halliburton, datamize, miyazaki

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1762 Ex Parte Doumaux et al 12808046 - (D) KAISER dissenting HOUSEL 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY NGUYEN, VU ANH

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Keohane et al 11867735 - (D) HAAPALA 103 LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL) HO, RUAY L

2176 Ex Parte Dejean et al 11923904 - (D) SHIANG 103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER BURKE, TIONNA M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2445 Ex Parte Salvi et al 12501412 - (D) SILVERMAN 102 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY POLLACK, MELVIN H

2452 Ex Parte McClain et al 12612895 - (D) ULLAGADDI 103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP (26530) HUSSAIN, TAUQIR

2457 Ex Parte Brakensiek 12495119 - (D) CURCURI concurring BAUMEISTER 102/103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation KIM, HEE SOO

Rather, "dynamic data" and "static data" are merely undefined terms of degree. When a term of degree is used in a claim, the specification must provide some standard for measuring the requisite degree.  Datamise, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc. 417 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). "[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite." Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).

Our reviewing court explained the rationale for requiring such definiteness for terms of degree in Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-1 LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In Halliburton, the court was asked to determine whether the relative claim term "fragile gel" was sufficiently definite.  Id. at 1246.  In spite of that Patent's Specification containing an express definition for the term "fragile gel" (id. (citing Kirsner et al., U.S. No. 6,887,832 B2; issued May 3, 2005, at col. 2, II. 26-42)), the Halliburton court nonetheless found that no "possible construction resolves the ambiguity in the scope of the term." Id. at 1250.

The fact that Halliburton can articulate a definition supported by the specification, however, does not end the inquiry.  Even if a claim term's definition can be reduced to words, the claim is still indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot translate the definition into meaningful precise claim scope."

Id. at 1251.

The Hallibrton court explained the public policy underlying its conclusion:

35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 requires that the specification of a patent "conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention." Because claims delineate the patentee's right to exclude, the patent statute requires that the scope of the claims be sufficiently definite to inform the public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e., what subject matter is covered by the exclusive rights of the patent. Otherwise, competitors cannot avoid infringement, defeating the public notice function of patent claims. Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1996) ("[T]he primary purpose of the requirement is `to guard against unreasonable advantages to the patentee and disadvantages to others arising from uncertainty as to their [respective] rights.'") (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Carp., 304 U.S. 364, 369, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402, (1938)). The Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he statutory requirement of particularity and distinctness in, claims is met only when [the claims] clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly circumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise." United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236, 63 S.Ct. 165, 87 L.Ed. 232 (1942).

Id. at 1249 (citations omitted).

The Halliburton court also noted an additional policy consideration, which serves as the basis for why the Board should not ignore the claims' clarity in spite of the issue not being raised on appeal:

the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.

Id. at 1255.

Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2173.05(b)

Miyazaki, Ex parte, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (BPAI 2008) 2173.05(b)


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Neuhauser et al 11777051 - (D) SCHOPFER 102 Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Nielsen) JIAN, SHIRLEY XUEYING

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Scantlebury et al 10503549 - (D) WARREN 103 103 WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP WOOD, ELLEN SUZANNE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Yoshida et al 12631295 - (D) BAER 103 103 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- HIT DRAVININKAS, ADAM B

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Golombek et al 12128795 - (D) ADAMS 103 41.50 103 YOUNG & THOMPSON SOROUSH, LAYLA

1631 Ex Parte Rambaud 10687636 - (D) POLLOCK 112(1)/112(2)/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON WHALEY, PABLO S

1631 Ex Parte Leuthardt et al 12459493 - (D) McGRAW 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC HARWARD, SOREN T

1631 Ex Parte Leuthardt et al 12459623 - (D) McGRAW 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC HARWARD, SOREN T

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Uensal et al 12375550 - (D) WARREN 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) NGUYEN, COLETTE B

1747 Ex Parte Dale et al 12450964 - (D) GARRIS 112(a)/112(b)/103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP ROGERS, MARTIN K

