e-pass

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1653 Ex Parte Shaz et al 13483379 - (D) ADAMS 103 K&L Gates LLP-Orange County MCNEIL, STEPHANIE AN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte RAJOPADHYE 13026523 - (D) DEJMEK 101/103 MANNAVA & KANG, P.C. BYRD, UCHE SOW ANDE

3624 Ex Parte Salloum 10032213 - (D) THOMAS 101/OTDP DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC MISIASZEK, AMBER AL TSCHUL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3783 Ex Parte Thibault et al 14604911 - (D) STEPINA 103 41.50 112(2) Becton, Dickinson and Company/fhe Webb Law Firm SNYDER, MELISSA A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Pedersen 13318218 - (D) JENKS 103 Brooks Kushman THOMAS, TIMOTHY P

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Osborne 14953062 - (D) COURTENAY 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L HOLLOWAY III, EDWIN C

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Allen 13645790 - (D) GARRIS 103 OSRAM SYLVANIA Inc. LEE, NATHANIEL J.

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Kamath et al 12884828 - (D) KHAN 101/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 MUNSON, PATRICIA H

3628 Ex Parte Aaron et al 14348018 - (D) COURTENAY 101/103 WOOD, HERRON & EV ANS, LLP EPSTEIN, BRIAN M

3629 Ex Parte UPADHYAYA et al 13358861 - (D) CRAIG 101/103 Potomac Law Group, PLLC (Oracle International) BAHL, SANGEETA

3679 Ex Parte Tanaka et al 13261885 - (D) KORNICZKY 112(2)/102/103 Jenkins, Wilson, Taylor & Hunt, P.A. LINFORD, JAMES ALBERT

3692 Ex Parte Medeiros et al 12563911 - (D) HUTCHINGS 101/103 LEYDIG VOIT & MA YER, LTD ANDERSON, JOHN A

3693 Ex Parte Bauerschmidt et al 11601489 - (D) CRAIG 103 101 Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/CME BORLING HAUS, JASON M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Andersen et al 13863786 - (D) STEPINA 102/103 Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP HTAY, AYE SU MON

3745 Ex Parte Dahl et al 14110890 - (D) STEPINA 103 NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER SEHN, MICHAEL L

3745 Ex Parte Romanov et al 13597745 - (D) CALVE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY WHITE, ALEXANDER A

3771 Ex Parte Rizk et al 13648144 - (D) KATZ 103 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General ALEMAN, SARAH WEBB

Appellants do not direct us to, and we do not find, a specific definition of the term "between" in the Specification. The Specification provides only minimal discussion of the plunger rod and does not list any express limitations of the plunger rod in relation to the handle or body. 

In the absence of a definition or express limitation, we interpret the term as broadly as reasonable and consistent with the Specification. We are mindful, though, not to import limitations from a specification unnecessarily. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2111.01

self, superguide, e-pass

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Griffin et al 12242627 - (D) KIM 102/103 Haynes & Boone, LLP DASS, HARISH T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2141 Ex Parte Petersen et al 13052970 - (D) PYONIN 112(2)/102/103 FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP SONG, DAEHO D

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2822 Ex Parte Rueger et al 12476059 - (D) HANLON 103/double patenting Wells St. John P.S. AU, BAC H

See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (patentability may not be based on limitations not appearing in the claims).

Self, In re, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1982) 2131.05

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Miadich 12623415 - (D) HORNER 112(2)/102/103 The Law Office of Jane K. Babin VERAA, CHRISTOPHER

See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Limitations not explicit or inherent in the language of a claim cannot be imported from the specification.).

Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2111.01

E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2111.01

e-pass

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Chiyoma et al 12782074 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) LEE, SHUN K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Nádas et al 12516237 - (D) ENGELS 103 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC ADDY, ANTHONY S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Lloyd 12253527 - (D) WOODS 103 103 Brooks Kushman P.C. / Meritor SCHWARTZ, CHRISTOPHER P

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Respini et al 12024251 - (D) GARRIS 103 Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC STEIN, MICHELLE

2166 Ex Parte Chen et al 11230446 - (D) FRAHM 101/102 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG LO, ANN J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Midgley et al 11280111 - (D) MOORE 103 Ojanen Law Offices EMDADI, KEYVAN

Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claims are not read into the claims unless the Patentee either acted as a lexicographer by “imbu[ing] the claim terms with a particular meaning,” or “disavowed or disclaimed scope of coverage, by using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.” E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotations omitted).

