REVERSED

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Goodwin et al SIU 103(a) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP

Ex Parte Abajian et al COURTENAY 102(e) PERKINS COIE LLP

We conclude that the Examiner’s overly broad interpretation is unreasonable because it ignores specific positively-recited claim limitations. Cf. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations . . . .”) (citations omitted, emphasis added).

Van Geuns, In re, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . . . .707.07(f) , 2145

The Examiner appears to be focusing on the “enhancing” element in isolation and is ignoring the context of the claim as a whole. However, claim terms are not to be interpreted in a vacuum, devoid of the context of the claim as a whole. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“proper claim construction ... demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.”); ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“While certain terms may be at the center of the claim construction debate, the context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered . . .”). This discussion buttresses our earlier finding that the Examiner’s overly broad interpretation of the claimed “enhancing” element is unreasonable because it ignores specific positively-recited claim limitations.

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 55 USPQ2d 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2125

ACTV, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 68 USPQ2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte LaSalle BAHR 103(a)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C.

Ex Parte Osborne et al STAICOVICI 102(b) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE

Ex Parte Gochanour SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C.

Ex Parte Pham et al FREDMAN 102(e)/112(1) BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED

This is a situation where the word "parallel" is used ipsis verbis in the Specification (FF 8), even though ipsis verbis support is not required. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We think Appellant has the better argument here, since any person of ordinary skill would recognize that one embodiment of "substantially parallel" is "parallel" itself.

Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 39 USPQ2d 1895 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . 2163, 2163.05

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Vassiliou et al EASTHOM 102(e)/103(a) McANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Bono HORNER Dissenting McCARTHY 112(2)/103(a) PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Pfenniger et al BARRETT 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC