ortho-mcneil, pall corp, eiselstein, telecordia, intel

REVERSED

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Goel et al 10/824,725 HOMERE 103(a) HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER, LLP EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R

2600 Communications
2625 Ex Parte Herron et al 10/888,883 JEFFERY 103(a) SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP EXAMINER ZHU, RICHARD Z

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3736 Ex Parte McClellan 11/361,422 FRANKLIN 103(a) LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN

3761 Ex Parte Swerev et al 11/444,714 PRATS 103(a) YOUNG BASILE EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN

3765 Ex Parte Fukunishi et al 10/565,836 SAINDON 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (NY) EXAMINER MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Perkins et al 10/085,927 JEFFERY 103(a) 101/102(e)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER BAYARD, DJENANE M

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2853 Ex Parte Fetherolf 10/086,908 KRIVAK 103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER LIANG, LEONARD S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Holman et al 11/020,540 FREDMAN 103(a) 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER BERDICHEVSKY, AARTI
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Chaudry et al 11/541,523 PRATS 112(1)/112(2)/103(a)/132 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY

“The use of the word "about," avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.” Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, “the word „about‟ does not have a universal meaning in patent claims[;]” rather, “the meaning depends on the technological facts of the particular case.” Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The meaning of the word "about" is dependent on the facts of a case, the nature of the invention, and the knowledge imparted by the totality of the . . . disclosure to those skilled in the art.”).

Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326, 81 USPQ2d 1427, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2173.05(b)

Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 34 USPQ2d 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . 1302.01

1623 Ex Parte Hirofuji et al 10/536,397 MILLS 103(a) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Smith et al 11/007,225 GAUDETTE 112(2)/103(a) NOVAK, DRUCE + QUIGG L.L.P. - PERGO EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L

“[C]laim definiteness depends on the skill level of an ordinary artisan. Therefore, the specification need only disclose adequate defining structure to render the bounds of the claim understandable to an ordinary artisan.” Telcordia Techs., Inc. v Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that the internal circuitry of an electronic device need not be disclosed in the specification if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to build and modify the device) (internal citation omitted)).

Intel Corp. v. VIA Tech., Inc., 319 F.3d 1537, 65 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . 2181

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Petri 10/901,596 DILLON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER BASOM, BLAINE T

2174 Ex Parte Williams et al 11/013,239 CHEN 102(e)/103(a) STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER EXAMINER KE, PENG

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Tate et al 09/737,050 JEFFERY 103(a) CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A. EXAMINER SHELEHEDA, JAMES R

2482 Ex Parte Sievers et al 10/798,519 ZECHER 102(e)/103(a) WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P. EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G

2600 Communications
2611 Ex Parte Santhoff et al 10/449,789 HAHN 103(a) Pulse-Link, Inc. EXAMINER ODOM, CURTIS B

2618 Ex Parte Durand et al 11/102,954 Per Curiam 102(e)/103(a) Anderson Gorecki & Manaras LLP EXAMINER HANNON, CHRISTIAN A

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Chan et al 11/428,607 PER CURIAM 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HAYLES, ASHFORD S

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Larson et al 11/059,836 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. EXAMINER YABUT, DIANE D

3739 Ex Parte Larson et al 10/921,715 FREDMAN 103(a) Robert L. McDowell EXAMINER PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F

3739 Ex Parte Larson et al 11/084,568 FREDMAN 112(2)/103(a)/nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting ROBERT L. McDOWELL EXAMINER HUPCZEY, JR, RONALD JAMES

modine, pall corp

REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/11/2011 2111 Ex Parte Barzaghi et al 10/006,583 POTHIER 102(e)/103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER KNOLL, CLIFFORD H

07/08/2011 2128 Ex Parte Walacavage et al 09/966,121 DANG 102(e) Daniel H. Bliss Bliss McGlynn P.C. EXAMINER GEBRESILASSIE, KIBROM K

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
07/11/2011 2437 Ex Parte Evans et al 10/178,804 NAPPI 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION EXAMINER ABYANEH, ALI S

