lister, cronyn, klopfenstein, cordis, wyer, hall

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Zobel et al 11111263 - (D) HOUSEL 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT

1767 Ex Parte Veltman et al 12692158 - (D) BEST 103 S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. ASDJODI, MOHAMMADREZA

1774 Ex Parte Yows et al 12041713 - (D) BEST concurring KRATZ 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global SEIFU, LESSANEWORK T

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Schlarb et al 10683138 - (D) FRANKLIN SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PHAM, LINH K

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Kim et al 11471359 - (D) CLEMENTS 102/103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. CHOO, MUNSOON

2679 Ex Parte Yu et al 10039187 - (D) JEFFERSON 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. PRENDERGAST,ROBERTA D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Aleshin et al 11332058 - (D) McCARTHY 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC MONDT, JOHANNES P

2897 Ex Parte Wells 11828092 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP NEWTON, VALERIE N

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Benz et al 11290746 - (D) McCARTHY 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION BRADFORD, CANDACE L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Passoni 11664394 - (D) BROWN 102/103 GERRITY, STEPHEN FRANCIS GERRITY, STEPHEN FRANCIS

3724 Ex Parte Souza et al 12288747 - (D) SCHEINER 103 CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP ALIE, GHASSEM

3724 Ex Parte Matthes et al 11485655 - (D) REIMERS 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP NGUYEN, PHONG H

3749 Ex Parte Rasmussen et al 11335874 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP MILLER, SAMANTHA A

For Rittal Catalogue 31 to “qualify as a printed publication within the meaning of § 102, [it] ‘must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.’” In re Lister, 58[2]3 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “Whether a reference is publicly accessible is determined on a case-by-case basis based on the ‘facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.’” Id. (quoting In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). A reference is considered publicly accessible if “it ‘has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)). The PTO carries the initial burden of demonstrating public accessibility. See In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“The proponent of the publication bar must show that prior to the critical date the reference was sufficiently accessible . . . .”); In re Lister, 583 F.3d at 1317 (rejecting the position that the burden shifted from the PTO to the applicant to show inaccessibility where there was a lack of substantial evidence that the reference was publicly accessible as of the critical date).

cordis HARMON 3: 94, 156, 161a; 6: 38, 71, 121, 278; 7: 168b; 8: 62; 10: 40; 13: 181, 184; 20: 161, 175, 184

Cronyn, In re, 890 F.2d 1158, 13 USPQ2d 1070 (Fed. Cir.1989) 2128.01
DONNER 7: 848
HARMON 3: 129, 158

Klopfenstein, In re,380 F.3d 1345, 72 USPQ2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2128.01
DONNER 7: 106-21
HARMON 3: 151

Wyer, In re, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981) 901.05, 2127, 2128
DONNER 5: 28; 7: 31-33, 56, 57, 71

Hall, In re, 781 F.2d 897, 228 USPQ 453 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2128, 2128.01, 2128.02
DONNER 7: 38
HARMON 1: 82; 3: 125, 129, 148, 158

3752 Ex Parte MICHELI 11927559 - (D) KERINS 102/103 FLETCHER YODER (ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.) BOECKMANN, JASON J

3769 Ex Parte Irion et al 11432014 - (D) SCHEINER 103 ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC CRANDALL, LYNSEY P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3652 Ex Parte Blonigan et al 11176742 - (D) HILL 112(2)/102/103 102/103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX RUDAWITZ, JOSHUA I

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Rasmussen et al 11998532 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte McKinney et al 11563618 - (D) EVANS 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP DICKINSON, PAUL W

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Uesugi et al 12137382 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP HUANG, CHENG YUAN

1792 Ex Parte Sagel 12037522 - (D) KRATZ 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP SMITH, CHAIM A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte O' Malley et al 10834774 - (D) DANG 103 HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C. DAY, HERNG DER

2158 Ex Parte Findeisen et al 11032384 - (D) MANTIS MERCADER 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HASAN, SYED HAROON

2197 Ex Parte Foster et al 10926255 - (D) JEFFERSON 103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C ZHEN, LIB

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Phillips et al 10444941 - (D) DANG 103 Qwest Communications International Inc. NEWLIN, TIMOTHY R

2425 Ex Parte Goodwill et al 11556898 - (D) WINSOR 103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. ALCON, FERNANDO

2442 Ex Parte Helm et al 10745328 - (D) THOMAS 101/112(1)/103 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple) SURVILLO, OLEG

2453 Ex Parte Morton et al 11674231 - (D) HOFF 101/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP NGUYEN, THU HA T

2462 Ex Parte Beming et al 10595312 - (D) FRAHM 103 ERICSSON INC. DUONG, CHRISTINE T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Chang 12074754 - (D) FRAHM 102/103 FOXCONN INTERNATIONAL, INC. WEI TE CHUNG LEON, EDWIN A

2834 Ex Parte Scanlon 11608200 - (D) DANG 112(2) 102/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DA) KIM, JOHN K

