REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Brown 10/741,168 GRIMES 103(a)/102(b) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) HEALTH HERO NETWORK, INC. EXAMINER SMITH, CAROLYN L
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Vyas et al 11/313,161 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION EXAMINER PARSONS, THOMAS H
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Sylthe 10/106,900 LUCAS 103(a) Jones Day (RIM) - 2N EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned against unreasonably broad claim construction:
Although the PTO emphasizes that it was required to give all “claims their broadest reasonable construction” particularly with respect to [the] use of the open-ended term “comprising,” see Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“the open-ended term comprising ... means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added”), this court has instructed that any such construction be “consistent with the specification, ... and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The PTO's construction here, though certainly broad, is unreasonably broad. The broadest construction rubric coupled with the term “comprising” does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. See Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217 (1940).
In re Suitco Surface, Inc., No. 2009-1418, 2010 WL 1462294, at *4 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d495, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 2111.03, 2138.05, 2163
Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . 2131, 2183, 2184
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Huh 10/951,250 MacDONALD 103(a) Jefferson IP Law, LLP EXAMINER KARIMI, PEGEMAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Saffer et al 10/068,466 BARRY 103(a) Hewlett-Packard Company EXAMINER ORTIZ, BELIX M
Ex Parte Sicola 11/477,967 HOMERE 102/103(a) FELLERS, SNIDER, BLANKENSHIP, BAILEY & TIPPENS EXAMINER CHOE, YONG J
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Wu et al 10/659,934 JEFFERY 102(b)/103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP EXAMINER DAILEY, THOMAS J
See In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970) (explaining that “the Patent Office appellate tribunals, where it is found necessary, may take notice of facts beyond the record which, while not generally notorious, are capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute.”)
Ahlert, In re, 424 F.2d 1088, 165 USPQ 418 (CCPA 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.03
REEXAMINATION
REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 3636
Ex parte REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY, Appellant and Patent Owner 90/006,283 6,283,044 LEBOVITZ Patent Owner CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. Third Party Requester RICHARD C. HIMELHOCH UNGARETTI & HARRIS LLP EXAMINER KASHNIKOW, ANDRES original EXAMINER CHEN, JOSE V
When a term is used in a claim to distinguish it from a structure in the prior art, the term must be properly interpreted so it is understood what the claim term is “walling in or walling out.”2
2 Quoted from “Mending Wall” by Robert Frost. Claims are like fences: “‘Good fences make good neighbors.’”
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Dietz et al 10/411,417 EXAMINER BECKER, SHASHI KAMALA
Ex Parte Kaushal et al 10/503,343 EXAMINER HUNG, YUBIN
Ex Parte Lifson et al 11/397,888 EXAMINER NORMAN, MARC E
Ex Parte Mocikat 10/716,580 EXAMINER WOODWARD, CHERIE MICHELLE
Ex Parte Volcani et al 10/376,680 EXAMINER DAYE, CHELCIE L
