REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Porter SCHEINER 103(a) ROBINS & PASTERNAK
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Morrison LUCAS 103(a) JOHN A. MOLNAR, JR. PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION
Ex Parte Bauman et al THOMAS 103(a) UNISYS CORPORATION
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Okada HOFF 102(b) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Rodriguez et al MOHANTY 103(a)/102(e) BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Lee GREEN 112(1)/102(b)/103(a) KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP
The disclosure as originally filed need not provide “in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue,” rather, the disclosure should convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the invention at the time of filing. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Pharmaceutical Co., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Ex Parte Bjerre et al O'NEILL Opinion Dissenting filed by BAHR 103(a) RICHARD R. MICHAUD MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Chaouk et al LEBOVITZ obvious-type double-patenting/102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF COLLEN A. BEARD, LLC]
Ex Parte Bergeron GRIMES 103(a) MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC
In determining whether printed matter imparts patentability to a claimed invention, "the critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983). According to the court in Gulack, "[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Although the printed matter must be considered, in that situation it may not be entitled to patentable weight." Id. at 1385 (footnote omitted).
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Copeland et al SIU 102(e)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION
Ex Parte Shin LUCAS 102(e) SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS, PLLC
"This court has held in a number of decisions that a United States patent speaks for all it discloses as of its filing date, even when used in combination with other references." In re Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924, 925 (CCPA, 1964) (internal citations omitted).
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Slater et al NAGUMO 103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C
Ex Parte Wang et al HANLON 102(b)/103(a) BLANK ROME LLP
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Apps et al KERINS 102(b)/103(a) KONSTANTINE J. DIAMOND
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Cook et al GRIMES 112(1)/112(2)/102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
"‘Functional’ terminology may render a claim quite broad. By its own literal terms a claim employing such language covers any and all embodiments which perform the recited function." In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971).
