corning glass

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Inda 11453919 - (D) SNAY 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP FORREST, MICHAEL

1786 Ex Parte Stegemann et al 11554162 - (D) OWENS dissenting NAGUMO 103 Cozen O'Connor CHRISS, JENNIFER A

1786 Ex Parte Heuser et al 11658772 - (D) OWENS dissenting NAGUMO 103 Cozen O'Connor CHRISS, JENNIFER A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte SCHWAGER et al 13750454 - (D) OWENS 112(4)/103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. AMRANY, ADI

The effect preamble language is to be given is determined by reviewing the entirety of the Appellants' disclosure to gain an understanding of what the Appellants actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim. See Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric, 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2111.02 , 2163

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Rosam et al 13356928 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 Whitmyer IP Group LLC JACYNA, J CASIMER

3762 Ex Parte Tesler 11955841 - (D) ABRAMS 102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) D ABREU, MICHAEL JOSEPH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 11046658 - (D) GREEN 112(1) 101 41.50 112(2) INTELLECTUAL VENTURES - ISF WHALEY, PABLO S

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte McCormick et al 12422454 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 112(2) Cooper Legal Group LLC IGYARTO, CAROLYN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Erickson et al 13509617 - (D) OSINSKI 103 103 DELIZIO LAW, PLLC BALLY MOSSER, ROBERT E

3727 Ex Parte Verbowski 12366280 - (D) BROWNE 103 103 MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC YOON, SEAHEE

3742 Ex Parte Hensel 13306946 - (D) HOSKINS 103 112(2) 41.50 103 MOLINS & CO. PTY. LTD. HOANG, TUBA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Funda et al 10564635 - (D) MILLS 103/double patenting NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC GREENE, NAN A

1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 11900493 - (D) GREEN 102 double patenting 41.50 112(2) INTELLECTUAL VENTURES - ISF LIN, JERRY

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Koshiishi et al 13113330 - (D) KENNEDY 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP, CHEN, KEATH T

1761 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 13501306 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 Cheng Law Group, PLLC YOUNG, WILLIAM D

1767 Ex Parte Tom et al 12922088 - (D) TIMM 112(2)/112(4)/103 HP Inc. KOLLIAS, ALEXANDER C

1787 Ex Parte Keller 13155458 - (D) WILSON 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. KOKKINOS, NICHOLAS C

1793 Ex Parte RIVERA et al 12626226 - (D) PAK 112(2) 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP KING, FELICIA C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Johnson 12548554 - (D) YAP 103 HEAD, JOHNSON & KACHIGIAN, P.C. HOLLAND, SHERYLL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2447 Ex Parte Beers et al 12936159 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 HP Inc, LIN, SHERMAN L

2488 Ex Parte Fang et al 13009083 - (D) STRAUSS 103 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED LE, PETER D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2613 Ex Parte Geller et al 12676641 - (D) SILVERMAN 102/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS ELBINGER, STEVEN Z

2682 Ex Parte Engelstad et al 12734832 - (D) HOMERE 103 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. NGUYEN, NAM V

2689 Ex Parte Arts 11579643 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P,C MEHMOOD, JENNIFER

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Chaut 12962675 - (D) OWENS 102/103 DR MARK M, FRIEDMAN KAYES, SEAN PHILLIP

2859 Ex Parte Ball 12277621 - (D) HOUSEL 103 SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC (PP) HERNANDEZ, MANUEL J

2897 Ex Parte LaVoie et al 13224240 - (D) HEANEY 112(2)/103 Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson - LAMR/NOVL TIJNGE, BRYAN R.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3658 Ex Parte Koivunen 12100788 - (D) CAPP 103 BLANK ROME LLP MACARTHUR, VICTOR L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Jung et al 12156783 - (D) GUIJT 112(1) 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC ARCHER, MARIE

3775 Ex Parte Stein et al 13631427 - (D) ASTORINO 103 Orthosensor, Inc. KU, SI MING

3777 Ex Parte Megens et al 13393857 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(1)/double patenting 102/103 41.50 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS TURCHEN, ROCHELLE DEANNA

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Vian et al 12185978 - (R) FISHMAN 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. LIN, JASON

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Blain 13006193 - (R) PAK 103 DASCENZO Intellectual Property Law, P,C SMITH, DAVID E

bell comm, rowe, corning glass, kropa

custom search

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Narayanan et al 10990995 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PURDY, KYLE A

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1758 Ex Parte Casali et al 12972007 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 102 Streets & Steele - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. DAM, DUSTIN Q

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Ungureanu et al 12669393 - (D) NEW 103 CURATOLO SIDOTI CO., LPA RICCI, CRAIG D

We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the language of the preamble is a limitation on the claim. “[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.” Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In instances where a patentee uses the claim preamble to recite structural limitations of his claimed invention, the PTO and courts give effect to that usage. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation. Id. (citing Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 (1951).

Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 2111.02 ,   2163

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 , 2303

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 2111.02 , 2163

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) 707.07(f) , 2111.02

pitney bowes, paulsen, marrin, bell comm, kropa, corning glass, rowe

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Dobler et al 10/258,006 MILLS 103(a) JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SHEIKH, HUMERA N 

Ex Parte Selvin et al 10/976,546 SPIEGEL 103(a) RICHARD ARON OSMAN EXAMINER POPA, ILEANA 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex Parte Giffin 10/629,094 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP EXAMINER DEUBLE, MARK A 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Kuivasto et al 10/572,393 BARRETT 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) YOUNG & THOMPSON EXAMINER MILLER, BENA B 

Ex Parte Ma et al 11/390,978 O’NEILL 102(b)/nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER GIMIE, MAHMOUD 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Sakata et al 10/518,814 GREEN 103(a) CROWELL & MORING LLP EXAMINER JAVANMARD, SAHAR 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Vizzini et al 11/472,153 COLAIANNI 103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER RABAGO, ROBERTO 

Ex Parte Berkowitz et al 10/306,765 DELMENDO 103(a) FRANK J. BONINI, JR. EXAMINER JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN 

REEXAMINATION 

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review 

Ex parte REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY 90/006,283 6,283,044 LEBOVITZ Opinion Dissenting SONG 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester UNGARETTI & HARRIS LLP EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ANDRES

Precedent establishes that the preamble limits the claims when it distinguishes the use of the claimed article from the prior art . . . . [Internal citations omitted] The preamble limits the claimed invention if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . .

Generally stated, “terms appearing in a preamble may be deemed limitations of a claim when they give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . .

Marrin v. Griffin, 94 USPQ2d 1140, 1143-44 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (dissent by J. Newman).

[W]here a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation. See Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 (1951).

The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d [1251] at 1257 [(Fed. Cir. 1989)]. The inquiry involves examination of the entire patent record to determine what invention the patentee intended to define and protect. [Internal citations omitted.]

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

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

Paulsen, In re, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . .716.03, 2106, 2144.08

Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 9 USPQ2d 1962 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2163

Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 42 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.02, 2303