geneva, orthokinetics, schreiber

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1779 Ex Parte HOLZMANN et al 11869229 - (D) OWENS 112(1)/102/103 Foley & Lardner LLP ANDERSON, DENISE R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3741 Ex Parte Malecki 13406924 - (D) BROWN 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY IBRONI, STEFAN

3744 Ex Parte CUR et al 13108183 - (D) CALVE Concurring CAPP 103 PRICE HENEVELD LLP WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION TADESSE, MARTHA

3745 Ex Parte Gabeiras et al 13339973 - (D) BROWNE 103 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. EDGAR, RICHARD A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Qian et al 13399496 - (D) McNEILL 103 MICROSOFT CORPORATION LE, THUYKHANH

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3633 Ex Parte PERVAN et al 13670039 - (D) GREENHUT 102 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC A, PHI DIEU TRAN

Claims 1 and 9 present issues similar to those discussed by our reviewing court in Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003), where a functional interaction with some broad class of unclaimed subject matter is used to define the scope of the subject matter actually claimed.  ...

There is nothing wrong with this style of claiming per se. However, as discussed in Geneva, the scope of the claim becomes highly dependent upon the unclaimed thing, there the bacteria, here the groove, chosen as a basis to analyze the claim. Where that unclaimed subject matter has limits reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, the claim may be quite broad, but not necessarily indefinite. See, e.g., Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (defining the size of the front legs of a travel wheelchair relative to a space between a doorframe and seat of an unclaimed automobile); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (defining the claimed dispensing top by its interaction with kernels of popped popcorn). 

Geneva Pharms. Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 68 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 804.01, 814

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

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

3695 Ex Parte Ferris et al 12628156 - (D) MacDONALD 101 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP / Red Hat OYEBISI, OJO O

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Kadlec et al 14273535 - (D) CAPP 101 STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP CUFF, MICHAEL A

3753 Ex Parte Jarvis 14269091 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 CROSE LAW LLC HOOK, JAMES F

applied materials, aller, antonie nautilus, orthokinetics

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1764 Ex Parte Brust et al 12234753 - (D) ANKENBRAND 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY HUHN, RICHARD A

“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)). Nonetheless, “[t]his rule is limited to cases in which the optimized variable is a ‘result-effective variable.’” Id (citing In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).

Aller, In re, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) 2144.05

Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) 2141.02 , 2144.05

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Smolucha 11124411 - (D) GUIJT 103 NIXON PEABODY LLP MYHR, JUSTIN L

3742 Ex Parte Graillat et al 11377947 - (D) STEPINA 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. MATHEW, HEMANT MATHAI

A claim is indefinite if “read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, [it] fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2123 (2014). The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, 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)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3655 Ex Parte Bodine et al 12840127 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 102/103 103 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION PANG, ROGER L

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Okuniewicz 11033610 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 103 BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP DUFFY, DAVID W

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1756 Ex Parte Shah et al 11397543 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Gates & Cooper LLP - Minimed CARLSON, KOURTNEY SALZMAN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Hoyte et al 12756585 - (D) GARRIS Concurring NAGUMO 103 Dority & Manning, PA and General Electric Company FAYYAZ, NASHMIYA SAQIB

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Breed et al 12020684 - (D) CAPP 112(b) BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ TISSOT, ADAM D

orthokinetics, Morris, zletz

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Garibaldi et al 11801121 - (D) McCOLLUM 102 Bryan K. Wheelock ITURRALDE, ENRIQUE W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Harris et al 11112938 - (D) HUGHES 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP RAHIM, MONJUR

2453 Ex Parte Rohani 11280764 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP ESKANDARNIA, ARVIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Yokomae et al 11896153 - (D) HANLON 102/103 KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH

2883 Ex Parte Stewart et al 12253196 - (D) GARRIS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH

2893 Ex Parte Utsugi et al 11362652 - (D) TIMM 103 ADAMS & WILKS ULLAH, ELIAS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Joret et al 11421872 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy PHAM, LINH K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Berger 11374917 - (D) HOSKINS 103 103 MIRICK, O'CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP PATEL, VINOD D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Enenkiel 11109725 - (D) HOELTER 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP AHMED, MOHAMMED

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Nolte 11713463 - (D) NAGUMO 103 KAMMER BROWNING PLLC OMAR, AHMED H

2893 Ex Parte Jang et al 11225089 - (D) PRAISS 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP REAMES, MATTHEW L

2895 Ex Parte Juengling 12033799 - (D) TIMM 112(2)/102/103 FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) JUNG, MICHAEL

