REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1633 Ex Parte Glaab et al 10/554,433 McCOLLUM GRIMES MILLS 103(a) MERCK EXAMINER EPPS -SMITH, JANET L
1636 Ex Parte Harrington et al 10/345,115 WALSH MILLS PRATS 102(e)/103(a) TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P. EXAMINER JOIKE, MICHELE K
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Takada 11/438,736 NAGUMO KIMLIN WARREN 102(e)/103(a) LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP EXAMINER ROBINSON, CHANCEITY N
It has also long been recognized that optimization of a result-effective variable cannot have been obvious if that variable was not recognized as being result-effective. Application of Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977) ("This case, in which the parameter optimized was not recognized to be a result-effective variable, is another exception.").
Antonie, In re, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .2141.02, 2144.05
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2478 Ex Parte Kern et al 10/606,392 MacDONALD HOFF NAPPI 103(a) STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
2448 Ex Parte Koch 10/470,930 THOMAS BARRY BLANKENSHIP 102(e)/103(a) KENYON & KENYON LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, THANH T
2600 Communications
2618 Ex Parte Wessel van Rooyen 11/010,847 NAPPI BAUMEISTER HAIRSTON 102(e)
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD. EXAMINER SHARMA, SUJATHA R
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2815 Ex Parte Seko 11/270,651 BAUMEISTER RUGGIERO WHITEHEAD, JR. 103(a) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. EXAMINER CHU, CHRIS C
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Harper 11/487,927 O’NEILL McCARTHY SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a)WILLIAM HARPER EXAMINER WEEKS, GLORIA R
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Lyublinski et al 11/429,693 HANLON GARRIS KIMLIN 102(b)/103(a)
JOSEPH J. CRIMALDI, ESQ. ROETZEL & ANDRESS EXAMINER AUGHENBAUGH, WALTER
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2424 Ex Parte Ferman et al 09/823,377 NAPPI HAIRSTON SAADAT 102(e)/103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP. EXAMINER SHANG, ANNAN Q
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Euvino et al 11/140,789 McCARTHY BAHR SILVERBERG 102(b) CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY EXAMINER KERSHTEYN, IGOR
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2676 INTEL CORPORATION Respondent v. MICROUNITY SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/000,089 6,643,765 EASTHOM MacDONALD MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) Leonard Guzman McDermot Will & Emery, LLP Third Party Requester: David L. McCombs Haynes and Boone, LLP EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R original EXAMINER MONESTIME, MACKLY
For written description support, specific terms need not be recited in the supporting disclosure. In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244 (CCPA 1973) (“The question, as we view it, is not whether ‘carrying’ was a word used in the specification as filed but whether there is support in the specification for employment of a term in a claim; is the concept of carrying present in the original disclosure?”) “Properly viewed, the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Anderson, In re, 471 F.2d 1237, 176 USPQ 331 (CCPA 1973) . . . . . . 2163.07, 2181
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . 2111, 2111.01, 2143.01, 2258
AFFIRMED
2614 Ex Parte Allen et al 10/441,725 NAPPI EXAMINER JAMAL, ALEXANDER
3634 Ex Parte Herran 11/443,598 BAHR EXAMINER PUROL, DAVID M
3727 Ex Parte Roberts et al 11/248,087 BAHR EXAMINER SPISICH, MARK
1611 Ex Parte Sandel et al 10/722,928 McCOLLUM EXAMINER FRAZIER, BARBARA S
2454 Ex Parte Vellanki et al 10/818227 NAPPI EXAMINER NGUYEN, DUSTIN
