hewlett-packard, roberts, michlin

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte LIANG et al 14103882 - (D) YAP 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL DANG, TINH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Toth 13945244 - (D) MURPHY 103 WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1787 Ex Parte Woychik et al 12061141 - (D) KRATZ 112(1)/102 112(2) GE GLOBAL PATENT OPERATION ROBINSON, ELIZABETH A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Grunert 12532203 - (D) ROSS 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC CORMIER, DAVID G

We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument and concur with the Examiner that the “configured to dispense the water . . . onto the component at a flow rate sufficient to clean accumulated contaminants off of the component” language of claim 30 is an intended use. Non-Final 5. It has long been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). An inventor of a structure (machine or article of manufacture) is entitled to benefit from all of its uses, even those not described,Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875), and conversely, patentability of the structure cannot turn on the use or function of the structure,In re Michlin, 256 F.2d 317, 320 (CCPA 1958).

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3638 Ex Parte Avis 14032307 - (D) YAP 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP KIM, SHIN H

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Bennett 12573176 - (D) O’HANLON 102/103 Covidien LP OU, JING RUI

3731 Ex Parte Collins et al 10986143 - (D) MILLS 102/103 LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO MENDOZA, MICHAEL G

toshiba, hewlett-packard,

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3729 Ex Parte Graf et al 12547226 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 Yee & Associates, P.C. ARBES, CARL J

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Challener et al 11861597 - (D) KOHUT 103 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC KINSEY, BRANDON MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Korte et al 12640287 - (D) HUME 102/103 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC SALCE, JASON P

2424 Ex Parte LEE et al 11971422 - (D) ENGELS 112(1)/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC RAMAN, USHA

In addition, as applied to apparatus claims 1 and 3—6, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

2491 Ex Parte Proudler 12608606 - (D) WINSOR 103 Hewlett Packard Enterprise EDWARDS, LINGLAN E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2668 Ex Parte Bergman et al 13447244 - (D) HOMERE 102/103 HP Inc. PARK, SOO JIN

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2495 Ex Parte Princen et al 12507050 - (D) THOMAS 103 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L

catalina, superior industries, hewlett-packard, roberts, paragon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2667 Ex Parte Ohi 12519152 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 Cheng Law Group, PLLC YANG, WEI WEN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3722 Ex Parte Memmolo et al 10575988 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P.C. SINGH, SUNIL K

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Vasisht 10740762 - (D) HUME 103 103 NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP MIRZA, ADNAN M

Our reviewing court guides that the patentability of an apparatus claim "depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure." Catalina Marketing Int'l. Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Superior Industries, Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., 553 Fed.Appx. 986, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Rader, J., concurring) which guides:

[A] system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 [] (1875) ("The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.") Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009) [5]

5 Superior Industries is a non-precedential opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, we consider the concurring opinion by former Chief Judge Rader as guiding because it cites precedential authority in support.

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Reynolds 12297327 - (D) ADAMS 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION TUNG, JOYCE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Hansa et al 13130207 - (D) HEANEY 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP TRAN, LIEN THUY

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Doyle et al 12828245 - (D) THOMAS 101/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG KIM, HEE SOO

2493 Ex Parte BALLARD 12350881 - (D) BEAMER 103 VERIZON LESNIEWSKI, VICTOR D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Schaepperle et al 12323864 - (D) BARRY 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT KHAN, SUHAIL

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Kwit 11365042 - (D) MOHANTY 103 MCAFEE & TAFT CHEN, GEORGE YUNG CHIEH

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2881 Ex Parte Hoyes 11996236 - (D) SMITH 102/103 Diederiks & Whitelaw, PLC IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE

hewlett-packard, schreiber

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 Ex Parte Moser et al 12425088 - (D) ADAMS 103 Parker Highlander PLLC Luminex Corporation MUMMERT, STEPHANIE KANE

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Hopwood et al 12875276 - (D) ENGELS 103 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Adobe Systems Incorporated) FLEURANTIN, JEAN B

2184 Ex Parte Hu 13315763 - (D) PINKERTON 102 MURPHY, BILAK & HOMILLER/LANTIQ DEUTSCHLAND GMBH BORROMEO, JUANITO C

2184 Ex Parte Wilson et al 12841761 - (D) HOFF 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PEYTON, TAMMARA R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte FRIEDLANDER et al 12572003 - (D) PINKERTON 103 103 Law Office of Jim Boice OWYANG, MICHELLE N

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1632 Ex Parte Yoo et al 11279671 - (D) MILLS 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC PARAS JR, PETER