2834 Ex Parte Theuss 12038275 - (D) DANG 103 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA LE, DANG D

2892 Ex Parte Zhang et al 11100672 - (D) WHITEHEAD, JR. 103 Howard IP Law Group KRAIG, WILLIAM F

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Kim et al 11698801 - (D) MILLS 112(1)/112(2) 103 Medtronic CardioVascular HUPCZEY, JR, RONALD JAMES

3763 Ex Parte Krivitski et al 11370721 - (D) JENKS 112(1) 102/103 Harter Secrest & Emery LLP EISENBERG, REBECCA E

3767 Ex Parte Hickle 11783342 - (D) REIMERS 103 Dorsey L. Baker SCHELL, LAURA C

3788 Ex Parte Pender et al 11582636 - (D) BUNTING 103 Tod T. Tumey GRANO, ERNESTO ARTURIO

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 JAMES H. ANDERSEN and TRU-BALANCE, LLC, Patent Owner, Appellant v. ALCOA, INC., Third-Party Requestor, Respondent GREENBURG TRAURIG, LLP 95001677 7,178,880 10/868,687 KERINS 102/103 112(2) COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC STORMER,RUSSELL D original BELLINGER, JASON R

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 PLANTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALIPH, INC. AND ALIPHCOM, INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2012-1355 5,712,453 08/420,241 WALLACH summary judgment of non-infringement and obviousness Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP DANG, KHANH

cordis, allen eng'g, catalina, pitney bowes

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1711 Ex Parte Hoppe et al 11828560 - (D) GARRIS 103 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) CORMIER, DAVID G

1791 Ex Parte Cross et al 11206424 - (D) TIMM 103 Hovey Williams LLP GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte NARAYAN et al 11462577 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. ALAM, SHAHID AL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3671 Ex Parte Baugh 11649872 - (D) HORNER 102/103 BENTON F. BAUGH MAYO-PINNOCK, TARA LEIGH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Alicherry et al 11668800 - (D) FISHMAN 103 103 ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. WALL & TONG, LLP TIV, BACKHEAN

Claim construction is an issue of law that we review de novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The preamble of claim 8 recites “[a] method for use by a secure client associated with a user device” (emphasis added). “Generally,” [the Federal Circuit has] said, “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed.Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, the preamble may be construed as limiting “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed.Cir.2002), quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed.Cir.1999). We conclude that the preamble of claim 1 does give life and meaning to the steps of the claim and will construe “for use by a secure client.”

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)

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02

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

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1726 Ex Parte SENOO et al 09162992 - (D) PAK 103 K&L Gates LLP DOVE, TRACY MAE

1766 Ex Parte Dessinges et al 12348542 - (D) BEST 102/103 SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION TOSCANO, ALICIA

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2189 Ex Parte Sangili et al 11176121 - (D) SMITH 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WANG, VICTOR W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte Yoshihara 10613577 - (D) McKONE 103 TEKTRONIX, INC. WANG, TED M  

REHEARING  

DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Alarcon et al 10428295 - (D) PRATS 103 Becton, Dickinson and Company Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP YANG, NELSON C

cordis, hoffer, minton, cybersource, dealertrack

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2199 Ex Parte Dent 11/143,157 GONSALVES 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER BULLOCK JR, LEWIS ALEXANDER

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3643 Ex Parte Edgar 11/298,336 HOELTER 102/103 Elizabeth A. Edgar EXAMINER PARSLEY, DAVID J

3657 Ex Parte Adoline et al 10/820,280 STAICOVICI 103 FAY SHARPE LLP EXAMINER SY, MARIANO ONG

3687 Ex Parte East 11/177,182 FETTING 103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER ADE, OGER GARCIA

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Tarantino 10/810,782 LORIN 103 WEIDE & MILLER, LTD. EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K

3721 Ex Parte Seyffert 11/051,274 CALVE 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD EXAMINER HARMON, CHRISTOPHER R

3761 Ex Parte Meir 10/601,455 BONILLA 103 JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER DEAK, LESLIE R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Kiehlbauch et al 11/812,902 DELMENDO 103 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC EXAMINER CHANDRA, SATISH

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Alberth et al 10/206,706 DILLON 103 103 MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER BOCURE, TESFALDET

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Uhlir-Tsang et al 11/553,932 OWENS obviousness-type double patenting/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER FAISON, VERONICA F

1734 Ex Parte Higgins 12/167,139 METZ 103 DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP EXAMINER LE, EMILY M

1764 Ex Parte Ganapathiappan et al 11/700,633 GAUDETTE 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER REDDY, KARUNA P

1767 Ex Parte TAKAGI et al 12/391,725 FRANKLIN 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER SALVITTI, MICHAEL A

1771 Ex Parte Bhan et al 11/014,362 SCHAFER 103 SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER SINGH, PREM C

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Sahita et al 11/170,925 DROESCH 101/102 Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC/Intel Corporation RIAD, AMINE

Claim construction is an issue of law subject to review de novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

2183 Ex Parte Lippincott 10/850,095 DILLON 102/103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER FENNEMA, ROBERT E

The determination of whether an intended use clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. In re Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id.