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte van Putten 13354196 - (D) NEW 102/103 MAURICE H.P.M. VAN PUTTEN ELLIS, MATTHEW J

2175 Ex Parte Gn et al 12345050 - (D) HOMERE 102 LSI CORPORATION TRAN, MYLINH T

2175 Ex Parte Jude et al 12486914 - (D) NEW 102/103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 NABI, REZA U

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Marilly et al 11960691 - (D) KAISER 103 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT LIN, JASON K

2431 Ex Parte STAUNER et al 11961947 - (D) MCMILLIN 112(2) 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP VAUGHAN, MICHAEL R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2623 Ex Parte Rosenberg 11927060 - (D) SHIANG 103 Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton, LLP BOLOTIN, DMITRIY

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Craven et al 10582390 - (D) TIMM 103 GATES & COOPER LLP (General) FOX, BRANDON C

2854 Ex Parte Wilson et al 12110518 - (D) ABRAHAM 102/103 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER MARINI, MATTHEW G

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte Lowles 12394750 - (D) STEPINA 103 41.50 103 RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

3671 Ex Parte Goering et al 12715237 - (D) BROWNE 103 DEERE & COMPANY NGUYEN, MAI T

3672 Ex Parte Selb et al 12800975 - (D) MURPHY 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB LAGMAN, FREDERICK LYNDON

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3749 Ex Parte Vontell 11702715 - (D) BROWNE 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY DECKER, PHILLIP

3788 Ex Parte Felsch et al 12267191 - (D) SMEGAL 103 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials POON, ROBERT

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
2782 HTC CORPORATION Requester v. FLASHPOINT TECHNOLOGY, INC. Patent Owner Ex Parte 6163816 et al 08/920,424 95001420 - (D) COCKS 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 Herskovitz & Associates, PLLC THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: PEKINS COIE LLP ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original SHIN, CHRISTOPHER B

wright3, halliburton, miyazaki

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2176 Ex Parte Reimann et al 12569411 - (D) PINKERTON 103 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. BURKE, TIONNA M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2462 Ex Parte LUCKY 12433378 - (D) POTHIER 102 41.50 112(1) THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. MILLS, DONALD L

For questions of enablement, the Federal Circuit has held that “the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (emphasis added). Regarding the scope of enablement for purely functional claims, the Board has held that

[W]hen the limitation encompasses any and all structures or acts for performing a recited function, including those which were not what the applicant had invented, the disclosure fails to provide a scope of enablement commensurate with the scope of the claim and the claim would violate the prohibition of [Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1 (1946)].

Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1217 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).

Wright, In re, 999 F.2d 1557, 27 USPQ2d 1510 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   2107.01 ,   2161.01 ,   2164.03 ,   2164.01(a) ,   2164.04 ,   2164.05(a) ,   2164.06(b) ,   2164.08

2462 Ex Parte Lavigne et al 12022486 - (D) BAER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HUYNH, KHOA B

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2652 Ex Parte Sylvain 11536304 - (D) WINSOR 112(2)/102 41.50 102 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. POPE, KHARYE

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Wastlund-Karlsson et al 12084880 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC SCA Hygiene Products AB KIDWELL, MICHELE M

3778 Ex Parte Karlson et al 11576497 - (D) PAULRAJ 112(1)/103 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC SCA Hygiene Products AB DITMER, KATHRYN ELIZABETH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte LEE et al 12730088 - (D) NAGUMO 103 103 Tokyo Electron U.S. Holdings, Inc. LAW, NGA LEUNG V

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Johnston et al 11372778 - (D) FISHMAN 103 LEWIS RICE LLC TILLERY, RASHAWN N

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Cohen et al 11524040 - (D) Per Curiam 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC BELCHER, HERMAN A

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Lommel et al 12072845 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP UHLIR, CHRISTOPHER J

