Playtex, york prod., amhil

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Sullivan et al 11598113 - (D) HORVATH 103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP MURPHY, CHARLES C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3692 Ex Parte Smyers et al 12112875 - (D) WORTH 103 Sony Corp of America - EVS LOFTUS, ANN E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Auchter et al 11791991 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. DUONG, THO V

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte Altshuler et al 11796501 - (D) DANIELS 103/112(2) 103 Kenneth Altshuler BRESLIN, DANIEL J

The Examiner has the better position here, determining that the word “essentially” modifies the entire phrase including the word “surrounds.” It is well settled that “words of approximation, such as ‘generally’ and ‘substantially,’ are descriptive terms ‘commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.” Playtex Products, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble  Co., 400 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2005) citations omitted.
...
“Substantially” is often used to mean largely but not wholly what is specified. See, e.g., York Products, Inc., v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996); See also Amhil Enterprises Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d, 1554, 1562, (Fed. Cir. 1996).

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2181

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1726 Ex Parte Inoue et al 11883808 - (D) McSHANE 103 KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP MOHADDES, LADAN

1775 Ex Parte Bynum et al 12362375 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of: CPA Global BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2117 Ex Parte Belady et al 11414852 - (D) COURTENAY 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY GANDHI, DIPAKKUMAR B

2123 Ex Parte Schirmer et al 10335260 - (D) FINK 112/102/103 IBM Lotus & Rational SW c/o Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP OSBORNE, LUKE R

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2621 Ex Parte Li et al 11833256 - (D) BUI 103 Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg/SBP 54000 BUKOWSKI, KENNETH

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte KITAGAWA et al 12717750 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP HAGAN, SEAN P

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Hubert 12589120 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 KAREN TANG-WAI SUTTON TILLMAN, JR, REGINALD S

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Shiao et al 12059194 - (R) HASTINGS 102/103 PAUL AND PAUL VAN SELL, NATHAN L

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2621 NINTENDO CO., LTD, Requester, v. MOTIVA, LLC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 7292151 et al 11/187,373 95000540 - (D) COCKS 102 102/103 STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(f) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y

york prod.

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2167 Ex Parte Root et al 10965088 - (D) CALVE 103 BLANK ROME LLP ARJOMANDI, NOOSHA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3656 Ex Parte Hoffmann et al 10567882 - (D) ASTORINO 103 CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP DIAZ, THOMAS C

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Stanchfield et al 11984091 - (D) KERINS 103 102/103 Pergo LLC Jenkins, Wilson, Taylor & Hunt, P.A. GILBERT, WILLIAM V

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Eichhorn et al 10552555 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY LEE, LAURA MICHELLE

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Walls et al 11067980 - (D) SPAHN 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY CHACKO, JOE

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Greywall 12144191 - (D) WARREN 102/103 MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & DUNLEAVY, P.C. TRAN, THANH Y

Indeed, as the Examiner points out, the term “substantially” coupled with the term “encloses” plainly “means: ‘not completely enclosed.”’ Ans. 11. See, e.g., York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“In this case, the patent discloses no novel use of claim words. Ordinarily, therefore, ‘substantially’ means ‘considerable in . . . extent,’ American Heritage Dictionary Second College Edition 1213 (2d ed. 1982), or ‘largely but not wholly that which is specified,’ Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1176 (9th ed. 1983).”).

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2181

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
2301 Ex parte WEBVENTION GROUP LLC, Owner and Appellant 90011948 5,251,294 07/476,931 POTHIER 102/103 Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP WORJLOH, JALATEE original HERNDON, HEATHER R

anchor wall, deering, laryngeal, michalek, reid, york prod.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Shanley et al 11582818 - (D) SNEDDEN 102/103 Dergosits & Noah LLP STEWART, JASON-DENNIS NEILKEN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Aichelen et al 11383000 - (D) BUSCH 102 102/103 IBM CORPORATION STREETS & STEELE PATEL, JIGAR P

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2658 Ex Parte Said et al 10686127 - (D) WARD 103 103 BANIAK PINE & GANNON BORSETTI, GREG

see also Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu A/S, 618 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted) (concluding the patentee did not act as his own lexicographer because “[t]o be his own lexicographer, a patentee must use a ‘special definition of the term [that] is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history’”).

