comaper

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Liu et al 13093492 - (D) SMITH 103 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP LEONG, JONATHAN G

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Cameros et al 11205237 - (D) STRAUSS 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. PATEL, JIGAR P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte SOKOLL 12027673 - (D) KERINS 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP TISSOT, ADAM D

3675 Ex Parte GSCHWENG et al 12509353 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (GME) LUGO, CARLOS

In short, Appellants’ Specification assigns or suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art a particular scope or definition of these terms such that, in order to resolve the matter at hand, resort to a broader or a general dictionary definition of these terms for guidance is not justified. See Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

In Comaper, “[t]he patent specification [did] not assign or suggest a particular definition to the term ‘case’. Therefore, in determining the meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for guidance.” Comaper, 596 F.3d at 1348.

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte von Herrmann et al 11833967 - (D) KERINS 103 JEANNE E. LONGMUIR PEREIRO, JORGE ANDRES

3769 Ex Parte Fein et al 12202282 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Turk IP Law, LLC JIAN, SHIRLEY XUEYING

3773 Ex Parte Gerberding et al 12489158 - (D) PAULRAJ 102(e)/103 Stryker - Vista IP Law Group WOO, JULIAN W

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Geddes 11750119 - (D) NAGUMO 103 103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA

1774 Ex Parte Berggren et al 12264121 - (D) SMITH 102 102/103 SHELL OIL COMPANY SEIFU, LESSANEWORK T

3617 Ex Parte Milio et al 12411662 - (D) IPPOLITO 112(1) 112(1)/103 Brooks Kushman P.C. / Meritor KOTTER, KIP T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Birgel 10507213 - (D) HASTINGS 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC ABOAGYE, MICHAEL

1733 Ex Parte Frommeyer et al 10935934 - (D) BEST 112(1)/112(2) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP KESSLER, CHRISTOPHER S

1761 Ex Parte Yang et al 12138795 - (D) LEBOVITZ 102/103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP BOYER, CHARLES I

1772 Ex Parte Welch et al 11656320 - (D) BEST 103 EMCH, SCHAFFER, SCHAUB & PORCELLO CO HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11918087 - (D) HOMERE 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PARRA, OMAR S

2431 Ex Parte Yalakanti et al 11633744 - (D) WINSOR 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ZECHER, CORDELIA P K

2493 Ex Parte Zettler et al 12014555 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 Slater & Matsil, L.L.P. SIDDIQI, MOHAMMAD A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Vannithamby et al 11108323 - (D) DIXON 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR

2656 Ex Parte Noessing et al 11489376 - (D) JENKS 103 Eschweiler & Associates (Lantiq) TRAN, QUOC DUC

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Milano et al 13015993 - (D) GREENHUT 112(2)/103 CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP JACKSON, DANIELLE

3653 Ex Parte Burkhard 11961684 - (D) GREENHUT 103 OSHA LIANG/MI RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH C

3689 Ex Parte Arrasvuori 11523162 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/103 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. MATTIA, SCOTT A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Buccinna et al 11306303 - (D) KERINS 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION PRANGE, SHARON M

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Santos 12284439 - (R) HOELTER 103 Timothy E Siegel Patent Law, PLLC OMGBA, ESSAMA

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 SPACECO BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INC. Requester, Appellant v. INNOVATIVE OFFICE PRODUCTS, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent Ex Parte 7066433 et al 10/850,640 95001938 - (D) SONG 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 DESIGN IP, P.C. FOSTER, JIMMY G original KING, ANITA M

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

comaper, clay, wyers, PPG, borkowski2, hammack, zurko

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Saigusa et al 11/581,000 GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER CROWELL, ANNA M

1735 Ex Parte FOODY, Sr. 11/769,850 GAUDETTE 103(a) FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO EXAMINER SAAD, ERIN BARRY

1776 Ex Parte KEE et al 11/834,803 GAUDETTE 103(a) WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER STELLING, LUCAS A

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Caruba et al 11/165,937 MANTIS MERCADER 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER LEE, SHUN K

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3731 Ex Parte 6428542 et al 95/000,446 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Whether a reference in the prior art is “analogous” is a fact question. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 658. Wyers et al. v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010).EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b)

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3731 Ex Parte 6,936,050 B2 et al 95/000,451 NuVASIVE, INC. Requester and Appellant v. Patent of WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent LEBOVITZ 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DOROTHY P. WHELAN FISH AND RICHARDSON, P.C.EXAMINER CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN

The definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, “is essentially a requirement for precision and definiteness of claim language.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1562, (Fed. Cir. 1996) (quoting In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909 (CCPA 1970). The “purpose is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance.” In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382 (CCPA 1970).

PPG Ind. v. Guardian Ind., 75 F.3d 1558, 37 USPQ2d 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . 2164.06(b)

Borkowski, In re, 422 F.2d 904, 164 USPQ 642 (CCPA 1970) . . 707.07(l), 2164.02, 2174

Hammack, In re, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Ho et al 10/757,775 FREDMAN 103(a) OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC EXAMINER RAMACHANDRAN, UMAMAHESWARI

1655 Ex Parte Bortlik et al 10/568,704 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER MI, QIUWEN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Mazur et al 11/104,120 GAUDETTE 103(a) ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Burdick et al 10/385,897 BARRY 101/obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER CORRIELUS, JEAN M

The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).

Zurko, In re, 258 F.3d 1379, 59 USPQ2d 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.03
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11/057,815 KIM 103(a) BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A. EXAMINER OBEID, FAHD A
DISMISSED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Eisert et al 10/572,655 VIGNONE RCE Thomas Langer Cohen Pontani Lieberman & Pavane EXAMINER LAM, CATHY N