REVERSED

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Duescher SMITH 102(b)/103(a) MARK A. LITMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Denda et al LUCAS 103(a) ARENT FOX KINTNER PLOTKIN & KAHN, PLLC

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Niederdraenk et al BAUMEISTER 103(a) SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Eubanks et al LEE 102(b) DEERE & COMPANY

Ex Parte Herline et al HORNER 102(b)/103(a) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte McNutt et al LEBOVITZ 102(e)/103(a) ROPES & GRAY LLP

A claim limitation is inherent in the prior art if it is necessarily present in
the prior art, not merely probably or possibly present. Rosco v. Mirror Lite,
304 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “[T]he dispositive question regarding
anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or
infer from the prior art reference's teaching that every claim [limitation] was
disclosed in that single reference.” Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment,
Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and
alterations omitted).

Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Services Inc., 344 F3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 66 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . .. . . .2004

Ex Parte Mertelmeier et al LANE 103(a) Young & Thompson

Ex Parte Hung et al WALSH 103(a) CYTYC CORPORATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ibar TIMM 102(b)/103(a) LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP F. FOX

See In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[W]hen the prior art evidence reasonably allows the PTO to conclude that a claimed feature is present in the prior art, the evidence ‘compels such a conclusion if the applicant produces no evidence or argument to rebut it.’”) (quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 n.3

Crish, In re, 393 F.3d 1253, 73 USPQ2d1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . .2111.03, 2112
Spada, In re, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112.01

Ex Parte Stewart et al TIMM 102(e) MICHAEL O. SCHEINBERG

Claim interpretation is a matter of law and will normally control the remainder of the decisional process. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987). It is well settled that the word “substantially” has numerous ordinary meanings. It can be a term of approximation or a term of magnitude with meaning varying from “significantly” or “considerably” to “largely” or “essentially.” Deering Precision Instruments L.L.C. v. Vector Distribution Sys. Inc., 347 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2003). When “substantially” is used as a word of degree, one must look to the Specification to determine a standard for measuring that degree. See Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“When a word of degree is used the district court must determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.”).

Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 227 USPQ 337 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . 716.06, 1504.03, 2134

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

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Dykes et al THOMAS 102(e) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM)

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Haines et al HAIRSTON 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

To establish inherency, the evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is “necessarily present” in the thing described in the reference. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Shepardson PATE, III 103(a) HOLLAND & HART, LLP

Two structures may be “equivalent” for purposes of section 112, paragraph 6 if they perform the identical function, in substantially the same way, with substantially the same result. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Kemco Sales Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . .2106, 2183, 2184

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Johnson et al PRATS 102(b)/103(a) CROMPTON, SEAGER & TUFTE, LLC

“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

Also, “‘[f]unctional’ terminology may render a claim quite broad . . .[;] 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) (emphasis added).

Swinehart, In re, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . .2114, 2173.01, 2173.05(g), 2183

Ex Parte Toye et al KERINS 103(a) VERMETTE & CO.