zletz

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2648 Ex Parte Mattisson et al 13503168 - (D) BAIN 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC TSVEY, GENNADIY

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Huggett 10569969 - (D) WIEKER 103 MOORE & VAN AT .TEN PLLC BRADEN, SHAWN M

[T]he words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We agree with Appellant that an appropriate definition of “residual,” in the context of the claim language and in light of Appellant’s Specification, is “remaining.”

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 715 ,   2111 ,   2111.01 ,   2111.03 ,    2138 ,   2171 ,   2173.05(a) ,   2181 ,   2286 ,   2686.04

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1661 Ex Parte Colova 12461805 - (D) FREDMAN 112(2)/103 Smith & Hopen (private clients) PARA, ANNETTE H

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte IMAI 12331944 - (D) AMUNDSON 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. BANTAMOI, ANTHONY

2471 Ex Parte QUIGLEY 13735930 - (D) SHIANG 112(2)/102 double patenting STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. CHOU, ALBERT T

2497 Ex Parte Stewart et al 14295636 - (D) HUME 103/double patenting FOLEY & LARDNER LLP ZARRINEH, SHAHRIAR

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2683 Ex Parte Skaaksrud et al 14445676 - (D) BEAMER 103 WITHERS & KEYS, LLC MCCORMACK, THOMAS S

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3645 Ex Parte HEGNA et al 12806098 - (D) BROWNE 103 101 OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC HULKA, JAMES R

3691 Ex Parte Jenkins et al 13740368 - (D) McSHANE 102 FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER HAMILTON, LALITA M

3695 Ex Parte Brittingham et al 12861658 - (D) SHAH 112(1)/112(2)/103 101 Docket Clerk-GOLD SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY

buszard, paulsen tempo lighting, zletz, bigio

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Andrade et al 12814576 - (D) BEST 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(1) CONNORS ASSOCIATESpc SMITH, CHAIM A

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Vanzante et al 12494993 - (D) HOFF 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SLOMS, NICHOLAS

“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).

Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 2111

Paulsen, In re, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 716.03 , 2114 , 2144.08

2483 Ex Parte Kuo 11393268 - (D) CHUNG 103 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP HOLDER, ANNER N

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2845 Ex Parte Yano 12310825 - (D) KRATZ 103 NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP WIMER, MICHAEL C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Ignatin 11014121 - (D) ASTORINO 112(1)/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. NGUYEN, CHUONG P

3687 Ex Parte Suvernev et al 11155732 - (D) FETTING 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP REFAI, RAMSEY

3689 Ex Parte Victor 11854089 - (D) FETTING 103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. FISHER, PAUL R

3692 Ex Parte Taylor et al 11970170 - (D) LORIN 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. WONG, ERIC TAK WAI

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Sardar et al 10543001 - (D) KERINS 103 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP BRUTUS, JOEL F

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2641 Ex Parte Fry 12144193 - (D) MORGAN 102/103 102/103 GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE,ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C SHAHEED, KHALID W

Appellant’s reliance on this purported prosecution disclaimer is unavailing. “[T]he PTO is under no obligation to accept a claim construction proffered as a prosecution history disclaimer, which generally only binds the patent owner.” Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Rather, the PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation not inconsistent with the remainder of the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[D]uring patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.”) (citations omitted); see also In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (counseling “the PTO to avoid the temptation to limit broad claim terms solely on the basis of specification passages”) (citation omitted). The PTO has been counseled that it “should only limit the claim based on . . . prosecution history [that] expressly disclaim[s] the broader definition.” Id. However, this is a caution against careless reliance on prosecution history by the PTO, not a mandate for the liberal reliance on prosecution disclaimer to allow broadly worded claims to be read narrowly without requiring clarifying amendments to the claims or to the Specification.

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 715 ,   2111 ,   2111.01 ,   2111.03 ,    2138 ,   2171 ,   2173.05(a) ,   2181 ,   2286 ,   2686.04

Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2872 Ex Parte Kim 11417132 - (D) DELMENDO 112(1)/103 112(1)/103 LAW OFFICE OF PERRY M. FONSECA, PC LAVARIAS, ARNEL C

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1747 Ex Parte Hampton 12330882 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/103 GIPPLE & HALE ROYSTON, ELIZABETH

1758 Ex Parte Mathai et al 12262147 - (D) WILSON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MEKHLIN, ELI S

1782 Ex Parte Julien et al 11298610 - (D) ROESEL 103 NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP WOOD, ELLEN SUZANNE

1783 Ex Parte SCHMIDT et al 12854686 - (D) GARRIS 103 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC VAN SELL, NATHAN L

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2159 Ex Parte Bossmeyer et al 12111438 - (D) FISHMAN 103 CROWELL & MORING LLP REYES, MARIELA D

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2423 Ex Parte Nishikawa et al 11938660 - (D) MORGAN 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN CHIN, RICKY