E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2111.01

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte THEMIG 12249602 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. BAGNELL, DAVID J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Grasso 12818447 - (D) GREENHUT 112(1)/103 Frank J. Grasso PIERCE, WILLIAM M

3726 Ex Parte Anderson et al 11714750 - (D) OSINSKI 103 Kinney & Lange, P.A. WILENSKY, MOSHE K

3781 Ex Parte Monmany 11670865 - (D) HOELTER 103 112(1)/112(2) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP MATHEW, FENN C

e-pass, techradium

mobile search

REVERSED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Hyatt 11608373 - (D) ROBERTSON 112(2)/103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D

Here, Appellant’s recitation of “that has been partially transferred” refers to a completed result of a prior step (i.e., “transferring only a part of the incoming media content to the electronic device”), such that there is a temporal limitation implicit from a plain reading of the claim language. See e.g. E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corp, 473 F.3d 1213, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that because the language of most of the steps of its method claim refer to the completed results of the prior step (e.g., “transferring a data set ...; storing said transferred data set”), Appellant must show that all of those steps were performed in order). The Examiner has not directed us to any language in the Specification that would suggest otherwise.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3723 Ex Parte Manens 10987795 - (D) SAINDON 102 102/103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX SCRUGGS, ROBERT J

3731 Ex Parte Shekalim 11885158 - (D) WALSH 102/103 102 MARTIN D. MOYNIHAN d/b/a PRTSI, INC. CRONIN, ASHLEY L

AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Maki et al 11371239 - (D) McKELVEY 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP BELL, WILLIAM P

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Scherpa et al 11470054 - (D) CURCURI 103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP ZAHR, ASHRAF A

Appellants rely on a definition from Wikipedia. Notably, Wikipedia disclaims the validity of its website‟s content and is unreliable. See Techradium, Inc. v. Blackboard Connect Inc., 2009 WL 1152985, *4 n.5 (E.D. Tex. 2009).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2488 Ex Parte Fradkin et al 10535466 - (D) JEFFERY 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS PERUNGAVOOR, SATHYANARAYA V

harza, e-pass, curry, mathias

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Krebs et al 10/845,068 COLAIANNI 103(a) WILSONART INTERNATIONAL, INC. C/O WELSH & FLAXMAN, LLC EXAMINER SAMPLE, DAVID R

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Vera 11/244,946 BLANKENSHIP 103(a) Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe EXAMINER WU, YICUN

2161 Ex Parte McAllister et al 10/943,054 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER BIBBEE, JARED M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte Boer et al 10/672,657 KRIVAK 101/103(a) RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP EXAMINER SINKANTARAKORN, PAWARIS

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Scirica 11/580,592 ASTORINO 102(b) Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien EXAMINER LOW, LINDSAY M
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Balthes et al 10/287,250 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Boccasam et al 11/244,060 FISCHETTI 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Steven P. Arnheim Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP EXAMINER WU, YICUN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Rippolone 10/787,429 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER GILBERT, WILLIAM V

The Examiner relies on In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) to provide reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Bortugno’s system to duplicate parts. (Id.). The Examiner does not analogize the facts in Harza to the facts in this appeal.

The Appellant contends the “reasoning for duplication of parts does not apply.” (App. Br. 7). In Harza, the court held that “[i]t is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance.” Harza , 274 F.2d at 671 (italics added). The Appellant points out that the three gutter sections recited in claims 7 and 8 “are different and not duplicates.” (Id.).
...

These modifications are far beyond the holding in Harza, which is limited to a mere duplication of parts.

Harza, In re, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04
3685 Ex Parte Cihula 10/746,077 CRAWFORD 103(a) LAWRENCE CHO ATTORNEY AT LAW C/O CPA GLOBAL EXAMINER WINTER, JOHN M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3762 Ex Parte Kast et al 10/836,127 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) IPLM GROUP, P.A. EXAMINER KAHELIN, MICHAEL WILLIAM
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1641 Ex Parte Letant et al 11/140,391 MILLS 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY EXAMINER
LAM, ANN Y

1745 Ex Parte Stull et al 11/157,004 WARREN 103(a) Integrated Turf Solutions, LLC EXAMINER TOLIN, MICHAEL A

1767 Ex Parte Good et al 10/968,658 COLAIANNI 103(a) HENKEL CORPORATION EXAMINER EASHOO, MARK

1716 Ex Parte Mikhaylichenko et al 10/816,487 COLAIANNI nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) MARTINE PENILLA & GENCARELLA, LLP EXAMINER MACARTHUR, SYLVIA

1796 Ex Parte Adkins et al 10/687,156 WARREN 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Lin et al 11/398,138 DANG 102(e)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER PHANTANA ANGKOOL, DAVID

2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Zafar et al 10/717,242 KOHUT 102(e) Delphi Technologies, Inc. EXAMINER GESESSE, TILAHUN

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Bowers et al 10/365,088 GAY ANN SPAHN 102(b)/103(a) WM. CATES RAMBO EXAMINER SILBERMANN, JOANNE

3621 Ex parte MILLER 10/192,185 PETRAVICK 103(a) Edwin H. Taylor BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J

Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) (“The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”). We decline to read the three criteria argued by the Appellant into the claims.

