eiselstein, festo, lockwood

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 
1747 Ex Parte Paul 11887719 - (D) NAGUMO 103 WOLFF & SAMSON, P.C. NGUYEN, THUKHANH T

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2199 Ex Parte Hyttinen 10775545 - (D) BOUCHER 103 NOKIA CORPORATION c/o Ware, Fressola, Maguire & Barber LLP WU, QING YUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Islam et al 10798824 - (D) ZECHER 103 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.a.r.l. c/o WARE, FRESSOLA, MAGUIRE & BARBER LLP DANG, HUNG Q

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Rekimoto 11155487 - (D) DIXON 103 RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC BLAIR, KILE O

2677 Ex Parte Panesar et al 11025126 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 Intel Corporation Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC RICHER, JONI

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Dresden 11877639 - (D) FETTING 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP OSMAN BILAL AHMED, AFAF

3685 Ex Parte Furlong et al 11107957 - (D) LORIN 112(1)/103 KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. RAVETTI, DANTE

We do not see in these passages any mention of “periodic access.” While the absence of these terms do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is inadequate written descriptive support (see “[T]he prior application need not describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims . .
. . ” Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038 . . . (Fed.Cir.1995)), nevertheless, “[w]hat is claimed by the patent application must be the same as what is disclosed in the specification; otherwise the patent should not issue.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 736 (2002).

Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 34 USPQ2d 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 1302.01
HARMON 5: 153, 171, 172, 280; 6: 114; 18: 39
DONNER 9: 608-11; 10: 538, 542, 543, 552-55

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.Ct. 1831, 62 USPQ2d 1705 (2002) 1302.14, 2173.02
HARMON 7: 37; 8: 4, 20, 40, 168, 170, 197, 224, 229, 234-36, 239, 240, 241, 249, 257, 258, 260-62, 266-75
DONNER 3: 64, 66-91, 93-107, 109-14, 116-19, 191, 285, 289; 7: 405; 9: 216, 380, 426; 10: 289; 14: 342; 15: 1, 171-87
...
It may be obvious to provide “periodic access to the license-protected broadcast channel,” given a disclosure of repeated attempts by the ST to access license-protected content, but “[o]ne shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious. ” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (Emphasis original).

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1505, 41 USPQ2d 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1997)  2133.03(a),  2163,  2163.02
HARMON 4: 152, 158, 194; 5: 163, 171, 173; 6: 289; 18: 48, 50
DONNER 2: 573; 7: 234, 462; 8: 1847, 1848; 9: 380, 432, 444, 614-17

ortho-mcneil, pall corp, eiselstein, telecordia, intel

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Goel et al 10/824,725 HOMERE 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER, LLP EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Herron et al 10/888,883 JEFFERY 103(a) SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER ZHU, RICHARD Z

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte McClellan 11/361,422 FRANKLIN 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

3761 Ex Parte Swerev et al 11/444,714 PRATS 103(a) YOUNG BASILE EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN

3765 Ex Parte Fukunishi et al 10/565,836 SAINDON 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (NY) EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Perkins et al 10/085,927 JEFFERY 103(a) 101/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Fetherolf 10/086,908 KRIVAK 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LIANG, LEONARD S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Holman et al 11/020,540 FREDMAN 103(a) 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER BERDICHEVSKY, AARTI
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Chaudry et al 11/541,523 PRATS 112(1)/112(2)/103(a)/132 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY

“The use of the word "about," avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.” Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, “the word „about‟ does not have a universal meaning in patent claims[;]” rather, “the meaning depends on the technological facts of the particular case.” Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The meaning of the word "about" is dependent on the facts of a case, the nature of the invention, and the knowledge imparted by the totality of the . . . disclosure to those skilled in the art.”).

Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326, 81 USPQ2d 1427, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(b)

Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 34 USPQ2d 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . 1302.01

1623 Ex Parte Hirofuji et al 10/536,397 MILLS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Smith et al 11/007,225 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L

“[C]laim definiteness depends on the skill level of an ordinary artisan. Therefore, the specification need only disclose adequate defining structure to render the bounds of the claim understandable to an ordinary artisan.” Telcordia Techs., Inc. v Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that the internal circuitry of an electronic device need not be disclosed in the specification if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to build and modify the device) (internal citation omitted)).

Intel Corp. v. VIA Tech., Inc., 319 F.3d 1537, 65 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . 2181

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Petri 10/901,596 DILLON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER BASOM, BLAINE T

2174 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/013,239 CHEN 102(e)/103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER EXAMINER KE, PENG

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Tate et al 09/737,050 JEFFERY 103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER SHELEHEDA, JAMES R

2482 Ex Parte Sievers et al 10/798,519 ZECHER 102(e)/103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Santhoff et al 10/449,789 HAHN 103(a) Pulse-Link, Inc. EXAMINER ODOM, CURTIS B

2618 Ex Parte Durand et al 11/102,954 Per Curiam 102(e)/103(a) Anderson Gorecki & Manaras LLP EXAMINER HANNON, CHRISTIAN A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Chan et al 11/428,607 PER CURIAM 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HAYLES, ASHFORD S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Larson et al 11/059,836 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D

3739 Ex Parte Larson et al 10/921,715 FREDMAN 103(a) Robert L. McDowell EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F

3739 Ex Parte Larson et al 11/084,568 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting ROBERT L. McDOWELL EXAMINER HUPCZEY, JR, RONALD JAMES