medical instrumentation, harris2, b. braun

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Raman et al 12415042 - (D) OWENS dissenting DELMENDO 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP BOYER, RANDY

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Guo 11881341 - (D) NAPPI 102(e) KRAGULJAC LAW GROUP, LLC / ORACLE HERSHLEY, MARK E

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Pearce 11342124 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. HARLEY, JASON A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Albanese et al 10856704 - (D) BAYAT 103 KANG LIM JOSEPH, TONYA S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11586349 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

The rules that “structure corresponding to the claimed function must be disclosed in the specification with clear linkage between the structure and the claimed function serve worthy goals. Such rules are intended to produce certainty in result.” Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “A computer-implemented means-plus-function term is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm.” Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 68 USPQ2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2181 , 2182

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Vinokurov et al 12146716 - (D) STEPHENS 102 102/103 MARKS & CLERK LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11362545 - (D) GRIMES obviousness-type double patenting 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

“[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing § 112, ¶ 6.” B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419, 43 USPQ2d 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2163 , 2181 , 2182

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Sriram et al 13059781 - (D) KRATZ 112(2) 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. USELDING, JOHN E

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Miller et al 11693281 - (D) BROWNE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL CHIBOGU, CHIEDU A

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 CRESTRON ELECTRONICS, INC. Requester v. LUTRON ELECTRONICS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8009042 et al 12/203,518 95001821 - (D) JEFFERY 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: CRESTRON ELECTRONICS, INC. NGUYEN, LINH M original TRAN, THUY V

DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. Requester v. BORGWARNER, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6,663,347 et al 09/875,760 95000431 - (D) GUEST 102/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Alston & Bird, LLP TILL, TERRENCE R original VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M

kemco, harris2, medical instrumentation

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11516689 - (D) GRIMES 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A

“Use of the term ‘means’ in a claim limitation creates a presumption that section 112, paragraph 6 has been invoked, but that presumption may be rebutted if the properly construed claim limitation itself recites sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed function.” Kemco Sales, 208 F.3d at 1361. In this case, claims 1 and 49 use the term “means” and recite no structures to perform the claimed functions. We therefore conclude that the claims invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. 

Section 112, paragraph 6 provides that a patentee [or applicant] may define the structure for performing a particular function generically through the use of a means expression, provided that it discloses specific structure(s) corresponding to that means in the patent specification. . . . As such, [the court has] referred to section 112, paragraph 6 as embodying a statutory quid pro quo. . . . If a patentee [or applicant] fails to satisfy the bargain because of a failure to disclose adequate structure, the claim will be rendered . . . indefinite under section 112, paragraph 2. 

Id. at 1360-61. The rules that “structure corresponding to the claimed function must be disclosed in the specification with clear linkage between the structure and the claimed function serve worthy goals. Such rules are intended to produce certainty in result.” Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “A computer-implemented means-plus-function term is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm.” Harris Corp., 417 F.3d at 1253.

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Hjelm 12118849 - (D) CALVE 103 Leffler Intellectual Property Law, PLLC VU, VIET DUY

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Kerofsky 11293066 - (D) CURCURI, 112(1)/112(2)/102(e)/103 CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP WANG, JIN CHENG

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Bartolome 12039988 - (D) CHUNG 103 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES KURIEN, CHRISTEN A

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte Kiefel et al 12066115 - (D) GOODSON 103 103 BACHMAN & LAPOINTE, P.C. HIJAZ, OMAR F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Velusamy 11935261 - (D) KOHUT 103 VERIZON MAHMOOD, REZWANUL

2186 Ex Parte Ahluwalia et al 11223559 - (D) NEW 103 Lieberman & Brandsdorfer, LLC ALSIP, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Schofield et al 11469395 - (D) WEINSCHENK 102/103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. MURRAY, DANIEL C

2487 Ex Parte Subramanian et al 10892897 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation CZEKAJ, DAVID J

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 Ex Parte Gill et al 11376491 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 FLETCHER YODER (LUCENT) TRAN, HOANG Q

REHEARING

GRANTED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte McGowan et al 11303990 - (D) DESHPANDE 102(e)/103 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. UDDIN, MOHAMMED R

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Requester and Respondent v. X IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6653104 et al 09/986,119 95000062 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP Third-Party Requester: Woodcock Washburn LLP TURNER, SHARON L original PARK, HANKYEL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3713 Ex parte WALKER DIGITAL, LLC Ex Parte 6,110,041 et al 08/775,388 90012333 - (D) KOHUT 102(e)/103 FAHMI, SELLERS, EMBERT & DAVITZ Ascenda Law Group, PC THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Callie A. Pendergrass c/o Erise IP, P.A. SAGER, MARK ALAN original PARADISO, JOHN ROGER

aristocrat, harris2, ghuman,

REVERSED 

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry 

Ex Parte Hollingsworth et al 10/795,652 WALSH 103(a) IAN C. McLEOD, P.C. 

Ex Parte Rollat et al 10/023,330 ADAMS 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Sjoberg 10/309,345 SMITH 103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO

Ex Parte Weeks 10/528,610 DELMENDO 103(a) THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 

Ex Parte Bartenbach et al 10/806,232 HANLON 102(b)/103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP 

Ex Parte Nam et al 10/374,980 KIMLIN 103(a) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM 

Ex Parte Petzoldt et al 10/934,525 NAGUMO 103(a)/provisionalobviousness-type double patenting OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLANDMAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP 

Ex Parte Beutel et al 10/755,128 TIMM 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Bit-Babik et al 10/945,234 HAIRSTON 102(e) MOTOROLA, INC. 

Ex Parte Awada et al 10/845,534 THOMAS 103(a)/101 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) IBM CORP 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte McGowan et al 10/632,072 HAIRSTON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION 

2600 Communications 

Ex Parte Andreason 09/898,480 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC

Ex Parte Chen et al 11/121,877 HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 

Ex Parte Bristow et al 11/618,950 GARRIS 103(a)/provisional obviousness-type double patenting CANTOR COLBURN, LLP 

Ex Parte Bristow et al2 10/805,760 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) CANTOR COLBURN, LLP 

2100 Computer Architecture and Software 

Ex Parte Sonkin et al 10/872,633 SIU Concurring JEFFERY 112(2)/101/102(e) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) 

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security 

Ex Parte Brabson et al 10/045,556 NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION 

The Federal Circuit has stated that simply disclosing a general purpose computer as the structure to perform the claimed function does not meet the corresponding structure requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 sixth paragraph. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333. Rather, "the corresponding structure for a § 112 paragraph 6 claim for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification." Id (citing Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). 

2600 Communications

Ex Parte Fritz et al 10/307,680 HOFF 101/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 

Ex Parte Marvit et al 10/807,561 EASTHOM 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 

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

Ex Parte Bunker 10/089,011 STAICOVICI 103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC 

Consistent with the holding in BPAI precedential opinion Ex Parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (BPAI 2008), Appellant may not reserve arguments for some later time. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 (c)(1)(vii)(2009).