E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . .2106, 2111.01

See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1275 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (“Common situations involving nonfunctional descriptive material are: - a computer-readable storage medium that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material, such as music or a literary work, encoded on the medium, - a computer that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the machine functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not reconfigure the computer), or - a process that differs from the prior art only with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the process steps are to be performed to achieve the utility of the invention. Thus, if the prior art suggests storing a song on a disk, merely choosing a particular song to store on the disk would be presumed to be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is simply a rearrangement of nonfunctional descriptive material.).” See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative).
3633 Ex Parte Broad et al 10/871,401 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) DOBRUSIN & THENNISCH PC EXAMINER FIGUEROA, ADRIANA

3686 Ex Parte Bocionek et al 10/337,132 FISCHETTI 103(a) Alexander J. Burke Siemens Corporation EXAMINER LE, LINH GIANG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Zander et al 10/749,871 GREENHUT 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. Tara Pohlkotte EXAMINER HAND, MELANIE JO
REHEARING

DENIED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Sullivan et al 11/517,723 McCARTHY 102(b) Bay Area Technology Law Group PC EXAMINER BUCKLE JR, JAMES J

DENIED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3667 Ex Parte Choban et al 10/130,463 CRAWFORD 103(a) David C Jenkins Eckert Seamans Cherrin & Mellott EXAMINER CHEUNG, MARY DA ZHI WANG

NEW

REVERSED

3781 Ex Parte Borowski et al 11/039,426 STAICOVICI 103(a) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC EXAMINER SMALLEY, JAMES N

1785 Ex Parte Burch et al 11/796,639 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM

1777 Ex Parte Kraft 11/873,117 NAGUMO 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2612 Ex Parte Batra et al 11/423,411 DROESCH 103(a) Zilka-Kotab, PC EXAMINER LU, SHIRLEY

AFFIRMED

1777 Ex Parte Apffel 11/580,857 COLAIANNI 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER XU, XIAOYUN

1613 Ex Parte Bernstein 10/813,760 WALSH 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER KWON, BRIAN YONG S

1731 Ex Parte Braganca et al 10/518,443 WARREN 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER MCDONOUGH, JAMES E

3628 Ex Parte Ogg 10/677,829 LORIN 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P EXAMINER VETTER, DANIEL

REHEARING

3654 Ex Parte Meckler 10/794,872 O’NEILL HAHN LOESER / LINCOLN EXAMINER HAUGLAND, SCOTT J

gordon, nuijten, rasmussen, chiron, superguide, e-pass,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Dalvit 10454898 SCHEINER 103(a) BERNSTEIN.SCULLY, SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER 

Ex Parte Schwartz et al 10754861 GRIMES 112(1) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Devine et al 10490422 NAGUMO 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 

Ex Parte Basheer et al 11099399 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC 

Ex Parte Chiang et al 10921604 FRANKLIN 112(1)/103(a) PATENT LAW GROUP LLP 

If the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. 

In re Gordon,733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Gordon, In re, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . .2143.01, 2144.08

Ex Parte Fan 10642852 NAGUMO 103(a) GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE

Ex Parte Fischer et al 10445146 TIMM 103(a) BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P. 

Ex Parte Gartland et al 10956440 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 

Ex Parte Ohtani et al 10946072 COLAIANNI nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Chen et al 10612542 HUGHES 101 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP

Thus, we find that Appellants’ claimed tangible machine readable media does not implicate a non-statutory carrier wave or a signal modulated by a carrier over a transmission medium. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357; Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).

Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106 

Ex Parte Djugash et al 10901591 SIU 102(e) IBM CORPORATION 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte REINMULLER 08732408 STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Frippiat et al 10182064 GRIMES 103(a) HAYES SOLOWAY P.C. 

Ex Parte Itoh et al 10214371 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Chou et al 11157895 McKELVEY 102(e)/102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 (b) E.I. duPONT de NEMOURS AND COMPANY 

Ex Parte Simmons 10870608 HANLON 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C. 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Jung et al 10385464 HUGHES 101/112(1)/132(a)/102(b) North Star Intellectual Property Law, PC

(“a rejection of an amended claim under § 132 is equivalent to a rejection under § 112, first paragraph”) (quoting In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214 (CCPA 1981)); see also Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc. , 363 F.3d 1247, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The written description requirement prevents applicants from . . . . add[ing] new matter to their disclosures . . . defeating an accurate accounting of the priority of invention. See 35 U.S.C. 132.”) 

Rasmussen, In re, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . 706.03(o), 1504.04, 2163, 2163.01, 2163.04, 2163.05, 2163.06

Chiron v. Corp. v. Genentech Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 70 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.03, 2164.05(a)

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Quine 10650511 MARTIN 103(a) Pitney Bowes Inc. 

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

Ex Parte Haskell et al 10252972 FETTING 112(2)/103(a) Siemens Corporation 

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design 

Ex Parte Khosravi et al 10461106 STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A.

Although the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim under consideration must be consistent with the specification, we must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . 2111.01 

E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2111.01

Ex Parte Sun et al 10279769 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. 

Ex Parte Zawilinski et al 10930329 MEDLEY 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.