REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Zhong et al 10/811,277 HANLON 103(a) SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLC EXAMINER PATTERSON, MARC A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Windl 11/136,629 COURTENAY 102(e)/103(a) SIEMENS CORPORATION EXAMINER WIENER, ERIC A
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 ELESYS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Requestor, Respondent v. AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,003 6,397,136 MEDLEY 112(2)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Brian Roffe, Esq. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Rickard K. DeMille BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE, GERTRUDE
Argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3661 ELESYS NORTH AMERICA, INC. Requestor, Respondent v. AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Patent Owner, Appellant 95/001,003 6,397,136 MEDLEY 112(2)/nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting/103(a) Brian Roffe, Esq. THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: Rickard K. DeMille BRINKS, HOFER, GILSON & LIONE EXAMINER TIBBITS, PIA FLORENCE original EXAMINER ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE, GERTRUDE
Argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
EXAMINER REVERSED
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 RAYSPAN CORPORATION and Netgear, Inc., Appellant-Reexamination Requester, v. Patent 7,193,562 of RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC., Owner 95/001,078 7,193,562 TORCZON 102/103(a) For the requester: Thomas C. Reynolds, SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER For the owner: Steve Bachmann, CARR & FERRELL LLP For the Commissioner of Patents: Deandra M. Hughes, with Albert J. Gagliardi and Eric S. Keasel, ART UNIT 3992 EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER CHEN, SHIH CHAO
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 RAYSPAN CORPORATION and Netgear, Inc., Appellant-Reexamination Requester, v. Patent 7,193,562 of RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC., Owner 95/001,078 7,193,562 TORCZON 102/103(a) For the requester: Thomas C. Reynolds, SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER For the owner: Steve Bachmann, CARR & FERRELL LLP For the Commissioner of Patents: Deandra M. Hughes, with Albert J. Gagliardi and Eric S. Keasel, ART UNIT 3992 EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER CHEN, SHIH CHAO
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte English et al 11/818,103 PRATS 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER ASDJODI, MOHAMMAD REZA
1782 Ex Parte Elder et al 11/344,992 LANE 112(1)/103(a) CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP EXAMINER THAKUR, VIREN A
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte St. Pierre et al 10/206,932 COURTENAY 103(a) MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP EXAMINER BATURAY, ALICIA
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that an express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by the negative limitation is required, such as an express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that provides support for the negative limitation. Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted):
Beyond the words of the claim, neither the district court nor Raytek has identified any express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation. See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Our independent review of the patent document, see Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2001), reveals no express intent to confer on the claim language the novel meaning imparted by this negative limitation. Accordingly, we must conclude that there is no basis in the patent specification for adding the negative limitation.
2600 Communications
2617 Ex Parte Wong et al 10/519,278 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. EXAMINER MILLER, BRANDON J
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/870,375 KIM 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER JOSEPH, TONYA S
REHEARING
DENIED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering 3628 Ex Parte Dettinger et al 10/870,375 KIM 103(a) IBM CORPORATION EXAMINER JOSEPH, TONYA S
REHEARING
DENIED
1781 Ex Parte Baeremaecker et al 10/968,130 WALSH 103(a) SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY LLP EXAMINER DEES, NIKKI H
NEW
REVERSED
3761 Ex Parte Erspamer et al 10/135,936 McCARTHY 103(a) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. EXAMINER STEPHENS, JACQUELINE F
3774 Ex Parte Lane et al 11/069,457 McCARTHY 103(a) Medtronic CardioVascular EXAMINER GANESAN, SUBA
1726 Ex Parte Ujiie et al 10/399,343 KRATZ 103(a) SNR DENTON US LLP EXAMINER DOVE, TRACY MAE
AFFIRMED
1781 Ex Parte Lundberg et al 11/484,263 OWENS 103(a) Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A. EXAMINER CHAWLA, JYOTI
3686 Ex Parte Schoenberg 10/315,514 MOHANTY 103(a) King & Spalding LLP (Trizetto Customer Number) EXAMINER RANGREJ, SHEETAL