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2624 Ex parte TESSERON LTD. Appellant Ex Parte 6771387 et al 10/090,074 90012752 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP Third Party Requester: REED SMITH LLP DESAI, RACHNA SINGH original GARCIA, GABRIEL I

miyazaki, packard

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Bousseton et al 12206098 - (D) HOFFMANN 112(2)/102/103 41.50 112(1)/112(2) Cantor Colburn LLP - IBM Endicott NGUYEN, CHI Q

In determining whether a claim is indefinite, "we employ a lower threshhold of ambiguity when reviewing a pending claim for indefiniteness than those used by post-issuance reviewing courts."  Ex Parte Kenichi Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precendential). Our precedential Miyazaki decision "hold[s] that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, as indefinite." Id. See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. CIr. 2014). We employ this standard because of our "duty to guard the public against patents of ambiguous and vague scope" and "because the applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend the claims during prosecution to more clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and to more clearly and precisely put the public on notice of the scope of the patent." Id. at 1211-12.

Miyazaki, Ex parte, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (BPAI 2008) 2173.05(b) >

3682 Ex Parte Nakamura 11455371 - (D) KIM 102/103 Perman & Green, LLP ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

3696 Ex Parte Starmanns et al 11591133 - (D) KIM 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP NIQUETTE, ROBERT R

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2673 Ex Parte Hoarau et al 12358649 - (D) POLLACK 103 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY WALLACE, JOHN R

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Ari et al 12418484 - (D) KIM 103 101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SWARTZ, STEPHEN S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Binette et al 12951205 - (D) ADAMS 103 Mintz Levin/Boston Office SINGH, SATYENDRA K

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Bahnmuller et al 12171513 - (D) Per Curiam 103 NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN & MARCUS, PA TALBOT, BRIAN K

1742 Ex Parte Brodkin et al 12607718 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Ivoclar Vivadent Inc. TENTONI, LEO B

1771 Ex Parte Fehr et al 12865613 - (D) DELMENDO 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. HINES, LATOSHA D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2183 Ex Parte Lindwer et al 10570966 - (D) KUMAR 103 LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Sorgard et al 11633647 - (D) KUMAR 101 101/103 41.50 112(2) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC AMINI, JAVID A

2681 Ex Parte Grewe 11998057 - (D) KUMAR 103 IP Legal Services LLC MA, KAM WAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Sasaki et al 12306709 - (D) HOELTER 103 STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER NGUYEN, XUAN LAN T

3663 Ex Parte Ishihara et al 12821591 - (D) JESCHKE 103 HONEYWELL/IFL MYHRE, KEVIN C

3689 Ex Parte Wechsel 10787205 - (D) KUMAR 103 Dilworth IP - SAP NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI

REEXAMINATION

DENIED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2874 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.Third Party Requester, Appellant and Respondent v.GRAYWIRE LLC Patent Owner, Appellant and Respondent Ex Parte 6415082 et al 09/526,091 95001175 - (D) TURNER 112(1) Ascenda Law Group, PC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP MENEFEE, JAMES A original LEE, JOHN D

datamize, solomon, miyazaki

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1625 Ex Parte Banholzer et al 10/977,753 WALSH concurring FREDMAN 103(a) MICHAEL P. MORRIS BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA CORPORATION EXAMINER DESAI, RITA J

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1716 Ex Parte Hayami et al 10/864,538 COLAIANNI 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Banerjee et al 10/640,847 BISK 102(e) Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Borchard 10/423,395 HAHN 103(a) Christie Parker & Hale LLP EXAMINER ALLEN, STEPHONE B

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Adifon et al 10/520,756 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Giobbi 10/630,141 KAUFFMAN 103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER YOO, JASSON H

3723 Ex Parte Ashfield 10/674,852 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP EXAMINER ELEY, TIMOTHY V

3731 Ex Parte Palumbo et al 11/157,833 McCOLLUM 102(e) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER LANG, AMY T

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1775 Ex Parte Deckman et al 11/880,207 COLAIANNI 103(a) 103(a) ExxonMobile Research and Engineering Company EXAMINER GRAHAM, CHANTEL LORAN