Appellant argues that a relative term may be definite, citing to Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc. 806 F. 2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We agree with Appellant that relative terms can be definite in some circumstances. However, each case must be evaluated on its own facts. Moreover, we note that the court in Orthokinetics was evaluating the definiteness of a patented claim being litigated in an infringement action. Patented claims are subject to the presumption of validity and definiteness is evaluated under a different standard than claims still subject to prosecution. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

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

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 904.01, 2111, 2111.01, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989)  715,   2111,   2111.01,   2111.03,   2138,   2171,   2173.05(a), 2181, 2286, 2686.04

biogen, seachange, depuy spine, orthokinetics

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1786 Ex Parte Leonard 10474878 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103 EDWIN D. SCHINDLER SYKES, ALTREV C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Grogg 12051180 - (D) WOOD 102 Dykema Gossett PLLC KNUTSON, JACOB D

3671 Ex Parte Montgomery et al 11373383 - (D) ABRAMS 102/103 DEERE & COMPANY TROUTMAN, MATTHEW D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2494 Ex Parte Okunseinde et al 10803590 - (D) NEW 103 103 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. GERGISO, TECHANE

e.g., Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, No. 2012–1120, 2013 WL 1603360, at *2 (Fed. Cir. April 16, 2013) (Examiner employs “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard in claim interpretation).

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Diller 11771423 - (D) SCANLON 102/103 102 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP DUNN, DAVID R

With regard to the specific assertion that Whitmyer “teaches away” from interchangeable headrests, we note that “[t]eaching away is irrelevant to anticipation.” Seachange Int'l, Inc. v. CCOR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
...
However, “the ‘predictable result’ discussed in [KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)] refers not only to the expectation that prior art elements are capable of being physically combined, but also that the combination would have worked for its intended purpose.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3771 Ex Parte Kuehn et al 11327050 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 103 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA CORPORATION YU, JUSTINE ROMANG

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1619 Ex Parte Glenn et al 10409425 - (D) WALSH 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY VENKAT, JYOTHSNA A

1634 Ex Parte Sharma et al 10727576 - (D) PRATS 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC SWITZER, JULIET CAROLINE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1711 Ex Parte Classen et al 11642567 - (D) HANLON 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION KO, JASON Y

1791 Ex Parte Brooker et al 10525189 - (D) SCHAFER 112(2)/103 The BOC Group, Inc. BEKKER, KELLY JO

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Sharma et al 11411853 - (D) DIXON 112(2) 101/102/103 NIXON PEABODY, LLP CHANG, TOM Y

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)

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte White et al 10906065 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. MAGLOIRE, VLADIMIR

2661 Ex Parte Popescu-Stanesti et al 11053215 - (D) HUGHES 103 O2MICRO INC C/O MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP PETERSON, CHRISTOPHER K

2663 Ex Parte Jung et al 11591435 - (D) HUGHES 102/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC SPINKS, ANTOINETTE T

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Wattendorf et al 11489551 - (D) DANIELS 103 CAHN & SAMUELS, LLP EGLOFF, PETER RICHARD

REHEARING   DENIED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1611 Ex Parte Andrews et al 11504150 - (D) MILLS Dissenting ADAMS 103 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY GHALI, ISIS A D

REEXAMINATION

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex parte APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS, LLC, Patent Owner and Appellant 90010131 90/010,905 6,814,934 08/968,208 GUEST 102/103 LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION TURNER, SHARON L original SNAY, JEFFREY R

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 TAIWAN FULGENT ENTERPRISE CO., LTD. Requester, Appellant v. SHUFFLE MASTER, INC. Patent Owner, Respondent 95001429 6588751 09/690,051 HORNER 102/103 TRASKBRITT, P.C. /SHFL Entertainment JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original SEWELL, PAUL T

FEDERAL CIRCUIT
 
REVERSED
3305 BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC. v. NAUTILUS, INC. 2012-1289 5,337,753 07/895,936 WALLACH Concurring SCHALL 112(2) Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP Klarquist Sparkman, LLP GETZOW, SCOTT M

brummer, orthokinetics

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1725 Ex Parte Pierpont et al 10/295,518 KRATZ 102(b)/102(a)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER CREPEAU, JONATHAN

1746 Ex Parte Girshovich et al 11/197,114 HASTINGS 103(a) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Dornbusch et al 10/691,212 SAADAT 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) LARSON NEWMAN, LLP EXAMINER CHU, CHRIS C

Finally, we observe that the Examiner’s reliance (see Ans. 20-26) on the decision in Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), is misplaced. The Board found in Brummer that because the evidence of record showed no known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have known what size rider a particular bicycle was “designed for” and whether a particular bicycle was covered by that claim. Id. at 1655. However, determining the definiteness of a claim depends on the facts involved. In the present appeal, the facts are closer to what was at issue in Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986), where the front leg portion of a wheelchair was so dimensioned as to be insertable between the doorframe of an automobile and the seat thereof. Id. at 1575. Appellants’ claim 1 recites the separation between the first and the second terminal pairs to be such that an input-to-output isolation attenuation therebetween is “not less than a first stopband attenuation of the first external filter.” As such, when the external filter is selected, its first stopband attenuation would also be known. Therefore, it does not render the claim indefinite, but merely gives the scope of the claim some breadth.

