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. HSU, ALPUS
2493 Ex Parte Campbell et al 11733354 - (D) McKEOWN 103 101 IBM (RPS-BKLS) c/o Biggers Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP LE, CHAU D
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Pass 11505658 - (D) HOUSEL 102/103 SunPower/ BSTZ Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP MOORE, KARLA A
1734 Ex Parte Ylimäinen 12301262 - (D) HASTINGS 103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP LEE, REBECCA Y
1744 Ex Parte LUBURIC 12793748 - (D) GARRIS 102/103 MORRIS MANNING MARTIN LLP LEE, EDMUND H
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Zemlok et al 12189834 - (D) WARNER 102(e) Covidien LP WEEKS, GLORIA R
3741 Ex Parte Norris et al 12131280 - (D) SMEGAL 112(2) 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global SUTHERLAND, STEVEN M
Definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, requires that “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable clarity.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).
We further note that if the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that “anode gel” provided by implication the antecedent basis for “zinc anode”); Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1145 (BPAI 1992) (“controlled stream of fluid” provided reasonable antecedent basis for “the controlled fluid”). For these reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1−20 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph.
Energizer Holdings Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 77 USPQ2d 1625 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2173.05(e)
Porter, Ex parte, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) 608.01(n) , 2173.05(e) , 2173.05(f) , 2173.05(q)
3775 Ex Parte de Villiers et al 11829056 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI SCHAPER, MICHAEL T
REEXAMINATION
REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORPORATION Patent Owner/Appellant v. PERMOBIL, INC. Requester/Respondent Ex Parte 8181992 et al 95002355 - (D) MARTIN 103 Baker & Hostetler LLP Third Party: WILMERHALE / DC ENGLISH, PETER C original BROWN, DREW J