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Krueger et al 12023165 - (D) BROWN 103 103 HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP SMALLEY, JAMES N

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2736 Ex Parte SE-KURE CONTROLS, INC. Appellant 90011404 5,861,807 08/967,729 FITZPATRICK 102 102/103 WOOD PHILLIPS VAN SANTEN CLARK & MORTIMER LEUNG, CHRISTINA Y original MULLEN, THOMAS J

See, e.g., York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“The term ‘substantially’ has been construed in patent claims as ‘largely but not wholly that which is specified.’”) (quoting Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1176 (9th ed. 1983)); Deering Precision Instruments, L.L.C. v. Vector Distribution Systems, Inc., 347 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The term ‘substantially’ can also mean ‘largely’ or ‘essentially.’”) (quoting Webster’s New 20th Century Dictionary 1817 (1983)); cf. Anchor Wall Systems, Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the phrase ‘generally parallel’ envisions some amount of deviation from exactly parallel”).

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2181 

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Francois et al 10585754 - (D) SCHEINER 103 ELI LILLY & COMPANY MILLIGAN, ADAM C

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Smith et al 10787624 - (D) FRAHM 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. MANOSKEY, JOSEPH D

2117 Ex Parte Dietrich et al 10404783 - (D) STRAUSS 102/103 CPA Global Caven & Aghevli LLC NGUYEN, STEVE N

2156 Ex Parte Rastegar et al 11520320 - (D) SMITH 103 Thomas Spinelli, Esq. LIAO, JASON G

2169 Ex Parte Osofsky et al 11191332 - (D) SMITH 103 IBM LOTUS & RATIONAL SW c/o GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ CHAU, DUNG K

2171 Ex Parte Resner et al 11149929 - (D) DILLON 103 Charles G. Call PAN, YONGJIA

2421 Ex Parte Pugel et al 10549253 - (D) WARD 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC HANCE, ROBERT J

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Barraclough et al 09740263 - (D) WEINBERG 112(1)/103 CRAWFORD MAUNU PLLC HOSSAIN, FARZANA E

2435 Ex Parte MacKenzie 10600687 - (D) BENOIT 103 Ryan, Mason, & Lewis, LLP TO, BAOTRAN N

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2679 Ex Parte Kerr et al 10161514 - (D) HOFF 103 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY PRENDERGAST, ROBERTA D

2684 Ex Parte Ahmed et al 10952236 - (D) McKEOWN 103 Siemens Corporation BLOUNT, ERIC

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Fukui 10925986 - (D) DILLON 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH NADAV, ORI

The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight.

In re Michalek, 162 F. 2d 229 - Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1947

Michalek, In re, 162 F.2d 229, 74 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1947) 716.07

Application of Reid, 179 F. 2d 998 - Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1950

Reid, In re, 179 F.2d 998, 84 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1950) 716.07

Tech Center 3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1501 Ex parte SOLTA MEDICAL, INC. 90010160 5660836 08/435,544 LEBOVITZ 102/103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP JONES, DWAYNE C original HULINA, AMY

1712 Ex parte SOLTA MEDICAL, INC. 90010161 6,387,380 08/635,202 LEBOVITZ 102/103 WOOD , HERRON & EVANS, LLP (SOLTA) JONES, DWAYNE C original HULINA, AMY

tec air, amhil, asahi/america, bell and howell, roton barrier, york prod.