2425 Ex Parte Santangelo et al 10970429 - (D) DANG 103 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC STRONCZER, RYAN S

2435 Ex Parte Yeap et al 11002077 - (D) CHUNG 103 GOWLING, LAFLEUR & HENDERSON LLP PALIWAL, YOGESH

2452 Ex Parte Yu 11972030 - (D) SAADAT 103 YEE & ASSOCIATES PC IBM CORP (YA) WIDHALM, ANGELA M

2456 Ex Parte Parsons 11225936 - (D) KRIVAK 103 Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC CHACKO, JOE

2475 Ex Parte Fleury et al 11327699 - (D) BENOIT 103 MYERS WOLIN, LLC PREVAL, LIONEL

2492 Ex Parte Fedronic et al 10218665 - (D) NAPPI 103 Muirhead and Saturnelli, LLC PAN, PEILIANG

2493 Ex Parte Borghetti et al 12348389 - (D) STRAUSS 101/103 WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. IBM CORP. (WIP) LESNIEWSKI, VICTOR D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2695 Ex Parte Anzai et al 11907186 - (D) SAADAT 103 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P. WATKO, JULIE ANNE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Michaud et al 12573598 - (D) MOORE 103 BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP C/O CPA Global ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E

3645 Ex Parte Tenghamn et al 12151314 - (D) KERINS 103 Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. MURPHY, DANIEL L

3657 Ex Parte Knappe et al 10512705 - (D) HOELTER 103 Striker Striker & Stenby BURCH, MELODY M

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Delfini et al 12341360 - (D) McGRAW 112(1) 103 STRIKER, STRIKER & STENBY ALIE, GHASSEM

3725 Ex Parte BUTTERFIELD et al 12487295 - (D) WOODS 102/103 Prass LLP KATCOFF, MATTHEW GORDON

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 BIODELIVERY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Requester and Cross Appellant v. MONOSOL RX, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7897080 et al 12/614,928 95002170 - (D) GUEST 112(1)/112(2)/103 37 CFR 41.77(b) 112(1)/112(2) Hoffmann & Baron LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: McCarter & English, LLP DIAMOND, ALAN D original LEE, EDMUND H

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1791 BIODELIVERY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Requester and Cross Appellant v. MONOSOL RX, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7666337 et al 10/856,176 95002171 - (D) GUEST 112(2) 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP DIAMOND, ALAN D original LEE, EDMUND H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 IBM, SAS, and ALGORITHMICS INC. Requester and Respondent v. INVESTPIC, LLC Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6349291 et al 09/489,364 95001939 - (D) DILLON 102/103 Foster Pepper PLLC Third Party Requester: JONES DAY SAGER, MARK ALAN original FELTEN, DANIEL S

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex parte RPOST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Ex Parte 8275845 et al 13/107,819 90012771 - (D) HUGHES 112(1)/103 Rutan & Tucker, LLP. Third Party Requester: WANG LAW FIRM, INC. DESAI, RACHNA SINGH original TRAN, PHILIP B

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 PSKW, LLC. Third Party Requester TRIALCARD INCORPORATED Patent Owner Ex Parte 7925531 et al 10/098,700 95002029 - (D) BAUMEISTER 102/103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC LEE, CHRISTOPHER E original COBANOGLU, DILEK B

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1752 MACDERMID PRINTING SOLUTIONS LLC Requester and Appellant v. E.I. DUPONT de NEMOURS & CO. Patent Owner and Respondent Ex Parte 6797454 et al 10/069,426 95001962 - (D) GUEST 103 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP DIAMOND, ALAN D original GILLIAM, BARBARA LEE

zletz, garnero

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2184 Ex Parte Dressler et al 13032285 - (D) MCMILLIN 112(1)/103 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. MAMO, ELIAS

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2487 Ex Parte Cordara et al 12308882 - (D) FINK 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP LI, TRACY Y

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2800 Ex Parte Graefe 12260053 - (D) KUMAR 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY LIANG, VEI CHUNG

2837 Ex Parte Florian et al 11916725 - (D) FRANKLIN 103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) ROSENAU, DEREK JOHN

However, the Examiner’s claim interpretation is flawed. Claim 1 requires a “sintered monolithic component”. That is, the plain language of the claim requires that the monolithic body be sintered. Appellants’ Specification discloses, on page 12, that

[t]he component is produced through common sintering of the layers located in the layer stack. This occurs preferably in a single processing step.

We thus interpret the claim in this manner, and note that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s claim interpretation, the claimed phrase of “wherein the piezoelectric layers, the electrode layers, and the absorption layer together form a sintered monolithic component” is properly interpreted as meaning that the “sintered monolithic component” is the piezoelectric layers, the electrode layers, and the absorption layer sintered together. See also In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279 (CCPA 1979) (holding “interbonded by interfusion” to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as “welded,” “intermixed,” “ground in place,” “press fitted,” and “etched” are capable of construction as structural limitations.)

