REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Prosise 11/168,163 WALSH 103(a) William J. Davis, Esq. INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS EXAMINER WEBB, WALTER E
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Farkas et al 10/614,856 LORIN 112(2)/103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER ALMATRAHI, FARIS S
The Examiner has not made the case that the claims are insolubly ambiguous. By the Examiner’s own construction of the claims, they cover a number of different possible embodiments. “The mere fact that the claims cover a large number of possible process steps and imaging member materials does not in and of itself make the claims indefinite.” In re Goffe, 188 USPQ 131 (C.C.P.A. 1975), citing In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1975). “Breadth is not indefiniteness.” In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (1970).
Goffe, In re, 542 F.2d 564, 191 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1976) . . . . . . . . . . 2164.08, 2164.08(c)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2177 Ex Parte Albornoz et al 11/016,221 BARRY 102(b)/103(a) IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW EXAMINER HILLERY, NATHAN
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3767 Ex Parte Hauri et al 10/665,514 COCKS 103(a) LOUIS WOO LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO EXAMINER WITCZAK, CATHERINE
AFFIRMED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Sezan et al 10/894,620 SAADAT 101/102(b)/103(a) KEVIN L. RUSSELL CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL LLP EXAMINER PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L
2427 Ex Parte Augenbraun et al 11/071,426 DILLON 102(e)/103(a) Merchant & Gould - Cox EXAMINER KURIEN, CHRISTEN A
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Rijn 11/145,503 FISCHETTI 103(a) CARR & FERRELL LLP EXAMINER BORISSOV, IGOR N
3635 Ex Parte Hageman 10/864,225 HORNER 102(b)/103(a) OSTROLENK FABER LLP EXAMINER WENDELL, MARK R
If the specification does not assign or suggest a particular definition to a claim term, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for guidance in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In Bilstad v. Wakalopulos, 386 F.3d 1116, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed a Board decision construing the term “plurality” for purposes of reviewing a written description rejection. The Board noted that the term “plurality” had a plurality of dictionary definitions consistent with the disclosure in the specification and construed the term as used in the claim so as to encompass all of the dictionary definitions. The Court held that, “[i]f more than one dictionary definition is consistent with the use of the words in the intrinsic record, the claim terms may be construed to encompass all consistent meanings.” Id. Implicit in this holding is approval to the Board’s decision to give the term “plurality” its broadest reasonable interpretation despite dueling dictionary definitions. See also Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Tex. Digital Sys. Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2002)) (“If more than one dictionary definition is consistent with the use of the words in the intrinsic record, the claim terms may be construed to encompass all consistent meanings”).
Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 67 USPQ2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . 2106, 2111.01
Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 64 USPQ2d 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2002).. . . . . 2173.05(a)
REHEARING
DENIED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Brooks et al 11/498,620 McCOLLUM 103(a) Olson & Cepuritis, LTD. EXAMINER FETTEROLF, BRANDON J
