REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1618 Ex Parte Lanphere et al 10/928,452 McCOLLUM 103(a) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) EXAMINER PERREIRA, MELISSA JEAN

2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2175 Ex Parte Garcia et al 10/800,585 BARRY 103(a) GATES & COOPER LLP EXAMINER ORR, HENRY W

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Vo et al 11/699,152 TURNER 103(a) Accenture c/o Murabito, Hao & Barned LLP EXAMINER AN, IG TAI

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Parry 09/967,511 HOMERE 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HENNING, MATTHEW T

AFFIRMED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1616 Ex Parte Siegel et al 11/481,210 ADAMS 102(e) JOHN LEZDEY & ASSOCIATES EXAMINER PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL

1641 Ex Parte Belenky et al 11/089,261 McCOLLUM 103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION
EXAMINER FOSTER, CHRISTINE E

1638 Ex Parte Byrum et al 12/071,497 ADAMS 101/112(1) ARNOLD & PORTER LLP EXAMINER MEHTA, ASHWIN D

1643 Ex Parte Rosenblum 11/868,801 FREDMAN 103(a) FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, L.L.P. EXAMINER HUFF, SHEELA JITENDRA

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3622 Ex Parte Schuller et al 10/609,446 TURNER 103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER STAMBER, ERIC W

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3754 Ex Parte Chick 11/261,207 BAHR 102(b) Paul M. Denk EXAMINER CARTAGENA, MELVIN A

It is well established that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In order to satisfy the functional limitations in an apparatus claim, the prior art apparatus must be capable of performing the claimed function. Id. at 1478. Thus, a prior art reference need not envision the device being actually used to perform the claimed functions.

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

3775 Ex Parte Parker 09/815,567 BARRETT Concurring-In-Part and Dissenting-In-Part O’NEILL 112(1)/112(2)/103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/INDY/COOK EXAMINER RAMANA, ANURADHA

“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

Fulton, In re, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . 2123, 2141.02, 2143.01, 2145

Merely that a claim is broad does not mean that it is indefinite. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17 (CCPA 1977).

Johnson, In re, 558 F.2d 1008, 194 USPQ 187 (CCPA 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . 2164.08, 2173.05(i)