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/11/2011 3687 Ex Parte ZHANG 12/100,139 KIM 102(b) Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd EXAMINER PARIKH, HARSHAD R
AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
07/07/2011 1611 Ex Parte Uchida et al 11/731,595 GRIMES 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER CHANNAVAJJALA, LAKSHMI SARADA

However, “[s]uch broadening usages as ‘about’ must be given reasonable scope; they must be viewed by the decisionmaker as they would be understood by persons experienced in the field of the invention.” Modine Manufacturing Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm., 75 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

“The use of the word ‘about,’ avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter. Its range must be interpreted in its technologic and stylistic context…. It is appropriate to consider the effects of varying that parameter, for the inventor’s intended meaning is relevant.” Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
07/11/2011 1796 Ex Parte Chatterji et al 11/698,615 KRATZ 103(a) ROBERT A. KENT EXAMINER TOSCANO, ALICIA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/08/2011 3682 Ex Parte Nakamura 11/455,371 KIM 102(b)/103(a) Perman & Green, LLP EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL
REHEARING

GRANTED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
07/08/2011 2186 Ex Parte Becker 10/975,760 LUCAS 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER TSAI, SHENG JEN

GRANTED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
07/11/2011 3688 Ex Parte Robb et al 10/127,726 FETTING 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER VIG, NARESH

pall corp

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Dybing 10/646,852 ADAMS 102(e)/103(a) KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP EXAMINER WONG, LESLIE A
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Knighton et al 10/911,783 JEFFERY 1o3(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER PANNALA, SATHYANARAYA R

2185 Ex Parte Stevens 10/956,840 COURTENAY 112(2)/112(1)/102(b)/103(a) RSW IP Law IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V
REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2883 CORNING, INC. Requestor v. VIRGINIA TECH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,215 7,567,742 EASTHOM 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) BLANK ROME LLP Third Party Requester: Nixon Peabody LLP EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER HEALY, BRIAN

EXAMINER AFFIRMED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1753 Ex parte TRONOX, LLC Appellant and Patent Owner 90/006,955 6,638,401 DELMENDO 305/112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) WILMERHALE/BOSTON EXAMINER DIAMOND, ALAN D C Clark Dougherty Jr McAfee & Taft original EXAMINER PHASGE, ARUN S

In claim drafting, “[t]he use of the word ‘about,’ avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.” Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, “[i]ts range must be interpreted in its technologic and stylistic context.” Id.
AFFIRMED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1724 Ex Parte Rich et al 10/760,464 GUEST 103(a) VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte Bailey et al 11/344,930 DANG 102(b) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER CHANG, SUNRAY

NEW

REVERSED

3771 Ex Parte Knepper 11/035,124 BAHR 102(e) FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP EXAMINER DEMILLE, DANTON D

AFFIRMED

2164 Ex Parte Hoth et al 11/106,412 ROBERTSON 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER HOTELLING, HAROLD A

2441 Ex Parte Issa 10/927,291 NAPPI 103(a) FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova EXAMINER HIGA, BRENDAN Y

2161 Ex Parte Khan et al 10/814,365 MORGAN 103(a) GOOGLE / FENWICK EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L

2838 Ex Parte Lomax et al 11/184,634 RUGGIERO 102(b)/103(a) FOGG & POWERS LLC EXAMINER LAXTON, GARY L

2191 Ex Parte Opaterny 10/768,732 ZECHER 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER
CHEN, QING

3694 Ex Parte Trivedi 10/097,866 FETTING 103(a) VERIZON EXAMINER MONFELDT, SARAH M

REHEARING DENIED

3685 Ex Parte Obrea et al 11/142,619 FETTING 102 PITNEY BOWES INC. EXAMINER HUANG, TSAN-YU J

REMANDED

1781 Ex Parte Coleman et al 11/250,425 BARTLETT reply brief not considered FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER BEKKER, KELLY JO

DISMISSED

1611 Ex Parte Pinna et al 11/289,474 JORDAN abandoned OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER ORWIG, KEVIN S