REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Choi et al 09/934,248 TIMM 112(2)/103(a) U.T. SYSTEMS BOARD OF REGENTS C/O MII EXAMINER VARGOT, MATHIEU D
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Jung et al 10/748,167 JEFFERY 102(b) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER ALVESTEFFER, STEPHEN D
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte EARNEST 11/307,403 O’NEILL 103(a) ZARLEY LAW FIRM P.L.C. EXAMINER MITCHELL, KATHERINE W
3657 Ex Parte Jasso et al 10/937,931 O’NEILL 102(b)/103(a) KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, PAMELA
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Deangelis et al 11/417,728 O’NEILL 103(a) LEGAL DEPARTMENT (M-495)
EXAMINER RALIS, STEPHEN J
3779 Ex Parte Freed 10/760,520 HORNER 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC
EXAMINER KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN
3721 Ex Parte Hagan 11/082,002 O’NEILL 102(b) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
EXAMINER NASH, BRIAN D
3742 Ex Parte Huth et al 10/976,555 O’NEILL 101/102(b)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ELVE, MARIA ALEXANDRA
3745 Ex Parte Popp et al 10/514,400 O’NEILL 103(a) DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC EXAMINER LOPEZ, FRANK D
3711 Ex Parte Shoptaugh 11/134,809 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) Harris Zimmerman EXAMINER CEGIELNIK, URSZULA M
3753 Ex Parte Wincek 11/159,009 HORNER 103(a) LAW OFFICES OF ERIC KARICH
EXAMINER BASTIANELLI, JOHN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2165 Ex Parte Santosuosso 10/911,844 LUCAS 102(e)/112(2) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM) EXAMINER HOFFLER, RAHEEM
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2439 Ex Parte Adusumilli et al 10/000,154 KRIVAK 102(e) MISSION/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BROWN, CHRISTOPHER J
2444 Ex Parte Cheng et al 10/256,730 HOMERE 101/102(a)/103(a) SAWYER LAW GROUP
EXAMINER SHAW, PELING ANDY
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2873 Ex parte BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT Appellant 90/008,365 6,509,387 DELMENDO 102(b)/103(a) BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE LLC EXAMINER JOHNSON, JERRY D original EXAMINER LESTER, EVELYN A
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2818 Ex parte RAMBUS, INC. Appellant 90/010,420 6,034,918 EASTHOM 102(b) FOR PATENT OWNER: PAUL M. ANDERSON, PLLC FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: TOWNSEND, TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO original EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAN
“Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of a patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words of manifest exclusion or restriction’.” Leibel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
...
Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG, 318 F.3d 1081, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 2003); accord Leibel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906 (“[T]he claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words of manifest exclusion or restriction’.” (Emphasis added)).
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 69 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.01
...
When a patent refers to “this invention” as the ‘918 patent does, it can imply a definition or at least set the scope for the claimed invention. See Edwards Life Sciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1330 (2009) (characterizing SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. Inc. 242 F.3d 1337, 1343 as “construing term to include feature characterized as “‘the present invention’”); cf. Edwards, 582 F.3d at 1330 (citing additional similar precedent and holding that the consistent interchanging of “interluminal graft 10” with “graft 10,” use of the phrase, “as defined above,” and frequently describing an “interluminal graft” as “‘the present invention’” or “‘this invention’” created a narrowing definition of graft to mean an interluminal graft). Thus, even if the ‘918 patent does sometimes interchange chip and memory device as Appellant argues and the expert opines (M2), referring to another embodiment as “this invention” not only cuts against any type of Edwards-based limiting inference relying on such interchanging, but elicits an intent to embrace both of the embodiments described.
AFFIRMED
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Ghose et al 10/695,889 DIXON 103(a) Law Office Of Leland Wiesner EXAMINER CHU, GABRIEL L
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Henderickx et al 10/690,544 MacDONALD 102(e) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER JAGANNATHAN, MELANIE
2434 Ex Parte Ting 10/395,049 STEPHENS 103(a) BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP EXAMINER POLTORAK, PIOTR
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3694 Ex Parte Choban et al 10/130,463 CRAWFORD 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) David C Jenkins Eckert Seamans Cherrin & Mellott EXAMINER CHEUNG, MARY DA ZHI WANG
3671 Ex Parte Wubbels et al 11/294,807 SCHAFER 103(a) DEERE & COMPANY EXAMINER
NGUYEN, MAI T
“The grant of a patent on a . . . machine cannot be predicated on a new use of that machine . . . .” In re Hack, 245 F.2d 246, 248 (CCPA 1957).
Hack, In re, 245 F.2d 246, 114 USPQ 161 (CCPA 1957). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2112.02