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Hong et al 10439856 - (D) WALSH 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Kamleiter et al 10582349 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/102/103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. MENON, KRISHNAN S

1786 Ex Parte Schindzielorz et al 10834990 - (D) SMITH 112(2)/103/obviousness-type double patenting FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP SINGH-PANDEY, ARTI R

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Dutt et al 10655346 - (D) ARPIN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 Oracle (Sun) MHKKG CHOU, ALAN S

Where a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious. See Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2634 Ex Parte Van Houdt et al 10538576 - (D) McNAMARA 102/103 NXP B.V. Intellectual Property and Licensing BOCURE, TESFALDET

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3635 Ex Parte Kelly 10940267 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) CANTOR COLBURN LLP PAINTER, BRANON C

3644 Ex Parte Zubkow et al 11531591 - (D) FLOYD 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG BONZELL, PHILIP J

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Feygin et al 10807016 - (D) BAHR 112(2)/103 Kaplan Breyer Schwarz & Ottesen, LLP FRISBY, KESHA

3721 Ex Parte Smashey 10371005 - (D) SPAHN 103 MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA

In addition, we note that the word “substantially” is often used to mean largely but not wholly what is specified. See, e.g., York Products, Inc., v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also, Amhil Enterprises Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d, 1554, 1562, (Fed. Cir. 1996).

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 2181

3738 Ex Parte Ernsberger 11702303 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 .MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP HOBAN, MELISSA A

3768 Ex Parte Mahajan et al 11198561 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP WEATHERBY, ELLSWORTH

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1627 Ex Parte Beilfuss et al 11288665 - (D) GREEN 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102/103 YOUNG & THOMPSON MCMILLIAN, KARA RENITA

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2644 Ex Parte Karabinis 11291192 - (D) McNAMARA 103 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC HUYNH, CHUCK

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3616 Ex Parte Vigeant et al 12021514 - (D) KAMHOLZ 102 102 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. CULBRETH, ERIC D

3644 Ex Parte Dunn et al 10757109 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 102/103 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT ABBOTT, YVONNE RENEE

3676 Ex Parte McGlothen et al 11458173 - (D) GROSSMAN 103 112(2) SMITH IP SERVICES, P.C. FULLER, ROBERT EDWARD

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Oh 11786854 - (D) PLENZLER 103 103 Imperium Patent Works CHEUNG, CHUN HOI

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Sheskey et al 10485655 - (D) FRANKLIN 103/obviousness-type double patenting The Dow Chemical Company FISHER, ABIGAIL L

1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11900637 - (D) PRAISS concurring McKELVEY 103/obviousness-type double patenting THE INVENTION SCIENCE FUND CLARENCE T. TEGREENE WHALEY, PABLO S

1644 Ex Parte Hubbell et al 12563201 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/102 DARDI & HERBERT, PLLC HADDAD, MAHER M

1651 Ex Parte Atala et al 11048097 - (D) JENKS 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN

1654 Ex Parte Rauschkolb-Loffler et al 11089441 - (D) FRANKLIN 102/103/obviousness-type double patenting HARNESS, DICKEY, & PIERCE, P.L.C BRADLEY, CHRISTINA

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Galligan et al 12338802 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/103 BASF CORPORATION LI, JUN

1747 Ex Parte Woessner et al 10501591 - (D) WARREN 112(1)/103 Carlson Gaskey & Olds Karin H Butchko ROGERS, MARTIN K

1787 Ex Parte Li et al 11360547 - (D) PAK 112(1) 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP - SABIC EXATEC FREEMAN, JOHN D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte McClure et al 12002081 - (D) POTHIER 103 MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC TSAI, SHENG JEN

That is, these paragraphs are conclusory, failing to show with factual evidence the claimed method and product actually existed and worked for its intended purpose. See In re Asahi/America, Inc., 68 F.3d 442, 445 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

Asahi/America Inc., In re, 68 F.3d 442, 37 USPQ2d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 715.07

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Karaoguz et al 10675468 - (D) DIXON 103 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) RYAN, PATRICK A