Brummer, Ex parte, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) . . . . . . . . . 2173.05(b)

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

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3644 Ex Parte Yamashita 11/040,182 SAINDON 103(a) BOZICEVIC, FIELD & FRANCIS LLP EXAMINER WILLIAMS, MONICA L

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Swenson et al 10/786,725 ADAMS 103(a) David W. Highet, VP & Chief IP Counsel Becton, Dickinson and Company EXAMINER TOWA, RENE T

3739 Ex Parte Long 10/986,602 WALSH 103(a) WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F

3785 Ex Parte Zaffetti et al 11/281,137 BROWN 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER LEO, LEONARD R
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Smith 10/544,154 ADAMS 103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP EXAMINER BASQUILL, SEAN M

1623 Ex Parte Hilfinger 10/972,729 GRIMES 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI

1627 Ex Parte Bakker et al 11/079,089 GREEN 103(a) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER MCMILLIAN, KARA RENITA

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Dahlmann et al 11/535,335 GARRIS 103(a) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) EXAMINER WALDBAUM, SAMUEL A

1727 Ex Parte Kejha et al 10/516,986 PER CURIAM 103(a) Zachary T Wobensmith III EXAMINER BEST, ZACHARY P

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Even et al 10/362,382 FRAHM 103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Jhingan 10/687,896 FETTING 103(a) SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC EXAMINER CLARK, DAVID J

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Osborn et al 11/295,280 SCHEINER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER COOK, CHRISTOPHER L

3761 Ex Parte Datta et al 10/837,251 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) DORITY & MANNING, P.A. EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN

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).

all dental, orthokinetics, datamize, cohn, johnson, gardner, miller, borkowski

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Gale 11/841,789 McCOLLUM Concurring ADAMS 103(a) Samuel E.Webb STOEL ROVES LLP EXAMINER GULLEDGE, BRIAN M

1615 Ex Parte Koenig et al 10/836,449 ADAMS 103(a) Christopher M. Goff (27839) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP EXAMINER MERCIER, MELISSA S

1634 Ex Parte Barrett et al 11/400,481 ADAMS 103(a) Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global EXAMINER BHAT, NARAYAN KAMESHWAR

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2448 Ex Parte Oommen 10/890,340 DIXON 103(a) Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP EXAMINER VU, VIET DUY

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Ramachandran et al 10/696,626 FRAHM 103(a) Smith Risley Tempel Santos LLC EXAMINER WONG, LINDA

2624 Ex Parte Hasegawa 11/260,276 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER RAHMJOO, MANUCHER

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Yuan 11/099,460 RUGGIERO 103(a) POTOMAC PATENT GROUP PLLC EXAMINER LUU, AN T

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Nusbaum et al 11/103,884 BROWN 102(b)/103(a) PLUMSEA LAW GROUP, LLC EXAMINER ARYANPOUR, MITRA

3761 Ex Parte Jensen 11/049,047 O’NEILL 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CRAIG, PAULA L

3773 Ex Parte Eidenschink et al 11/221,559 McCARTHY 102(b)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER OU, JING RUI

3784 Ex Parte Fry 11/049,391 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1)/112(2) Warren C. Fry EXAMINER RAHIM, AZIM

The primary purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure that the claims are written in such a way that they give notice to the public of the extent of the legal protection afforded by the patent, so that interested members of the public, e.g., competitors of the patent owner, can determine whether or not they infringe. All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., Inc., 309 F.3d 774, 779-80 (Fed. Cir. 2002). If the language of a claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.”). In addition, if the claims are inherently inconsistent with the description, definitions, and examples appearing in the specification, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is likewise appropriate. In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993 (CCPA 1971).

Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . 2173.02, 2173.05(b)Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005).. . . . . 2173.05(b)Cohn, In re, 438 F.2d 984, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.03
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3663 Ex Parte Akers 11/626,473 BAHR 112(2)/103(a) BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC EXAMINER PALABRICA, RICARDO J

Nevertheless, as correctly pointed out by Appellant on page 16 of the Appeal Brief, merely that a claim is broad does not mean that it is necessarily indefinite. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17 (CCPA 1977); In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970).