1767 Ex Parte Hong et al 11/761,332 GAUDETTE 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting 102(b)/103(a) Kilyk & Bowersox, P.L.L.C. EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2197 Ex Parte Ireland 10/709,917 COURTENAY 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. EXAMINER WANG, RONGFA PHILIP

The Federal Circuit Court has held in post-issuance patent infringement cases that the definiteness requirement “does not compel absolute clarity” and “only claims ‘not amenable to construction’ or ‘insolubly ambiguous’ are indefinite.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). The claim as a whole must be considered to determine whether it apprises one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope, and therefore serves the notice function required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph by providing clear warning to others as to what constitutes the infringement of the patent. Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(emphasis added).

Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 55 USPQ2d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2172
However, when a patent application is pending before the USPTO, “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).

Thus, a claim that is not indefinite under the Federal Circuit Court’s “insolubly ambiguous” standard (as applied to issued patent claims), may be considered indefinite under the USPTO Miyazaki standard of review that employs a lower threshold of ambiguity for pending patent application claims.

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Miyazaki 10/255,626 DANG 103(a) 102(e)/103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER SERRAO, RANODHI N

2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Kenoyer et al 10/105,752 THOMAS 103(a) 103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR

2617 Ex Parte Wang et al 10/514,311 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 103(a) Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC EXAMINER SAMS, MATTHEW C

2625 Ex Parte Morovic 11/256,947 JEFFERY 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CAMMACK, DAVID S

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Cassoni 10/815,202 McCARTHY 103(a) 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER YEAGLEY, DANIEL S

3665 Ex Parte Lazarz et al 11/091,996 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHUONG P

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Stemmle 11/187,384 SPAHN 102(b) 102(b)/103(a) PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER TRUONG, THANH K

3724 Ex Parte Walker et al 11/375,661 LEE 103(a) 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER MICHALSKI, SEAN M

3765 Ex Parte Powell et al 11/070,582 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS PC EXAMINER QUINN, RICHALE LEE

AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1721 Ex Parte Bossidan et al 10/575,293 COLAIANNI 112(1) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER RODEE, CHRISTOPHER D

1742 Ex Parte Brown Ex parte THE BOEING COMPANY Appellant 11/314,475 SCHAFER 103(a) DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER HAUTH, GALEN H

1745 Ex Parte Stevens et al 10/838,108 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) Becton, Dickinson and Company EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R

1771 Ex Parte Lloyd et al 10/738,078 FRANKLIN 103(a) SHELL OIL COMPANY EXAMINER MCAVOY, ELLEN M

1787 Ex Parte Church et al 11/956,672 FRANKLIN 103(a) WHYTE HIRSCHBOECK DUDEK S C EXAMINER CHEN, VIVIAN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Rosenthal et al 10/289,662 HUGHES 101/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SAXENA, AKASH

2600 Communications
2612 Ex Parte Braun 09/940,616 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER POPE, DARYL C

2612 Ex Parte Breed et al 11/502,039 RUGGIERO 103(a) BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ EXAMINER LABBEES, EDNY

2612 Ex Parte Lax 12/237,623 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER YACOB, SISAY

2617 Ex Parte Bednasz 10/829,637 FRAHM 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON EXAMINER CUMMING, WILLIAM D

2617 Ex Parte Leung 11/156,097 PER CURIAM 102(e) KAM LUNG LEUNG EXAMINER CHO, UN C

2618 Ex Parte Nurminen et al 11/054,048 KOHUT 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER PAN, YUWEN

2627 Ex Parte Adelmann 11/702,721 JEFFERY 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER SIMPSON, LIXI CHOW

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2813 Ex Parte Iyer et al 11/327,930 HAHN 103(a) TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. EXAMINER BLUM, DAVID S

2817 Ex Parte Pfeiffer et al 11/619,765 JEFFERY 103(a) Frank V. DeRosa, Esq. F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON, RYAN