2456 Ex Parte Li 11133755 - (D) MORGAN 103 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP BARQADLE, YASIN M

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2646 Ex Parte Feder et al 11094432 - (D) STEPHENS 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. RAMPURIA, SHARAD K

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Burnstein 11858121 - (D) PLENZLER 112(2)/103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC JUNGE, KRISTINA N S

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Sweet et al 10608587 - (D) KOHUT 103 Hoffmann & Baron, LLP HILLERY, NATHAN

See Bell & Howell Document Management v. AltekSys., 132 F.3d 701, 706 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The testimony of an inventor and his attorney concerning claim construction is thus entitled to little or no consideration. The testimony of an inventor is often a self-serving, after-the-fact attempt to state what should have been part of his or her patent application ....”); Roton Barrier, Inc. v. Stanley Works, 79 F.3d 1112, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“We have previously stated than an inventor's ‘after-the-fact testimony is of little weight compared to the clear import of the patent disclosure itself.’” (citation omitted)).

3771 Ex Parte Robertson et al 11057727 - (D) BONILLA 102/103 Charles Livingston YU, JUSTINE ROMANG

3781 Ex Parte Beckstead 11389295 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 DON E. ERICKSON MCKINLEY, CHRISTOPHER BRIAN  

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2652 Ex Parte Creamer et al 10730330 - (D) SAADAT 102/103 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O'KEEFE, LLP ADDY, THJUAN KNOWLIN

york products

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Halleriet et al 10/915,980 KRATZ 103(a) PHILIP S. JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXAMINER SELLMAN, CACHET I

1741 Ex Parte Meyer et al 11/398,261 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C. EXAMINER SZEWCZYK, CYNTHIA

1773 Ex Parte Duerr 10/848,396 KRATZ 103(a) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH EXAMINER ALEXANDER, LYLE
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Verma et al 10/875,726 PETRAVICK 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. EXAMINER GOLDMAN, MICHAEL H
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Schmaling et al 11/292,647 GREENHUT 103(a) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. EXAMINER EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3686 Ex Parte Schoenberg 10/825,352 FETTING 112(2)/103(a) 103(a) King & Spalding LLP (Trizetto Customer Number) EXAMINER KOPPIKAR, VIVEK D
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Gross et al 10/100,231 KAUFFMAN 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) 112(2) AMO / Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP EXAMINER SHAY, DAVID M

The term “substantially” is often construed in patent claims as “largely but not wholly that which is specified.” See, e.g., York Products, Inc., v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . .2181

AFFIRMED

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Ujazdowski et al 11/095,976 DANG 103(a) Cymer Inc./MPG, LLP EXAMINER
HAGAN, SEAN P

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3747 Ex Parte O'FLYNN et al 12/016,500 GREENHUT 103(a) Jerome R. Drouillard EXAMINER HAMAOUI, DAVID E

fracalossi, seattle box, york prod., ngai, kohler, mills, bozek, boe

REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1767 Ex Parte Alzer et al 11/341,253 SCHEINER 103(a) FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG EXAMINER PEPITONE, MICHAEL F

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2443 Ex Parte Lo 11/047,057 DIXON 102(e)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER
SHIN, KYUNG H

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Hild et al 10/775,601 O’NEILL 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER TAWFIK, SAMEH

3723 Ex Parte Emami et al 11/063,653 O’NEILL 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX EXAMINER GRANT, ALVIN J

3761 Ex Parte Fields 11/124,337 SPAHN 103(a) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP EXAMINER
CHAPMAN, GINGER T

3729 Ex Parte Nishii et al 10/517,445 O’NEILL 103(a) WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P. EXAMINER NGUYEN, DONGHAI D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Uhlemann 11/039,392 KOHUT 103(a) 103(a) Eschweiler & Associates (Lantiq) EXAMINER ZHOU, YONG

