REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2666 Ex Parte Connell 12127099 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP AKHAVANNIK, HADI
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Angell et al 11769409 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. BROWN, ALVIN L
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Harris et al 10529227 - (D) TIMM 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC TURK, NEIL N
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2466 Ex Parte Rokui 11130171 - (D) POTHIER 103 KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. DECKER, CASSANDRA L
2493 Ex Parte Herbach et al 10699520 - (D) BOUCHER 103 Adobe / Finch & Maloney PLLC LE, CHAU D
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2615 Ex Parte Kerestic 12133476 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 FISH & ASSOCIATES, PC ROSEN, ELIZABETH H
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2885 Ex Parte Yokota et al 11235108 - (D) ANDERSON 103 FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP MAY, ROBERT J
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Gatto et al 11616072 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. CHAMPAGNE, LUNA
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that, as a general rule, when an indefinite article, such as “a,” is used with a term in an open-ended claim containing the transitional phrase “comprising,” the article is properly construed to mean “one or more.” See, e.g., Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“It is well settled that the term ‘a’ or ‘an’ ordinarily means ‘one or more.”’); KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
FEDERAL CIRCUIT
VACATED
2306 FRESENIUS USA, INC., AND FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Defendants-Cross Appellants. 2012-1334, -1335 5,247,434 07/688,174 DYK dissent NEWMAN declaratory judgment Fish & Richardson, P.C.; K&L Gates, LLP original KLARQUIST, SPARKMAN, CAMPBELL LEIGH & WHINSTON GORDON, PAUL P
Under the reissue statute, the PTO “had no power to revoke, cancel, or annul” a previously issued patent unless a reissue proceeding had been initiated by the patentee. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. C. Aultman & Co., 169 U.S. 606, 612 (1898); see also Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 601 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In 1980, Congress authorized ex parte reexamination to address this deficiency in the reissue statute. See Patent Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015 (1980) (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. §§ 301–307). Like reissuance, ex parte reexamination is a curative proceeding meant to correct or eliminate erroneously granted patents. See In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Congress subsequently enacted additional provisions authorizing the PTO to conduct inter partes reexaminations, and more recently, inter partes review. See Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (discussing inter partes reexamination and inter partes review); Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 6(a), 125 Stat. 284, 299–304 (2011) (to be codified at 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319).
Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 225 USPQ 243 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2211, 2611
Etter, In re, 756 F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 2242, 2258, 2279, 2286, 2642, 2686.04
Freeman, In re, 30 F.3d 1459, 31 USPQ2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 706.03(w), 2250, 2666.01