Johnson, In re, 558 F.2d 1008, 194 USPQ 187 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.08, 2173.05(i)

Miller, In re, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.04
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1761 LEPRINO FOODS CO. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of LAND O’ LAKES, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,003 90/006,317 6,319,526 LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: TOWNSEND & TOWNSEND & CREW, LLP EXAMINER KUNZ, GARY L original EXAMINER PADEN, CAROLYN A

To establish an actual reduction of practice, the patent owner has the burden of demonstrating that the method reduced to practice includes all the elements of the claimed method (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 715.07 & 2185.05, Eighth Edition (August 2001), revised July 2010). See also In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 718-19 (CCPA 1974).

Borkowski, In re, 505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715.07
REHEARING DENIED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2132 Ex parte TSE Ho Keung Appellant and Patent Owner 90/008,772 6,665,797 TURNER 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) PATENT OWNER: HO KEUNG TSE THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOESTER LLP EXAMINER HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E original EXAMINER BARRON JR, GILBERTO

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1613 Ex Parte Perricone et al 11/506,137 MILLS dissenting-in-part McCOLLUM 102(b)/103(a) ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC EXAMINER
ARNOLD, ERNST V

1615 Ex Parte Moore et al 11/287,653 ADAMS 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER TRAN, SUSAN T

1616 Ex Parte Hovey et al 10/768,194 WALSH 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER HOLT, ANDRIAE M

1617 Ex Parte Bruins et al 10/535,108 ADAMS 103(a) RANKIN, HILL & CLARK LLP EXAMINER SOROUSH, ALI

1631 Ex Parte Ishikawa et al 10/925,904 GREEN 101/102(b) THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE EXAMINER LIN, JERRY

1651 Ex Parte Poo et al 10/410,954 MILLS 112(1)/103(a) Gregory A. Nelson Novak Druce & Quigg LLP EXAMINER WARE, DEBORAH K

1655 Ex Parte Malnoe et al 10/607,330 GRIMES 102(b)/103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, DEBORAH A

1655 Ex Parte Nagasawa 11/234,222 NAGUMO 103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, DEBORAH A

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1796 Ex Parte Ludewig et al 11/512,487 WALSH 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER LOEWE, ROBERT S

1796 Ex Parte Dvorchak et al 12/117,827 WALSH 103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER BERMAN, SUSAN W

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Lee et al 10/245,229 DANG 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DALEY, CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 Ex Parte Yarbrough 11/211,012 KIM 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DA) EXAMINER KHATTAR, RAJESH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte Dosmann 10/367,690 GREEN 102(b)/103(a) NIXON PEABODY LLP EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

3753 Ex Parte Watts et al 10/775,033 LEE 102/103(a) PAMELA A. KACHUR EXAMINER FOX, JOHN C
REHEARING

DENIED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1629 Ex Parte Mehlhorn 10/759,222 WALSH 103(a) SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP EXAMINER WEDDINGTON, KEVIN E

DENIED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3662 Ex Parte Rees 10/722,648 PATE III 103(a) PETER K. TRZYNA, ESQ. EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J

NEW

REVERSED

3754 Ex Parte McBroom et al 11/228,000 BARRETT 102(b)/103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C EXAMINER JACYNA, J CASIMER

3637 Ex Parte Schneider 11/656,730 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CARTER, DELUCA, FARRELL & SCHMIDT, LLP EXAMINER RODDEN, JOSHUA E

3694 Ex Parte Usher et al 09/858,844 FETTING 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) INNOVATION DIVISION CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. EXAMINER APPLE, KIRSTEN SACHWITZ

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3745 Ex Parte Hetherington et al 11/355,032 KAUFFMAN 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C EXAMINER LOPEZ, FRANK D

3774 Ex Parte Malaviya et al 10/195,794 GRIMES 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER PREBILIC, PAUL B

2477 Ex Parte Moore et al 10/404,113 FRAHM 102(e)/103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER PHUNKULH, BOB A

AFFIRMED

2456 Ex Parte Barrett 10/887,971 ZECHER 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER FAN, HUA

3754 Ex Parte Johnston 11/374,563 STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) Scott E. Johnston EXAMINER
HOOK, JAMES F

2889 Ex Parte Seichter et al 10/771,378 HAHN 102(e)/103(a)/112(1) Viering, Jentschura & Partner - OSR EXAMINER QUARTERMAN, KEVIN J

3775 Ex Parte Sengun et al 10/905,351 SAINDON 103(a) NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP EXAMINER WOODALL, NICHOLAS W

REHEARING

DENIED

3762 Ex Parte Harris et al 10/773,121 PATE III 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A. EXAMINER ALTER, ALYSSA MARGO