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Walker et al 09/939,239 McCARTHY 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER DESANTO, MATTHEW F

In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982)(evidence sufficient to establish lack of novelty also establishes a prima facie case of obviousness)
AFFIRMED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Ramberg et al 10/934,064 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER IQBAL, NADEEM

2184 Ex Parte Von Stein et al 10/532,666 JEFFERY 103(a) BACON & THOMAS, PLLC EXAMINER MAMO, ELIAS

2188 Ex Parte Bonola 10/980,538 DANG 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER CHERY, MARDOCHEE

2829 Ex Parte Krieger et al 11/078,873 MACDONALD 102(b) SPANSION LLC C/O MURABITO , HAO & BARNES LLP EXAMINER TRAN, LONG K

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2895 Ex Parte Lin et al 10/274,961 BROCKETTI 102(a)/103(a) HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP EXAMINER WOJCIECHOWICZ, EDWARD JOSEPH

Appellants‟ claim language uses the phrase “substantially aligned”. “When a word of degree is used [it is necessary to] determine whether the… specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” See Seattle Box Co.. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We find that nothing in Appellants‟ Specification, except for Appellants‟ own drawings, for providing some standard for measuring that degree. Therefore, we construe the term “substantially aligned” as “substantially” is often construed in patent claims as “largely but not wholly that which is specified.” See York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .2173.05(b)

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . .2181

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3657 Ex Parte Masterson et al 10/334,548 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY EXAMINER NGUYEN, VU Q

3671 Ex Parte Kroening 11/029,163 O’NEILL 103(a) 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) ROBERT PLATT BELL EXAMINER HARTMANN, GARY S

Printed matter may patentably distinguish a claimed invention from the prior art when the critical question of whether there is a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate is answered in the affirmative. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To show a new and unobvious functional relationship, it has to be shown that the printed matter would not achieve its purpose without the substrate and the substrate without the printed matter would similarly be unable to produce the desired result. Id. at 1339.

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

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Wan 11/183,354 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER NEWAY, BLAINE GIRMA
REHEARING

GRANTED, 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Ohki 11/118,385 OWENS 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) McDermott Will & Emery LLP EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

Murakami is not limited to its preferred embodiments. See In re Kohler, 475 F.2d 651, 653 (CCPA 1973); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Instead, all disclosures therein must be evaluated for what they would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966).

DENIED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Aurenz 11/140,398 BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER HEFFINGTON, JOHN M

york prod., anchor wall

REVERSED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3664 Ex Parte Needelman et al 11/028,094 BAHR 102(b) OSTRAGER CHONG FLAHERTY & BROITMAN, P.C. EXAMINER PECHE, JORGE O

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Davis et al 10/787,641 DIXON 103(a) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW EXAMINER KEATON, SHERROD L

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1623 Ex Parte Antrim et al 10/874,686 MILLS 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY EXAMINER BLAND, LAYLA D
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Clark et al 11/077,330 JEFFERY 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER VU, TRISHA U

2161 Ex Parte Kelley et al 10/624,085 JEFFERY 103(a) Perkins Coie LLP EXAMINER LU, CHARLES EDWARD

2183 Ex Parte Alexander et al 10/835,105 BARRY 112(1)/102(b)/103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) IBM CORP (YA) EXAMINER PETRANEK, JACOB ANDREW
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Symons et al 09/971,857 HAHN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3727 Ex Parte Schroder 11/657,677 BARRETT 103(a) DILLON & YUDELL LLP EXAMINER MEISLIN, DEBRA S

3734 Ex Parte Pavich et al 11/106,094 O’NEILL 103(a) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP EXAMINER BLATT, ERIC D

We note that the word “substantially” is often construed in patent claims as “largely but not wholly that which is specified.” See York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996). ... In addition, we note that use of words of approximation, such as “substantially,” in a patent claim implies the avoidance of a strict numerical boundary of the specified parameter. See Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996), 2181