howmedica, ventana, Phillips

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Bello et al 13306570 - (D) SMITH 103 Greenberg Traurig, LLP LIANG, ANTHONY M

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2465 Ex Parte Irnich et al 14110365 - (D) CRAIG 103 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson HOUSHMAND, HOOMAN

2486 Ex Parte TRUDEAU et al 14609324 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 IP-MEX Inc. CHIO, TAT CHI

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2856 Ex Parte Bevot et al 13704650 - (D) TIMM 102/103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch) PHAN, TRUONG D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Gough 12316604 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY PASCHALL, MARK H

3752 Ex Parte RETZLOFF et al 14190861 - (D) STAICOVICI 102 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. KIM, CHRISTOPHER S

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte Okabe et al 12367581 - (D) HANLON 103 HOWSON & HOWSON LLP HEVEY, JOHN A

1787 Ex Parte Takeda et al 13809279 - (D) HANLON 103 BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP FUNG, CHING-YIU

Appellants do not provide any persuasive reasoning or evidence that such an upper surface as depicted in Matsuda that includes tabs is not encompassed by the claim language. For example only, Appellants have not recited that the upper surface is planar and exclusive of any projections/tabs. Cf. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (declining to impute a limitation into a disputed claim term in the absence of a clear requirement in the specification, even where “every disclosure of [the disputed term] in the specification shows [the alleged limitation]”); see also Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. BiogenexLabs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he mere fact that the [asserted] patent discloses [only certain] embodiments . . . does not in and of itself mean that the method claims at issue are limited to the disclosed embodiments.”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[W]e have expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.”).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 2111 , 2111.01 , 2143.01 , 2258

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2665 Ex Parte Meinel 13813232 - (D) NAPPI 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS SCHWARTZ, RAPHAEL M

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2833 Ex Parte Takahashi et al 14369038 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 OSHA LIANG L.L.P.2833 SAEED, AHMED M

2864 Ex Parte Vandermeijden 13101915 - (D) OWENS 101/102 Osha Liang LLP/Synaptics SUGLO, JANET L

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3695 Ex Parte Clayton et al 12620875 - (D) THOMAS 101 MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. OYEBISI, OJO O

3696 Ex Parte Carlson et al 14203382 - (D) HUTCHINGS 101 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP/VISA CHANG, EDWARD

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3665 Ex Parte CHOU 13158310 - (R) CUTITTA 101 Ledell Ansari, LLP SHAAWAT, MUSSA A

moncla, broadcom, ventana, martek, arlington, curtiss-wright, Phillips, ngai, king

REVERSED

1735 Ex Parte Ozkan et al 11/410,267 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP EXAMINER POLYANSKY, ALEXANDER

2111 Ex Parte Fischer et al 10/942,351 NAPPI 102(e)/103(a) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER CLEARY, THOMAS J

2163 Ex Parte Feinberg 11/033,646 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT EXAMINER LEE, WILSON

2187 Ex Parte Kallahalla et al 10/959,536 BARRY 103(a)/non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CYGIEL, GARY W

When all other rejections on appeal have been reversed, and the only remaining rejection is a provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, it is premature to address the provisional rejection. Ex Parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1648 Ex Parte Wolff et al 11/828,272 GRIMES 102(b)/112(1) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. EXAMINER PARKIN, JEFFREY S

1731 Ex Parte Wanninger et al 10/058,832 GAUDETTE 102(b)/103(a) VENABLE LLP EXAMINER FELTON, AILEEN BAKER

“[E]ach claim does not necessarily cover every feature disclosed in the specification. When the claim addresses only some of the features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the claim to other, unclaimed features.” Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 689 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenex Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see also, Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[E]ven where a patent describes only a single embodiment, claims will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words of expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.”). Substantive differences between the claims “can be a ‘useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.’” Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. 632 F.3d 1246, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also, Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[C]laim differentiation takes on relevance in the context of a claim construction that would render additional, or different, language in another independent claim superfluous.”).

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258

3623 Ex Parte Schroeder et al 10/302,406 KIM 102(b)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER BOSWELL, BETH V

3654 Ex Parte Szentistvany 10/524,122 BARRETT 103(a) Larson & Anderson, LLC EXAMINER KRUER, STEFAN

3738 Ex Parte McCarthy et al 11/106,421 GREENHUT 102(e)/103(a) EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION EXAMINER MILLER, CHERYL L
AFFIRMED

1736 Ex Parte Jones et al 10/582,593 GAUDETTE 103(a) Albemarle Netherlands B.V. EXAMINER WALCK, BRIAN D

2128 Ex Parte Ould-Brahim 10/747,967 HUGHES 102(e)/102(b) RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP EXAMINER SILVER, DAVID

2617 Ex Parte Stephens 10/875,753 NAPPI 103(a) Thorpe North & Western LLP c/o CPA Global EXAMINER BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M

3761 Ex Parte Long et al 11/511,573 GREENHUT 102(b) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. EXAMINER KIDWELL, MICHELE M

First, Appellants are not entitled to patent a known product by simply attaching a set of instructions to that product. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); See also, King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Ngai, In re, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 2106.01, 2112.01