vehicular, KCJ, harari, fessmann

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Adireddy et al 11528203 - (D) DILLON concurring JEFFERY 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. NGO, CHUONG A

“A drafter uses the term ‘comprising’ to mean ‘I claim at least what follows and potentially more.’”
Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int’l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2000). ...

It is well settled that the article “a” means “one or more” where, as here, the claim contains the transitional phrase, “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). But “[w]hen the claim language and specification indicate that ‘a’ means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open-ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Angell et al 12121947 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. NAJARIAN, LENA

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Shintani et al 12143057 - (D) STEPHENS 103 103 HOWSON & HOWSON LLP RIVERA, WILLIAM ARAUZ

“[T]he Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature than would be the case when a product is claimed in the more conventional fashion.” In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974).

Fessmann, In re, 489 F.2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974) 2113

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte COLLIVER et al 12322410 - (D) ROESEL 103 UNILEVER PATENT GROUP MCCLAIN-COLEMAN, TYNESHA L.

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Dessau 11430145 - (D) DANG additional info DANG 102/103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Ni et al 12017545 - (D) KINDER 103 Basch & Nickerson LLP SHAW, ROBERT A

2455 Ex Parte Ni et al 12017534 - (D) KINDER 103 Basch & Nickerson LLP SHAW, ROBERT A

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2671 Ex Parte Rose 11567241 - (D) FREDMAN 102 GIBB & RILEY, LLC HUNTSINGER, PETER K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Kirsch 12619008 - (D) MURPHY 103 Covidien LP FIDEI, DAVID

KCJ, harari

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Matusch et al 10942297 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 ProPat, LLC PACKARD, BENJAMIN J

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Hsu 10515372 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP WEBB, GREGORY E

1784 Ex Parte Starikov et al 11891429 - (D) OWENS 103 Cooke Law Firm KRUPICKA, ADAM C

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Rhee et al 11342003 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN NGUYEN, THAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte RAGHUNATH et al 11622119 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 101 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. THIAW, CATHERINE B

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Ota et al 11718151 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. VAJDA, PETER L

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2434 Ex Parte Marquet et al 10846542 - (D) JEFFERY 103 KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. POWERS, WILLIAM S

Turning to claim 1, the claim recites, in pertinent part, that the interface device comprises a smart card connector to which plural smart card execution devices are connected. We emphasize the indefinite article “a” here, for it is well settled that it means “‘one or more’” where, as here, the claim contains the transitional phrase, “‘comprising.’” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To be sure, “[w]hen the claim language and specification indicate that ‘a’ means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That exception is not the case here; nor have Appellants shown as
much on this record.

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2616 RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP. and RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD. Requesters v. INNOVATIVE SONIC LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte RE40077 et al 11/247,003 95002157 - (D) JEFFERY 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 103 Blue Capital Law Firm, P.C. For THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: OBLON, SPIVAK McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP CORSARO, NICK original LY, ANH VU H

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2834 KOHLER CO. Requester and Appellant v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7230345 et al 11/033,579 95001558 - (D) WEINBERG 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) 103 BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original PONOMARENKO, NICHOLAS

samour, KCJ, harari, wyer, nystrom, olson

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Watkinson 10/598,398 KRATZ 103(a) EDWIN D. SCHINDLER EXAMINER FRANKLIN, JODI C

1787 Ex Parte Fugitt et al 12/326,430 WARREN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION EXAMINER ROBINSON, ELIZABETH A

While it is entirely appropriate to rely on another reference to clarify a fact in the anticipating reference, see, e.g., In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562, 197 USPQ 1, 4 (CCPA 1978), the supporting reference must in fact accomplish that purpose.

Samour, In re, 571 F.2d 559, 197 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131.01

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Reese et al 10/458,888 RUGGIERO 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER MCLEAN, NEIL R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1781 Ex Parte Rosset 10/363,261 NAGUMO 103(a) 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER AMAKWE, TAMRA L

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Banfield et al 11/366,397 JEFFERY 112(2)/103(a) 103(a) NEIFELD IP LAW, PC EXAMINER PAULS, JOHN A

It is well settled that where, as here, the indefinite article “a” or “an” means “one or more” in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We recognize, however, that “[w]hen the claim language and specification indicate that ‘a’ means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open-ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Babb et al 11/605,381 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, DONGHAI D
REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2827 Ex Parte 6504103 et al 90/008,306 08/821,760 COOPER TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY Patent Owner, Appellant EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) Larson Newman, LLP Abel Law Group, LLP Third Party Requester: Kevin W. Jakel Kaye Scholer, LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER PALADINI, ALBERT WILLIAM

The new products in the field or otherwise displayed or marketed would have served as a guide to the brochure in an analogous fashion to a card catalog, leading “persons interested” in the product to the brochure. Cf. In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1981) (properly classified, indexed or abstracted document renders it sufficiently accessible to “persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art”).

Wyer, In re, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901.05, 2127, 2128
Appellant also complains that the Examiner relies on “speculative modeling premised on unstated assumptions in drawings.” (App. Br. 16 (citing, inter alia, Nystrom v. Trex Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1148-49 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .) But Application of Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (CCPA 1954) indicates that if a prohibitive scaling rule does apply, it normally applies to patent drawings, and not “shop drawings,” because “[o]rdinarily drawings which accompany an application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention claimed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the claims with patentability.”
AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2831 Ex Parte 6984791 et al 95/000,208 10/412,683 COOPER TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY Patent Owner, Appellant v. THOMAS & BETTS CORP. Requestor EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) Larson Newman, LLP Abel Law Group, LLP Third Party Requester: Kevin W. Jakel c/o Kaye Scholer, LLP EXAMINER FOSTER, ROLAND G original EXAMINER NINO, ADOLFO

REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3301 Ex Parte 5417691 et al Ex parte SMITH AND NEPHEW, INC. Appellant 90/009,307 08/048,922 SONG 102(b)/ obviousness-type double patenting FOR PATENT OWNER: HANCOCK HUGHEY, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: STEPHEN A. SOFFEN DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO, LLP EXAMINER REIP, DAVID OWEN original EXAMINER BROWN, MICHAEL A

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Okamoto et al 10/548,541 FREDMAN 112(2)/112(1) Cheng Law Group, PLLC EXAMINER SAUCIER, SANDRA E

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1745 Ex Parte Eriksson et al 11/596,256 GAUDETTE 103(a) Novak Druce + Quigg LLP EXAMINER ORLANDO, MICHAEL N

1775 Ex Parte Deblois et al 10/488,110 GAUDETTE 103(a) SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP EXAMINER BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

1789 Ex Parte Goedeken et al 10/677,029 McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) KAGAN BINDER, PLLC EXAMINER TRAN LIEN, THUY

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/807,636 DANG 103(a) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED EXAMINER HUYNH, NAM TRUNG