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Gupta et al 11935439 - (D) KAISER 103 REISING ETHINGTON P.C. General Motors Corporation YANG, JIE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Huysegems et al 12619281 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT DUONG, OANH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Biddinger et al 12660650 - (D) WIEKER 112(1)/112(2)/103 MCKELLAR IP LAW, PLLC HICKS, VICTORIA J

“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). If a prior art structure is capable of performing a claimed intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 , 2112 , 2114

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3689 Ex Parte Villena et al 10536692 - (R) McSHANE 101/102/103 Northern Virginia Law and Technology Services, LLC RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM

mayne, catalina, superior industries, hewlett-packard, roberts, paragon, texas instruments

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2899 Ex Parte Sonsky 12065622 - (D) TIMM 102 NXP B.V. Intellectual Property and Licensing YEUNG LOPEZ, FEIFEI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Eaton 11145716 - (D) GREEN 102/103 102/103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP SCHLIENTZ, NATHAN W

This appeal is before us on remand from our reviewing court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In re Eaton, 545 Fed. Appx. 994 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-precedential).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3677 Ex Parte Bowden et al 12036369 - (D) ASTORINO 102 102/103 Carlson, Gaskey & Olds/Masco Corporation BATSON, VICTOR D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1718 Ex Parte Schlichting et al 13048966 - (D) DELMENDO 103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. BAREFORD, KATHERINE A

Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such structurally similar zirconia-based coatings would likewise share other similar properties, such as abradability. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Structural relationships often provide the requisite motivation to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds.”).

Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) 2144.09 , 2145

1723 Ex Parte Yoshioka 12458537 - (D) HOUSEL 102 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. D'ANIELLO, NICHOLAS P

1755 Ex Parte Li et al 12100131 - (D) OWENS 103 SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P. PILLAY, DEVINA

1766 Ex Parte Sherman et al 11821568 - (D) McKELVEY 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY LOEWE, ROBERT S

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2191 Ex Parte Goyal et al 11953652 - (D) ENGELS 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG ZHEN, WEI Y

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Wen et al 12141054 - (D) KAISER 103 NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION MURPHY, CHARLES C

2461 Ex Parte Ross et al 11958272 - (D) DANG 103 BGL/Broadcom CLAWSON, STEPHEN J

Our reviewing court guides the patentability of an apparatus/system claim “depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Superior Industries, Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., 553 Fed. Appx. 986, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Rader, J., concurring):

[A] system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 [] (1875) (“The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.”). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v.Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781(Fed. Cir. 2002) 2111.02

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

...
That is, as discussed above, claim 1 merely requires forming a “controller” intended “for detecting” and “appending” markers to each stream “thereby resulting in a modified” stream. That is, a “modified” stream is provided in a “thereby” clause describing the results of the intended “appending” function to be performed by a “controller” in the claimed “circuit.”

Given the language used, the “thereby” clause is reasonably interpreted to identify the intended result if and when a controller within the claimed circuit performs its intended function of “appending” markers to each elementary stream. Thus, the “thereby” clause at issue is akin to a “whereby” clause that merely states an intended result. Our reviewing court has concluded that “[a] ‘whereby’ clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim.” Texas Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we will not read a “modifying” step into the circuit of claim 1.

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 26 USPQ2d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 716.04

2481 Ex Parte Marsh et al 11843049 - (D) THOMAS 102/103 Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP TOPGYAL, GELEK W

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Darby et al 12964962 - (D) FINK 102/103 TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED C/O WAGNER BLECHER HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2891 Ex Parte Kosowsky 12832022 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC (1511) YANG, MINCHUL

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Luthardt et al 10588335 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 41.50 103 VENABLE LLP MAYE, AYUB A

schreiber, hewlett-packard, boehringer

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1768 Ex Parte Fox 12371895 - (D) SMITH 103 CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY FIGUEROA, JOHN J

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Goldberg et al 12296201 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS NGUYEN, HIEP VAN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3717 Ex Parte Pacey et al 11791815 - (D) STEPHENS 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP WEATHERFORD, SYVILA

3752 Ex Parte Weis et al 12032150 - (D) KERINS 102 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. CERNOCH, STEVEN MICHAEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2882 Ex Parte Mulder et al 12076732 - (D) SMITH 102(e) 102e)/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) ASFAW, MESFIN T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Kish et al 12016110 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 102/103 BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS & MAIRE, P. A. KHATIB, RAMI

At the outset, we note that the limitation “for displaying system condition information” is a functional limitation. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2111.02 , 2112 , 2114
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

3686 Ex Parte Imai et al 11817217 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 103 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP HOLCOMB, MARK

We find that such “configured to” language merely represents a statement of intended use of the processing device which does not limit the claim. Particularly, an intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte ECKEL et al 12338026 - (D) COLAIANNI 112(1) 103 Miles & Stockbridge, PC PAK, HANNAH J

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Wexler et al 12105092 - (D) PERRY 102(e)/103 VMWare, INC. EHICHIOYA, IRETE FRED

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Auriemma et al 12205470 - (D) CRAWFORD 103 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC BELANI, KISHIN G

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Sanches 12004359 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 NCR Corporation STANFORD, CHRISTOPHER J

2891 Ex Parte Michael et al 12262288 - (D) HANLON 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY FULK, STEVEN J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Le et al 11716374 - (D) MURPHY 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. DUFFY, DAVID W

3748 Ex Parte Birch et al 11992454 - (D) WOODS 103 Edwards Vacuum, Inc. DAVIS, MARY ALICE

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
3303 REFOCUS OCULAR, INC. Requester, Respondent v. READING ENHANCEMENT CO. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 7,736,389 B1 et al 07/712,359 95002082 - (D) MARTIN 103 Edwin H. Crabtree REQUESTER: WILLIAM A. MUNCK, ESQ. original COHEN, PONTANI & LIEBERMAN FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original SMITH, JEFFREY A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 REFOCUS OCULAR, INC. Requester, Respondent v. READING ENHANCEMENT CO. Patent Owner, Appellant Ex Parte 8,167,938 B1 et al 12/799,643 95002083 - (D) MARTIN 103 EDWIN H. CRABTREE REQUESTER: WILLIAM A. MUNCK, ESQ. FLANAGAN, BEVERLY MEINDL original SHIPMON, TIFFANY P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 Ex Parte FORM FACTOR, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant. Ex Parte 6,441,315 et al 09/189,761 90009843 - (D) JEFFERSON 102/103 102/103 Ken Burraston/FormFactor KIRTON & MCCONKIE TARAE, CATHERINE MICHELLE original CUNEO, KAMAND

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2827 MICRO–PROBE INCORPORATED, Requester and Cross–Appellant, v. FORM FACTOR, INC., Patent Owner and Appellant. Ex Parte 6,825,422 et al 10/174,455 95000583 - (D) JEFFERSON 102(e)/102/103 KEN BURRASTON/FORMFACTOR KIRTON & MCCONKIE Rimmell, Samuel original PATEL, ISHWARBHAI B

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. Requester v. ORBUSNEICH MEDICAL, INC. Patent Owner/Appellant Ex Parte 7942922 et al 12/878,341 95001769 - (D) MARTIN 102/103 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: ARNOLD & PORTER LLP WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original STROUD, JONATHAN R

deere, innova, hewlett-packard, roberts, paragon

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2894 Ex Parte Shim et al 11336110 - (D) WARREN 102/103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP TRAN, TONY

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Park et al 11508300 - (D) ADAMS 103 103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC LUONG, PETER

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Hashimoto et al 12516092 - (D) KOKOSKI 103 WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP PATEL, DEVANG R

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2187 Ex Parte LUBBERS et al 11771411 - (D) COURTENAY 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 McCarthy Law Group PARIKH, KALPIT

2194 Ex Parte Gikas et al 11311759 - (D) STRAUSS 112(1) 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION KRAFT, SHIH-WEI

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Zhu et al 11113852 - (D) JENKS 103 ADDMG - BlackBerry BLAIR, KILE O

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12584791 - (D) BEST 102/103 THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE ALLEN, STEPHONEB

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES, INC. Requester, Appellant v. SULZER MIXPAC AG Patent Owner, Respondent 95001656 7815384 11/563,791 SONG 103 K&L Gates LLP Third Party Requester: CANTOR COLBURN LLP LEWIS, AARON J original WALCZAK, DAVID J

DENIED 
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3751 PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES, INC., Requester, Appellant v. RICHARD PARKS CORROSION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Patent Owner, Respondent 95001371 7,144,170 11/003,449 KERINS 103 K&L Gates LLP LEWIS, AARON J original WALCZAK, DAVID J

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

VACATED AND REMANDED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MASABA, INC., Defendant-Appellee 2013-1302 7,470,101 11/975,205 7,618,213 11/631,975 CLEVENGER concurring RADER SJ non-infringement claim construction Dicke, Billig & Czaja, PLLC; Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, P.C. FOX, CHARLES A; LAGMAN, FREDERICK LYNDON

First, in claim construction, one must not import limitations from the specification that are not part of the claim. Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Indeed, claims generally are not limited to any particular embodiment disclosed in the specification, even where only a single embodiment is disclosed. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Second, and relevant to this case, a system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (“The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.”). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys. Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 72 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2004)  2173.05(g)
DONNER 10: 675-83
HARMON 6: 118, 121, 158, 169, 327; 10: 348

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114
DONNER 14: 89, 175, 217
HARMON 1: 172; 4: 205; 7: 241, 278

paragon HARMON 6: 71, 169c, 188, 450

hewlett-packard, aslanian

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Pillar et al 10792937 - (D) GRIMES 103 SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. SRIVASTAVA, KAILASH C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Wenn et al 11695418 - (D) CLEMENTS 103 GIBB & RILEY, LLC COBY, FRANTZ

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Laicher et al 10894652 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC ALLEN, AKIBA KANELLE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Kim et al 11400023 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 Becton, Dickinson and Company (The Webb Firm) SZPIRA, JULIE ANN

3738 Ex Parte McKinsey et al 12195762 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE

3762 Ex Parte Chen et al 10922133 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Landrum Intellectual Property STOKLOSA, JOSEPH A

3766 Ex Parte van Oort et al 11669345 - (D) McCOLLUM 102/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) STICE, PAULA J

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3629 Ex Parte Locker et al 11403752 - (D) MEDLOCK 112(2)/103 103 ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES ABDELSALAM, FATHI K

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Lawande et al 10936469 - (D) FISHMAN 103 Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Oracle) PHAM, MICHAEL

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Brady et al 11441998 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(1)/103 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2884 Ex Parte Sanpitak 11691568 - (D) JEFFERY 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION LEE, SHUN K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Rucker 10704400 - (D) LORIN 103 Alexander J. Burke COUPE, ANITA YVONNE

But “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2114

3655 Ex Parte LIGHT et al 11277533 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 BORGWARNER INC. KNIGHT, DEREK DOUGLAS

The drawings in a utility patent can be used for all they disclose, even if the features shown are unintended or unexplained in the specification. See In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CAFC 1979).

Aslanian, In re, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979) 2125

3695 Ex Parte Perez et al 11175911 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. POLLOCK, GREGORY A  

REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex parte SUBSEA SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 90010812 6,402,201 09/517,383 HOELTER 112(1)/103 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP LEWIS, AARON J original LUU, TUYET PHUONG PHAM

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

VACATED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2862 BARON SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEDIA WEATHER INNOVATIONS LLC, Defendant-Appellee 2012-1285, -1443 6,490,525 09/928,391 PROST dissenting REYNA summary judgment non-infringement Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne, PC Jones & Keller, P.C. MCELHENY JR, DONALD E

ormco, callaway, hewlett-packard

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Kato et al 11/358,102 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER ANTHONY, JULIAN
REEXAMINATION

REMANDED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2173 Ex Parte 7363592 et al MICROSOFT CORP. Requester and Respondent v. GARY ODOM, Patent Owner and Appellant Odom v. Microsoft 95/001,208 11/125,276 SIU 103(a) Patent Owner Third Party Requester ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, PC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAO H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2173 Ex Parte 7363592 et al Ex parte GARY ODOM, Appellant 90/009,703 11/125,276 SIU 102(b) 102(b)/102(a)/103(a) Patent Owner Gary Odom Third Party Requester McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP EXAMINER CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D original EXAMINER NGUYEN, CAO H
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Hillis et al 11/651,447 WALSH 103(a) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER BRUSCA, JOHN S

See, e.g., Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1309-20 (Fed. Cir 2007). In Ormco Corp,
the Court held that when dependent claims “were found to have been obvious, the broader claims . . . must also have been obvious.” In Ormco, “[dependent] claims 10 and 17 . . . were invalid as obvious” but independent claims 1 and 11 from which claims 10 and 17 depended, had not been determined to be obvious. The Court reasoned that “[b]ecause claims 10 and 17 were found to have been obvious, the broader claims 1 and 11 must also have been obvious.” Ormco, 498 F.3d at 1319. See also, Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A broader independent claim cannot be nonobvious where a dependent claim stemming from that independent claim is invalid for obviousness”) citing Ormco, 498 F.3d at 1319.

1637 Ex Parte Hantash et al 11/588,184 FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HORLICK, KENNETH R

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1728 Ex Parte Bobee et al 11/558,711 GARRIS 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER BARCENA, CARLOS

1765 Ex Parte Slack 11/654,960 GARRIS 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER SERGENT, RABON A

1771 Ex Parte Wen et al 11/887,680 11/887,683 McKELVEY 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global EXAMINER WEISS, PAMELA HL

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte Elnozahy et al 11/551,168 CHANG 102(b)/103(a) Jack V. Musgrove EXAMINER SAVLA, ARPAN P

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Bouchard et al 10/029,679 WINSOR 103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER TRUONG, LAN DAI T

“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir, 1990).

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 15 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990).. . . . . . . . .2114
REHEARING

DENIED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1761 Ex Parte Ming et al 11/133,007 PAK 103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER DELCOTTO, GREGORY R