multiform, helmsderfer, brookhill-wilk

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2154 Ex Parte McCreight et al 12987953 - (D) KAISER 103 Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP KUDDUS, DANIEL A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Dvir et al 10536555 - (D) NAPPI 103 SOROKER-AGMON ADVOCATE AND PATENT ATTORNEYS ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Herrmann et al 12665572 - (D) OWENS 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LEE, SHUN K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1779 Ex Parte Leito 11569921 - (D) HEANEY 103 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. BASS, DIRK R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Farco 12732181 - (D) HOELTER 112(1)/112(2)/102 102 Joseph Farco SNOW, BRUCE EDWARD

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Etchegoyen 12813412 - (D) McMILLIN 102/103 Ellis B. Ramirez WANG, HARRIS C

2453 Ex Parte Zurko 12346688 - (D) MOORE 103 CRGO LAW GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C

2481 Ex Parte Takahashi 12775740 - (D) CRAIG 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP TEKLE, DANIEL T

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Dong et al 13269935 - (D) HUME 103 McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP/Google Inc. NGUYEN, SEAN H

Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the
field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition
that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description."). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 2111.01

Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 67 USPQ2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2111.01

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2862 Ex Parte Stewart 12642426 - (D) SAADAT 103 The Caldwell Firm, LLC NGHIEM, MICHAEL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte TRIEB et al 12389159 - (D) KERINS 102/103 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. RUSSELL, DEVON L

thorner, CCS, helmsderfer, butamax

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2892 Ex Parte Letz et al 11750567 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C. PARKER, ALLEN L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Maziers 11922126 - (D) LEBOVITZ 112(2)/102 102/103 FINA TECHNOLOGY INC RAUDENBUSH, ELLEN SUZANNE

Generally, claim terms are:

Given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when
read in the context of the specification and prosecution history. There are only two exceptions to this general
rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. 

[Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)] (citation omitted). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 1365 (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 . . . (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 . . . (Fed. Cir. 2008)). 

Butamax(TM) Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., 109 USPQ2d 1701, 1706 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Kwong 11549347 - (D) ADAMS 103 Pabst Patent Group LLP CHOI, FRANK I
AFFIRMED 1718 Ex Parte Boroson 11735544 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 Global OLED Technology LLC TUROCY, DAVID P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Andrews 12573829 - (D) BUI 102/103 BERKELEY LAW & TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLP BHATIA, AJAY M

2193 Ex Parte Bardsley 11474842 - (D) WEINSCHENK 103 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC JENKINS, WILSON, TAYLOR & HUNT, P.A. VU, TUAN A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2488 Ex Parte Wan et al 10847834 - (D) BUI 112(2)/103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation PE, GEEPY

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Xu et al 11956052 - (D) HOSKINS 103 HONEYWELL/HUSCH GALT, CASSI J