Ex Parte Fan 10642852 NAGUMO 103(a) GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE
Ex Parte Fischer et al 10445146 TIMM 103(a) BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P.
Ex Parte Gartland et al 10956440 TIMM 102(b)/103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
Ex Parte Ohtani et al 10946072 COLAIANNI nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Chen et al 10612542 HUGHES 101 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP
Thus, we find that Appellants’ claimed tangible machine readable media does not implicate a non-statutory carrier wave or a signal modulated by a carrier over a transmission medium. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357; Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).
Nuitjen, In re, Docket No. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2106
Ex Parte Djugash et al 10901591 SIU 102(e) IBM CORPORATION
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte REINMULLER 08732408 STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Frippiat et al 10182064 GRIMES 103(a) HAYES SOLOWAY P.C.
Ex Parte Itoh et al 10214371 SCHEINER 102(b)/103(a)/112(2) BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Chou et al 11157895 McKELVEY 102(e)/102(b)/103(a)/obviousness-type double patenting 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 (b) E.I. duPONT de NEMOURS AND COMPANY
Ex Parte Simmons 10870608 HANLON 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C.
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Jung et al 10385464 HUGHES 101/112(1)/132(a)/102(b) North Star Intellectual Property Law, PC
(“a rejection of an amended claim under § 132 is equivalent to a rejection under § 112, first paragraph”) (quoting In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214 (CCPA 1981)); see also Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc. , 363 F.3d 1247, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The written description requirement prevents applicants from . . . . add[ing] new matter to their disclosures . . . defeating an accurate accounting of the priority of invention. See 35 U.S.C. 132.”)
Rasmussen, In re, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . 706.03(o), 1504.04, 2163, 2163.01, 2163.04, 2163.05, 2163.06
Chiron v. Corp. v. Genentech Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 70 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.03, 2164.05(a)
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Quine 10650511 MARTIN 103(a) Pitney Bowes Inc.
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Haskell et al 10252972 FETTING 112(2)/103(a) Siemens Corporation
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Khosravi et al 10461106 STAICOVICI 102(e)/103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A.
Although the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim under consideration must be consistent with the specification, we must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . 2111.01
E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 67 USPQ2d 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2106, 2111.01
Ex Parte Sun et al 10279769 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Ex Parte Zawilinski et al 10930329 MEDLEY 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