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Jain et al 10/291,169 KIM 101/103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC EXAMINER STERRETT, JONATHAN G

See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[i]t is clear that unpatentable mental processes are the subject matter of claim 3. All of claim 3’s method steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”). Simply adding computer limitations to such mental processes, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

3625 Ex Parte Leon et al 11/241,883 KIM 102 SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY EXAMINER SMITH, JEFFREY A

3627 Ex Parte Stenz et al 10/873,000 FETTING non-obvious double patenting 102/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY

3634 Ex Parte Woller 10/426,550 HORNER 102 GARDNER GROFF GREENWALD & VILLANUEVA. PC CHIN EXAMINER SHUE, ALVIN C

3682 Ex Parte Boyle 11/215,907 KIM 103 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER HAMILTON, MATTHEW L

3685 Ex Parte Stefik et al 11/174,654 FETTING 103 Reed Smith LLP EXAMINER NIGH, JAMES D

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Boukhny 11/060,827 FRANKLIN 103 ALCON EXAMINER SEVERSON, RYAN J

3743 Ex Parte Yabuuchi et al 10/879,136 BAHR 103 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER LU, JIPING

3767 Ex Parte Dalton 11/252,329 FITZPATRICK 103 Cardinal Law Group EXAMINER OSINSKI, BRADLEY JAMES
 
REHEARING
 
DENIED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2473 Ex Parte Simmons et al 10/159,718 DANG 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS EXAMINER NGO, NGUYEN HOANG

kaplan, kuhle, cordis, praxair, miyazaki

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Hedstrom et al 11/052,893 SMITH 103(a)/non-statutory obvious-type double patenting WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY- MD 0750 EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

“[T]here must be some clear evidence to establish why the variation would have been obvious which can properly qualify as ‘prior art.’” In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Kaplan, In re, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804
1731 Ex Parte Flytzani-Stephanopoulos et al 10/534,110 GAUDETTE 103(a) Milstein Zhang & Wu LLC EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Hendrix et al 11/290,291 SPAHN 103(a) Brocade Communications c/o Bever, Hoffman & Harms, LLP EXAMINER BRADFORD, CANDACE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Kovac 11/444,445 CLARKE 102(b)/103(a) THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION EXAMINER COZART, JERMIE E

With regard to the rationale of the Examiner, the predecessor of our reviewing court has stated that design choice is inapplicable in a rejection where the use of the claimed feature solves a stated problem. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)(use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” ).

Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04
3763 Ex Parte Simas et al 11/138,553 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER PRICE, NATHAN R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Nabors et al 10/517,732 FREDMAN 103(a) Syngenta Corp Protection, Inc. EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1647 Ex Parte Byrum 11/491,371 ADAMS 101/112(1) Arnold & Porter LLP EXAMINER ALLEN, MARIANNE P

1652 Ex Parte Zandi et al 10/079,949 FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER
PROUTY, REBECCA E

1655 Ex Parte Lindberg 10/271,186 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Yoshitake et al 10/472,378 GARRIS 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W

1762 Ex Parte Kesavan et al 11/243,144 WALSH 103(a) Kevin E Mcveigh RHODIA INC. EXAMINER METZMAIER, DANIEL S

1789 Ex Parte Fultz et al 10/955,443 COLAIANNI 102(e)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Deng et al 10/386,217 SMITH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

2172 Ex Parte Aurenz 11/140,398 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HEFFINGTON, JOHN M

2183 Ex Parte Fowles 11/145,601 LUCAS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B

“Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 is an issue of claim construction and a question of law that we review de novo.” Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).

However, during prosecution before this Office, while Appellant still has the opportunity to amend the claims, a higher standard of clarity is required:

In particular, rather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we hold that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.

Ex parte Kenichi Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (precedential opinion) (BPAI 2008).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte McCown et al 10/934,186 CHEN 102(b) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK EXAMINER FIELDS, COURTNEY D

NEW

REVERSED

06/02/2011 2451 Ex Parte Helsper et al 10/985,664 BARRY 102(e) Ballard Spahr LLP EXAMINER MAUNG, ZARNI

06/22/2011 1777 Ex Parte Olsta et al 11/599,080 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

AFFIRMED

06/02/2011 1722 Ex Parte Hirayama et al 10/546,573 GAUDETTE 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER EOFF, ANCA

06/03/2011 1765 Ex Parte Musgrave et al 11/027,442 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER ZEMEL, IRINA SOPJIA

06/02/2011 1782 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 11/357,971 KRATZ non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER YAGER, JAMES C

06/02/2011 2164 Ex Parte Smith et al 10/864,267 JEFFERY obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

06/02/2011 1745 Ex Parte Tuertscher et al 11/182,422 GAUDETTE 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHAN, SING P

DISMISSED

06/03/2011 1716 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11/018,641 BARTLETT RCE Edwards Vacuum, Inc. EXAMINER LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT