howmedica, ventana, Phillips

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Bello et al 13306570 - (D) SMITH 103 Greenberg Traurig, LLP LIANG, ANTHONY M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte Irnich et al 14110365 - (D) CRAIG 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson HOUSHMAND, HOOMAN

2486 Ex Parte TRUDEAU et al 14609324 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 IP-MEX Inc. CHIO, TAT CHI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Bevot et al 13704650 - (D) TIMM 102/103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch) PHAN, TRUONG D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Gough 12316604 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY PASCHALL, MARK H

3752 Ex Parte RETZLOFF et al 14190861 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. KIM, CHRISTOPHER S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Okabe et al 12367581 - (D) HANLON 103 HOWSON & HOWSON LLP HEVEY, JOHN A

1787 Ex Parte Takeda et al 13809279 - (D) HANLON 103 BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP FUNG, CHING-YIU

Appellants do not provide any persuasive reasoning or evidence that such an upper surface as depicted in Matsuda that includes tabs is not encompassed by the claim language. For example only, Appellants have not recited that the upper surface is planar and exclusive of any projections/tabs. Cf. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (declining to impute a limitation into a disputed claim term in the absence of a clear requirement in the specification, even where “every disclosure of [the disputed term] in the specification shows [the alleged limitation]”); see also Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. BiogenexLabs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he mere fact that the [asserted] patent discloses [only certain] embodiments . . . does not in and of itself mean that the method claims at issue are limited to the disclosed embodiments.”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[W]e have expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.”).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2665 Ex Parte Meinel 13813232 - (D) NAPPI 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SCHWARTZ, RAPHAEL M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Takahashi et al 14369038 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 OSHA LIANG L.L.P.2833 SAEED, AHMED M

2864 Ex Parte Vandermeijden 13101915 - (D) OWENS 101/102 Osha Liang LLP/Synaptics SUGLO, JANET L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Clayton et al 12620875 - (D) THOMAS 101 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. OYEBISI, OJO O

3696 Ex Parte Carlson et al 14203382 - (D) HUTCHINGS 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP/VISA CHANG, EDWARD

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte CHOU 13158310 - (R) CUTITTA 101 Ledell Ansari, LLP SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

santarus, bimeda, howmedica

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Gvirtsman et al 13192382 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BLAIR, DOUGLAS B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Abshire 12513833 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 HolzerIPLaw, PC MOHANDESI, JILA M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Ho et al 12823976 - (D) McSHANE 103 Arent Fox LLP PARSONS, THOMAS H

1784 Ex Parte Hongoh 12850877 - (D) GAUDETTE 112(1)/102/103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. LANGMAN, JONATHAN C

Under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, negative claim limitations are “adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Appellant argues “[i]t is clear from page 4, lines 12 - 25 of the originally filed application that Appellant, at the time of filing the instant application, understood that the reactive layer composition does not need to contain yttria.” Reply Br. 3. The referenced portion of the Specification describes a single embodiment of the reactive layer composition. We do not find, and Appellant has not identified, any disclosure in the Specification indicating that the inventors intended to limit the reactive layer composition to this specific embodiment or to a composition that is free of components other than those explicitly listed. In other words, the disclosure of a particular composition which excludes a broad genus of components does not amount to a disclosure of a composition that excludes one particular compound. See In re Bimeda Research & Dev. Ltd., 724 F.3d 1320, 1323–24 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that “claim 32 failed the written description requirement because the disclosure did not describe[ ] a formulation excluding a specific species of the antiinfective genus, while permitting others to be present” (internal citations and quotations omitted)); cf. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he fact that the specification describes only a single embodiment, standing alone, is insufficient to limit otherwise broad claim language.”).

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Consuegra et al 12566919 - (D) ENGELS 103 Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC HARPER, ELIYAH STONE

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Pafumi et al 12849655 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 J.B. KRAFT ATTORNEY CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2672 Ex Parte Noel et al 11164351 - (D) HUME 102 Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC BECKLEY, JONATHAN R

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Binmore 12580154 - (D) WARREN 102/103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. TAYLOR, APRIL ALICIA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Steinberg et al 10977194 - (D) OSINSKI 103 101 FAY SHARPE LLP CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES

3748 Ex Parte MYERS et al 12389854 - (D) BROWNE 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC ESHETE, ZELALEM

howmedica, Phillips

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2157 Ex Parte Courdy et al 11748125 - (D) HOFF 103 Bell & Manning, LLC The University of Utah Research Foundation MINA, FATIMA P

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Panigrahi 12538681 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (EchoStar) SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Landry 11964368 - (D) WARREN 102/103 Cesari & Reed, L.L.P. MAI, TIEN HUNG

2854 Ex Parte Hoffman et al 11683835 - (D) OWENS 103 HID Global c/o Westman Champlin & Koehler, P.A CULLER, JILL E

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Accardi 12359539 - (D) GUIJT 103 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C. NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1797 Ex Parte Roder et al 13373336 - (D) DERRICK 103 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP Biodesix, Inc. XU, XIAOYUN

Having carefully considered the Specification and Appellants’ arguments, we find no clear requirement that added calibrant is excluded. Our reviewing Court has “repeatedly held that the fact that the specification describes only a single embodiment, standing alone, is insufficient to limit
otherwise broad claim language.” Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (declining to impute a limitation into a disputed claim term in the absence of a clear requirement in the specification, even where “every disclosure of [the disputed term] in the specification shows [the alleged limitation]”); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[W]e have expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.”).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Smith et al 11534089 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 MMB/Purdue Research Foundation SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte To et al 12789137 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 Garg Law Firm, PLLC IBM END IPLAW (GLF) International Business Machines, Corp. LIN, SHEW FEN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Marshall et al 10177825 - (D) FRAHM 101/103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN c/o CPA Global SAINT CYR, JEAN D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Kuhl et al 12852551 - (D) GALLIGAN 103 PERRY + CURRIER INC. (BlackBerry) Research in Motion Limited GU, YU

2658 Ex Parte Buck et al 12241837 - (D) TROCK 103 ALLEMAN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE LLP Harman Becker Automotive Systems GMBH DORVIL, RICHEMOND

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3735 Ex Parte Cohan et al 11551458 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. Eyelab Group, LLC D'ANGELO, MICHAEL J

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 STRYKER CORPORATION Requester and Appellant v. HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 7568246 et al 11/804,970 95002051 - (D) LEBOVITZ 103 41.77(b) 103 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Hill-Rom) THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD WHITTINGTON, KENNETH original TRETTEL, MICHAEL

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1637 LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Requester, Cross-Appellant and Respondent v. 454 LIFE SCIENCES CORPORATION Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent Ex Parte 8012690 et al 11/982,095 95001765 - (D) LEBOVITZ concurring GUEST 103/314(a) 41.77(b) 103 COOLEY LLP for THIRD PARTY REQUESTOR: TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 454 Life Sciences Corporation CAMPELL, BRUCE R original THOMAS, DAVID C