REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3685 Ex Parte Rodriguez et al 11818693 - (D) FETTING 112(2)/103 41.50 112(2) Jackson Walker LLP WINTER, JOHN M
As to claims 22–28, we are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the Examiner did not overcome the presumption that the limitation “protocol translator for receiving” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
It is well established that the use of the term “means” triggers a rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 governs the construction of the claim term. Conversely, where, as here, the claim language does not recite the term “means,” we presume that the limitation does not invoke § 112, ¶ 6. However, this presumption can be overcome if the challenger demonstrates that “the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” The correct inquiry is “whether skilled artisans, after reading the patent, would conclude that a claim limitation is so devoid of structure that the drafter constructively engaged in means-plus-function claiming.” Therefore, “[u]ltimately, whether claim language invokes § 112, ¶ 6 depends on how those skilled in the art would understand the structural significance of that claim language.”
EnOcean GmbH v. Face Intern. Corp., 742 F.3d 955, 958 (2014) (citations omitted). See also Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130, 2015 WL 3687459, at *7 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (en banc) (“we should abandon characterizing as ‘strong’ the presumption that a limitation lacking the word ‘means’ is not subject to § 112, para. 6”). As with the term “receiver” in EnOcean, the term “protocol translator” (i.e., the absence of the term means) presumptively connotes sufficiently definite structure to those of skill in the art. See EnOcean at 960. The Examiner made no finding to rebut that presumption.
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Andersen et al 12087755 - (D) GREENHUT 103 41.50 112(2) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. RACHUBA, MAURINA T
3752 Ex Parte Esche et al 12368068 - (D) GREENHUT 103 Foley & Lardner LLP REIS, RYAN ALEXANDER
3781 Ex Parte Hawkes 12183357 - (D) MAYBERRY 112(1)/103 HAYES, SOLOWAY P.C. MATHEW, FENN C
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2131 Ex Parte EL-MAHDY et al 12335077 - (D) KINDER 102 102 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC MACKALL, LARRY T
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Bateman et al 11721260 - (D) OGDEN 102/double patenting 103 Waters Technologies Corporation IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2137 Ex Parte Kowa 12148165 - (D) KUMAR 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP BERTRAM, RYAN
2173 Ex Parte Dunn et al 11446019 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 QUARLES & BRADY LLP HOPE, DARRIN
2179 Ex Parte Alviar et al 11961630 - (D) KAISER 102/103 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A./Motorola WENG, PEI YONG
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Macauley et al 11970083 - (D) COURTENAY 102/103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC CHANG, KAI J
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte FitzSimmons 12647742 - (D) MCMILLIN 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP HAJNIK, DANIEL F
2623 Ex Parte YUN et al 12500244 - (D) DILLON 103 Jefferson IP Law, LLP ZHOU, HONG
2692 Ex Parte Prados et al 11553666 - (D) KUMAR 103 Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC ABDIN, SHAHEDA A
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Schonhals 10862484 - (D) FETTING 103 Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC REFAI, RAMSEY
REEXAMINATION
DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2819 CRESTRON ELECTRONICS, INC. Requester v. LUTRON ELECTRONICS, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 8228184 et al 12/371,183 95002079 - (D) JEFFERY 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP Third Party Requester: David E. Shifren WORJLOH, JALATEE original LE, DON P