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 715 ,   2111 ,   2111.01 ,   2111.03 ,   2138 ,   2171 ,   2173.05(a) ,   2181 ,   2286 ,   2686.04

Garnero, In re, 412 F.2d 276, 162 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1979) 2113

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Raschke 10933699 - (D) FRAHM 103 103 Siemens Corporation SAXENA, AKASH

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Schmand et al 11532665 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION BRUTUS, JOEL F

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1759 Ex Parte Weibezahn 11858652 - (D) HASTINGS 112(1) 112(2)/102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY VAN, LUAN V

1772 Ex Parte LEFLAIVE et al 12253382 - (D) GARRIS 103 MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. PREGLER, SHARON

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2161 Ex Parte Mueller et al 11322608 - (D) FISHMAN 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP DAYE, CHELCIE L

2165 Ex Parte Weinberg et al 12276009 - (D) BRANCH 103 SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC PEACH, POLINA G

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2637 Ex Parte Ivtsenkov et al 12022982 - (D) FRAHM 112(1)/112(2)/103 112(2) Protective Arms Systems Inc. LEUNG, WAI LUN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3621 Ex Parte Gross 10856579 - (D) FETTING 112(1)/112(2) 112(1)/103 STEVEN VOSEN POUNCIL, DARNELL A

bond, zletz

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2173 Ex Parte Ragan 11959993 - (D) ADAMS 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY BASOM, BLAINE T

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Arling et al 12206181 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) THOMAS, LUCY M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte ARCATI 12256770 - (D) STAICOVICI 102/103 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC CAMPOS, JR, JUAN J

It is well established that during examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, [ ] and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citation and quotations omitted). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 2131 , 2152.02(b) , 2183 , 2184

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989)  715 ,   2111 ,   2111.01 ,   2111.03 ,   2138 ,   2171 ,   2173.05(a) ,   2181 ,   2286 ,   2686.04

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Golijanin et al 11775037 - (D) FREDMAN 103 PATENT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC ROBERT D. GUNDERMAN, JR. GUPTA, VANI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Guo et al 11910680 - (D) ADAMS 103 103 Kite & Key, LLC ST. JUDE MEDICAL, ATRIAL FIBRILLATION DIVISION EISENBERG, REBECCA E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1677 Ex Parte Dunne et al 11899599 - (D) FREDMAN 103 CARDINAL LAW GROUP, LTD Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. LAM, ANN Y

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2128 Ex Parte Boskovic et al 12835055 - (D) NEW 103 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP ALHIJA, SAIF A

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
1502 Ex parte BAYER SCHERING PHARMA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT Appellant Ex Parte 5676968 et al 08/433,557 90012693 - (D) PAULRAJ 103 MILLEN WHITE ZELANO & BRANIGAN RAILEY, JOHNNY F original BROUILLETTE, D GABRIELLE

orthokinetics, Morris, zletz

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Garibaldi et al 11801121 - (D) McCOLLUM 102 Bryan K. Wheelock ITURRALDE, ENRIQUE W

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Harris et al 11112938 - (D) HUGHES 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP RAHIM, MONJUR

2453 Ex Parte Rohani 11280764 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP ESKANDARNIA, ARVIN

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Yokomae et al 11896153 - (D) HANLON 102/103 KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH

2883 Ex Parte Stewart et al 12253196 - (D) GARRIS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH

2893 Ex Parte Utsugi et al 11362652 - (D) TIMM 103 ADAMS & WILKS ULLAH, ELIAS

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Joret et al 11421872 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy PHAM, LINH K

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Berger 11374917 - (D) HOSKINS 103 103 MIRICK, O'CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP PATEL, VINOD D

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Enenkiel 11109725 - (D) HOELTER 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP AHMED, MOHAMMED

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Nolte 11713463 - (D) NAGUMO 103 KAMMER BROWNING PLLC OMAR, AHMED H

2893 Ex Parte Jang et al 11225089 - (D) PRAISS 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP REAMES, MATTHEW L

2895 Ex Parte Juengling 12033799 - (D) TIMM 112(2)/102/103 FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) JUNG, MICHAEL

Appellant argues that a relative term may be definite, citing to Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc. 806 F. 2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We agree with Appellant that relative terms can be definite in some circumstances. However, each case must be evaluated on its own facts. Moreover, we note that the court in Orthokinetics was evaluating the definiteness of a patented claim being litigated in an infringement action. Patented claims are subject to the presumption of validity and definiteness is evaluated under a different standard than claims still subject to prosecution. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986)  2173.02,   2173.05(b)

Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 904.01, 2111, 2111.01, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181

Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989)  715,   2111,   2111.01,   2111.03,   2138,   2171,   2173.05(a), 2181, 2286, 2686.04