REVERSED

2400 Communications
Ex Parte Babu et al SIU 102(b)/112(1) IBM CORPORATION

Although the statute does not say so, enablement requires that the specification teach those in the art to make and use the invention without “undue experimentation.” In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Whether undue experimentation is required is a conclusion reached by weighing several underlying factual inquiries. Id.

“A patent need not disclose what is well-known in the art.” Wands, 858 F.2d at 735.

Wands, In re, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . .706.03(a), 706.03(b), 2164.01, 2164.01(a), 2164.06, 2164.06(b)

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte Nelson et al KERINS 102(b)/103(a) PERKINS COIE LLP/SEMITOOL

Ex Parte Zhang et al GRIMES 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting HOLLINGSWORTH & FUNK

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Pandipati NAPPI 102(e) MATTINGLY, STANGER, MALUR & BRUNDIDGE, P.C.

Ex Parte Del Prado Pavon et al HAIRSTON 102(e)/103(a) PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Micko NAPPI 102(b)/103(a) ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES

"[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.’" In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

Cruciferous Sprout Litig., In re, 301 F.3d 1343, 64 USPQ2d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . 2111.02