custom search
REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Imanaga et al 11937599 - (D) BEST 103 ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP GATEWOOD, DANIEL S
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Anerousis et al 12172540 - (D) McCARTNEY 102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T
2164 Ex Parte Ghosh 12367200 - (D) WINSOR 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY QUADER, FAZLUL
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2682 Ex Parte Maass 11660724 - (D) FRAHM 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LAU, HOI CHING
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Ichiyama 11783932 - (D) TIMM 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP GORDON, MATTHEW E
2894 Ex Parte Schaefer et al 12398726 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(1)/112(2)/102 THOMPSON HINE L.L.P. MONDT, JOHANNES P
2897 Ex Parte YANG et al 12104526 - (D) TIMM 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C PRASAD, NEIL R
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Zopf 11890604 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
3674 Ex Parte Durairajan et al 12329163 - (D) BAYAT 103 SMITH INTERNATIONAL INC. SAYRE, JAMES G
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Chila et al 12099352 - (D) CALVE 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - General Electric GOYAL, ARUN
3742 Ex Parte Christopher et al 11502865 - (D) JUNG 103 FLETCHER YODER MATHEW, HEMANT MATHAI
3763 Ex Parte Mozdzierz et al 12434864 - (D) ADAMS 103 Covidien LP LUCCHESI, NICHOLAS D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1791 Ex Parte Creighton et al 12730739 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 103 GENERAL MILLS, INC. LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE
2497 Ex Parte Guzman et al 11787409 - (D) WEINBERG 102 102/103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. ARMOUCHE, HADI S
2814 Ex Parte Furst et al 11792619 - (D) TIMM 103 112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) YOUNG & THOMPSON SKYLES, TIFNEY L
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires the specification “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. This portion of the statute requires the claims “be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The standard is not one of exact precision. What one must determine is whether the language is as precise as the subject matter permits given the circumstances. Id.
Precision in claiming is not only dependent on the claim language itself; it is dependent on the description of the invention in the Specification. Although claims are not to be limited to specific embodiments set forth in the specification when it is does not appear that an applicant desired the claims to be so limited, the specification is the single best guide to determining the meaning of the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Claims that lack precise referents in the specification and require elaborate explanations extraneous to both the specification and the claims do not meet the standard of precision required by the statute. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1381–82 (CCPA 1970). In fact, inconsistent use or unclear use of the terms in the specification can even cause a claim that appears clear on its face to become unclear and indefinite when read in light of the specification. See In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 1001 (CCPA 1971) (holding claims indefinite because the claims were, in calling for sealing an oxide surface with an alkali silicate to obtain an “opaque appearance,” inconsistent with the specification which defined an “opaque finish” as a flat-appearing finish which is not obtained when an alkali metal silicate is used as a sealant.).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258
Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1384, 166 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1970) 2173.05(e)
Cohn, In re, 438 F.2d 984, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971) 2173.03
3711 Ex Parte Cerpok 13082559 - (D) BROWN 103 102/103 ROBERT A. PARSONS GRAHAM, MARK S
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 Ex Parte Godber et al 12611022 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP HARTFORD WATTS, JENNA A
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Sayal 10873556 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CASANOVA, JORGE A
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Cohen et al 11524052 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC BELCHER, HERMAN A
2457 Ex Parte Bae et al 10778838 - (D) FISHMAN 102 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Anttalainen et al 10595140 - (D) FRAHM 103 ERICSSON INC. MANOHARAN, MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY
2672 Ex Parte Price et al 12231123 - (D) POLLOCK 102 InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely BECKLEY, JONATHAN R
2683 Ex Parte Foth et al 11503446 - (D) HUGHES 103 PITNEY BOWES INC. NGUYEN, AN T
2689 Ex Parte Hjulberg 12102424 - (D) FRAHM 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC BEE, ANDREW W.
3628 Ex Parte Moulckers 11103852 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Greg Goshorn, P.C. CLARK, DAVID J
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Isserow et al 11974401 - (D) WOODS 112(2)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Gearhart Law LLC ISLAM, SYED A
3664 Ex Parte Scott et al 11786296 - (D) MAYBERRY 112(2) 112(1) MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC - FORD MANCHO, RONNIE M
3681 Ex Parte Oesterling 11864204 - (D) FISCHETTI 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. LI, SUN M
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte SCHERMEIER et al 12061894 - (D) POLLOCK 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC YOUNG, RACHEL T
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Eronen et al 11845964 - (D) DANG 102/103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. LONSBERRY, HUNTER B
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2814 Ex parte CREE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6600175 et al 90010940 - (D) BUI 103 WILMERHALE/BOSTON For Third Party Requester: Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. KIELIN, ERIK J
SEARCH
PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Li & Cai
Showing posts with label cohn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cohn. Show all posts
Monday, November 24, 2014
Thursday, March 8, 2012
gentry gallery, cohn, hammack
REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Fujibayashi et al 11/585,282 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER GARLAND, STEVEN R
2195 Ex Parte Jiang et al 10/750,589 JEFFERY 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER WAI, ERIC CHARLES
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Burrell et al 11/515,279 KIM 103(a) WILLIAMS MULLEN EXAMINER NIQUETTE, ROBERT R
3761 Ex Parte Guidotti 10/323,665 PRATS 103(a) BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Heruth et al 11/374,793 GREEN 102(b) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A EXAMINER STOKLOSA, JOSEPH A
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3102 Ex Parte 4915435 et al Ex parte TRACTUS MEDICAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 90/010,466 07/333,634 SONG 103(a) DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original EXAMINER SONG, ROBERT
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Wells 10/931,952 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 102(b) LAMBERT & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER LE, TAN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Samuels et al 11/438,518 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 102(b) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER VAN, QUANG T
3761 Ex Parte Olson et al 11/508,670 FREDMAN 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/859,502 GARRIS 112(1)/103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Brierley et al 09/519,266 HOMERE 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER CONYERS, DAWAUNE A
2184 Ex Parte Ahonen 10/517,001 CHEN 102(e) WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER NAM, HYUN
2185 Ex Parte Rhoads et al 10/764,617 HOMERE 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER LI, ZHUO H
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Pricer et al 09/752,355 HOMERE 103(a) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Yoon 11/408,722 STEPHENS 112(2)/102(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER THOMAS, LUCY M
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2833 Ex Parte 6767247 et al JOHN MEZZALINGUA ASSOCIATES, INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS PPC, INC.) Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of BELDEN INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent 95/000,119 10/359,498 DELMENDO 112(1)/112(2)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER RUBIN, MARGARET R original EXAMINER TA, THO DAC
Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (patent claims directed to a sectional sofa found invalid for violating the written description requirement because they did not limit the location of the reclining controls to the console area in direct conflict with the original disclosure, which identified the console as the only possible location of the controls).
Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . .2163, 2163.05...
In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 999 (CCPA 1971) (“We might find appellant’s arguments to be convincing if the sole issue were whether the instant claims were adequately supported under the requirements of the first paragraph. However, we cannot even reach that issue since we are not satisfied that these claims comply with the second paragraph of §112.”); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1381 (CCPA 1970) (“[The examiner] seems to question whether certain claims, or certain recitations therein, are supported by the disclosure . . . Nevertheless, it is clear that the examiner and board considered all the claims to be indefinite and that they expressly relied only on the second paragraph of section 112 as grounds for rejection.”).
Cohn, In re, 438 F.2d 984, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03
Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03
2833 Ex Parte 6530807 et al JOHN MEZZALINGUA ASSOCIATES, INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS PPC, INC.) Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of BELDEN INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent 95/000,112 09/852,343 DELMENDO 305/112(2)/103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER RUBIN, MARGARET R original EXAMINER TA, THO DAC
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Fujibayashi et al 11/585,282 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) STAAS & HALSEY LLP EXAMINER GARLAND, STEVEN R
2195 Ex Parte Jiang et al 10/750,589 JEFFERY 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER WAI, ERIC CHARLES
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Burrell et al 11/515,279 KIM 103(a) WILLIAMS MULLEN EXAMINER NIQUETTE, ROBERT R
3761 Ex Parte Guidotti 10/323,665 PRATS 103(a) BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Heruth et al 11/374,793 GREEN 102(b) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT , P.A EXAMINER STOKLOSA, JOSEPH A
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3102 Ex Parte 4915435 et al Ex parte TRACTUS MEDICAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 90/010,466 07/333,634 SONG 103(a) DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original EXAMINER SONG, ROBERT
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Wells 10/931,952 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 102(b) LAMBERT & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER LE, TAN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Samuels et al 11/438,518 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 102(b) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER VAN, QUANG T
3761 Ex Parte Olson et al 11/508,670 FREDMAN 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1778 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/859,502 GARRIS 112(1)/103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER THERKORN, ERNEST G
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Brierley et al 09/519,266 HOMERE 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER CONYERS, DAWAUNE A
2184 Ex Parte Ahonen 10/517,001 CHEN 102(e) WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP EXAMINER NAM, HYUN
2185 Ex Parte Rhoads et al 10/764,617 HOMERE 102(e) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER LI, ZHUO H
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Pricer et al 09/752,355 HOMERE 103(a) JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA CORPORATION EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Yoon 11/408,722 STEPHENS 112(2)/102(a) HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP EXAMINER THOMAS, LUCY M
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2833 Ex Parte 6767247 et al JOHN MEZZALINGUA ASSOCIATES, INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS PPC, INC.) Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of BELDEN INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent 95/000,119 10/359,498 DELMENDO 112(1)/112(2)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER RUBIN, MARGARET R original EXAMINER TA, THO DAC
Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (patent claims directed to a sectional sofa found invalid for violating the written description requirement because they did not limit the location of the reclining controls to the console area in direct conflict with the original disclosure, which identified the console as the only possible location of the controls).
Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998) . . . . . .2163, 2163.05...
In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 999 (CCPA 1971) (“We might find appellant’s arguments to be convincing if the sole issue were whether the instant claims were adequately supported under the requirements of the first paragraph. However, we cannot even reach that issue since we are not satisfied that these claims comply with the second paragraph of §112.”); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1381 (CCPA 1970) (“[The examiner] seems to question whether certain claims, or certain recitations therein, are supported by the disclosure . . . Nevertheless, it is clear that the examiner and board considered all the claims to be indefinite and that they expressly relied only on the second paragraph of section 112 as grounds for rejection.”).
Cohn, In re, 438 F.2d 984, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03
Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03
2833 Ex Parte 6530807 et al JOHN MEZZALINGUA ASSOCIATES, INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS PPC, INC.) Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant v. Patent of BELDEN INC. Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent 95/000,112 09/852,343 DELMENDO 305/112(2)/103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER RUBIN, MARGARET R original EXAMINER TA, THO DAC
Labels:
cohn
,
gentry gallery
,
hammack
Thursday, May 26, 2011
all dental, orthokinetics, datamize, cohn, johnson, gardner, miller, borkowski
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
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
Labels:
all dental
,
borkowski
,
cohn
,
datamize
,
gardner
,
johnson
,
miller
,
orthokinetics
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)