REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Keller et al 11/018,678 ROBERTSON 103(a) NAVEL RESEARCH LABORATORY
Examiner Name: YANG, JIE
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lei et al 10/201,367 C. THOMAS 103(a) Steven Fischman Scully, Scott, Murphy & Presser
Examiner Name: PITARO, RYAN F
Ex Parte Palmer et al 10/143,325 SIU 103(a) MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Examiner Name: CHUONG, TRUC T
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and ComponentsEx Parte Lonn 11/741,063 BAUMEISTER 103(a)/112(1) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
Examiner Name: LE, JOHN H
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Tkaczyk et al 10/065,159 CRAWFORD 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI) C/O FLETCHER YODER
Examiner Name: NGUYEN, TRAN N
[I]t is a canon of claim construction that two distinct claim elements should be given full effect. See Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Adams et al 11/036,421 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN LLP
Examiner Name: SEVERSON, RYAN J
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Faries, et al 10/016,128 PATE III 112(1)/103(a) EPSTEIN, EDELL, SHAPIRO, FINNAN & LYTLE, LLC
Examiner Name: WITCZAK, CATHERINE
“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).
Sneed, In re, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1445, 2145
There is no legally recognizable essential gist or heart of the invention. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). All words in a claim must be considered in judging the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970).
W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). . . . 2132, 2133.03(a), 2133.03(c), 2141.01, 2141.02, 2144.08, 2164.08, 2165.04, 2173.05(b)
Wilson, In re, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, (CCPA 1970).. . . . . . . . . . . .2143.03, 2173.06
Ex Parte Harris et al 10/773,121 PATE III 103(a) SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A.
Examiner Name: ALTER, ALYSSA MARGO
Ex Parte Lind et al 10/643,189 PATE III 102(e)/103(a) Multimedia Games Inc
Examiner Name: VO, PETER DUNG BA
Ex Parte Salahieh et al 10/746,280 PATE III 102(b) SHAY GLENN LLP
Examiner Name: PREBILIC, PAUL B
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2316
Ex parte USDATA PATENT HOLDINGS, L.L.C. 90/010,101 5,325,522 TORCZON 102(e)/102(a)/103(a) Charles D. Huston, DAFFER McDANIEL LLP, of Austin, Texas, for the appellant. hird party requestor: WILLIAM J. ZYCHLEWICZ ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP
Examiner Name: BANANKHAH, MAJID A
The standard rule of construction for claims before the Office, even patent claims in a reexamination, requires the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.6 This rule, however, assumes that the applicant or patentee has a mechanism for amending the claim. When a patent undergoing reexamination has expired, its claims may no longer be amended so the standard rule no longer applies. Instead, the "liberal (i.e., narrow) construction" used in invalidity proceedings is appropriate.7 Even so, under either mode of construction, the plain language of the claim is the primary determinant (consistent with express definitions in the disclosure).8 It is never proper to interpolate limitations from the specification even to preserve validity.9
6 Ex parte Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d 1655, 1656 (BPAI 1986), citing In re
Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
7 Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d at 1656-57.
8 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
9 E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430,
1434 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d at 1657, citing In re
Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37 (CCPA 1978).
Yamamoto, In re, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir.1984) . . . . . . . . . . . .2258
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258
DuPont v. Phillips, 849 F.2d 1430, 7 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . 2217, 2617
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 1732
MICHAEL LADNEY Requester and Respondent v. Patent of CINPRES GAS INJECTION, LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant 95/000,064 6,767,487 DELMENDO 103(a) For patent owner: DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC For Third Party Requestor: ROBERT C.J. TUTTLE BROOKS CUSHMAN P.C. Third Party Requestor: MICHAEL LADNEY
Examiner Name: JOHNSON, JERRY D
NEW
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Weirauch et al
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Allemann et al
Ex Parte Carbone et al
Ex Parte Daniell et al
Ex Parte Droegemueller et al
Ex Parte Fujikawa et al
Ex Parte Haga
Ex Parte Kurz et al
Ex Parte Nishioka et al
Ex Parte Santinato et al
Ex Parte Terenghi et al
REHEARING
Ex Parte Ghanem et al
Ex Parte Iliff