2837 Ex Parte Elliott et al 10/154,038 RUGGIERO 103(a) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP EXAMINER BENSON, WALTER

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Tucker 12/180,269 SPAHN 112(1)/103(a) The Affordable Patent Service EXAMINER ROHRHOFF, DANIEL J

3652 Ex Parte Hoe et al 10/184,233 HORNER 103(a) FELLRS, SNIDER, BLANKENSHIP, BAILEY & TIPPENS, P.C EXAMINER UNDERWOOD, DONALD W

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 Ex Parte Hertweck et al 11/595,544 FRANKLIN 102(b)/103(a) Bausch & Lomb Incorporated EXAMINER MILES, JONATHAN WADE

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1723 Ex Parte 6979117 et al Vita-Mix Corporation Requester v. K-TEC, Inc. Patent Owner 95/000,228, 90/009,113, 90/008,814 ROBERTSON 102(e)/103(a) HOLLAND & HART EXAMINER STEIN, STEPHEN J original EXAMINER COOLEY, CHARLES E

REHEARING

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Blanton et al 11/593,762 POTHIER 103(a) WARN PARTNERS, P.C. EXAMINER HUYNH, KIM T

orthokinetics, miyazaki

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1654 Ex Parte Wachs 11/098,775 SCHEINER 103(a) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER STEELE, AMBER D

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Fuller et al 11/053,714 TIMM 103(a) CARY W. BROOKS General Motors Corporation EXAMINER ECHELMEYER, ALIX ELIZABETH

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/733,016 HOFF 103(a) THE LAW OFFICE OF KIRK D. WILLIAMS EXAMINER LE, DEBBIE M

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2484 Ex Parte Chen et al 10/219,045 BAUMEISTER 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(e) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC EXAMINER ATALA, JAMIE JO

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Fellon 11/160,846 LORIN 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER AHMED, AFFAF

3622 Ex Parte Fellon 11/160,847 LORIN 101/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER AHMED, AFFAF

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3764 Ex Parte Shepard et al 10/747,420 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3653 Ex Parte Martens et al 11/239,125 BARRETT 103(a) 102(b)/103(a) ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. EXAMINER KUMAR, KALYANAVENKA K
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1651 Ex Parte Jorgensen et al 11/129,953 FRANKLIN 103(a) NOVOZYMES NORTH AMERICA, INC. EXAMINER ARIANI, KADE

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10/675,467 HOFF 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER RYAN, PATRICK A

2486 Ex Parte Jeon 10/335,331 KRIVAK 102(e)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES

2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Marshall et al 09/969,000 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) Intellectual Property and Licensing NXP B.V. EXAMINER THIER, MICHAEL

2625 Ex Parte Brown 10/255,631 KRIVAK 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HUNTSINGER, PETER K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2835 Ex Parte Gadkaree et al 11/494,206 WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) CORNING INCORPORATED EXAMINER SINCLAIR, DAVID M

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Murakami 10/558,321 CRAWFORD 103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K

3727 Ex Parte Hsu 11/479,255 HORNER 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. EXAMINER WILSON, LEE D

The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).

Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . 2173.02, 2173.05(b)

[W]e employ a lower threshold of ambiguity when reviewing a pending claim for indefiniteness than those used by post-issuance reviewing courts. In particular, rather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we hold that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.

The USPTO, as the sole agency vested with the authority to grant exclusionary rights to inventors for patentable inventions, has a duty to guard the public against patents of ambiguous and vague scope. Such patents exact a cost on society due to their ambiguity that is not commensurate with the benefit that the public gains from disclosure of the invention. The USPTO is justified in using a lower threshold showing of ambiguity to support a finding of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because the applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend the claims during prosecution to more clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and to more clearly and precisely put the public on notice of the scope of the patent.

Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211-12 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).

kaplan, kuhle, cordis, praxair, miyazaki

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Hedstrom et al 11/052,893 SMITH 103(a)/non-statutory obvious-type double patenting WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY- MD 0750 EXAMINER GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE

“[T]here must be some clear evidence to establish why the variation would have been obvious which can properly qualify as ‘prior art.’” In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Kaplan, In re, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804
1731 Ex Parte Flytzani-Stephanopoulos et al 10/534,110 GAUDETTE 103(a) Milstein Zhang & Wu LLC EXAMINER SMITH, JENNIFER A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Hendrix et al 11/290,291 SPAHN 103(a) Brocade Communications c/o Bever, Hoffman & Harms, LLP EXAMINER BRADFORD, CANDACE L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3726 Ex Parte Kovac 11/444,445 CLARKE 102(b)/103(a) THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION EXAMINER COZART, JERMIE E

With regard to the rationale of the Examiner, the predecessor of our reviewing court has stated that design choice is inapplicable in a rejection where the use of the claimed feature solves a stated problem. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975)(use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” ).

Kuhle, In re, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.04
3763 Ex Parte Simas et al 11/138,553 COCKS 102(b)/103(a) LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER PRICE, NATHAN R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Nabors et al 10/517,732 FREDMAN 103(a) Syngenta Corp Protection, Inc. EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1647 Ex Parte Byrum 11/491,371 ADAMS 101/112(1) Arnold & Porter LLP EXAMINER ALLEN, MARIANNE P

1652 Ex Parte Zandi et al 10/079,949 FREDMAN 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER
PROUTY, REBECCA E

1655 Ex Parte Lindberg 10/271,186 LEBOVITZ 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP EXAMINER LEITH, PATRICIA A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Yoshitake et al 10/472,378 GARRIS 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER HODGE, ROBERT W

1762 Ex Parte Kesavan et al 11/243,144 WALSH 103(a) Kevin E Mcveigh RHODIA INC. EXAMINER METZMAIER, DANIEL S

1789 Ex Parte Fultz et al 10/955,443 COLAIANNI 102(e)/103(a) GENERAL MILLS, INC. EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Deng et al 10/386,217 SMITH 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ADAMS, CHARLES D

2172 Ex Parte Aurenz 11/140,398 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HEFFINGTON, JOHN M

2183 Ex Parte Fowles 11/145,601 LUCAS 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER PARTRIDGE, WILLIAM B

“Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 is an issue of claim construction and a question of law that we review de novo.” Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).

However, during prosecution before this Office, while Appellant still has the opportunity to amend the claims, a higher standard of clarity is required:

In particular, rather than requiring that the claims are insolubly ambiguous, we hold that if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.

Ex parte Kenichi Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (precedential opinion) (BPAI 2008).

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte McCown et al 10/934,186 CHEN 102(b) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK EXAMINER FIELDS, COURTNEY D

NEW

REVERSED

06/02/2011 2451 Ex Parte Helsper et al 10/985,664 BARRY 102(e) Ballard Spahr LLP EXAMINER MAUNG, ZARNI

06/22/2011 1777 Ex Parte Olsta et al 11/599,080 COLAIANNI 102(b)/103(a) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP EXAMINER MENON, KRISHNAN S

AFFIRMED

06/02/2011 1722 Ex Parte Hirayama et al 10/546,573 GAUDETTE 103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER EOFF, ANCA

06/03/2011 1765 Ex Parte Musgrave et al 11/027,442 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) FINA TECHNOLOGY INC EXAMINER ZEMEL, IRINA SOPJIA

06/02/2011 1782 Ex Parte Schmitz et al 11/357,971 KRATZ non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER YAGER, JAMES C

06/02/2011 2164 Ex Parte Smith et al 10/864,267 JEFFERY obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ

06/02/2011 1745 Ex Parte Tuertscher et al 11/182,422 GAUDETTE 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHAN, SING P

DISMISSED

06/03/2011 1716 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11/018,641 BARTLETT RCE Edwards Vacuum, Inc. EXAMINER LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT