REVERSED
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2437 Ex Parte Hayward 10/415,021 SAADAT 102(e) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER EXAMINER SMITHERS, MATTHEW
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2178 Ex Parte Atkins 11/069,512 LUCAS 102(e)/103(a) 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER STORK, KYLE R
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3679 Ex Parte Flynn et al 10/670,981 MOORE 103(a) 103(a) Clifford C. Dougherty, III McAFEE & TAFT EXAMINER HEWITT, JAMES M
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER REVERSED-IN-PART; AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3636 Ex Parte 6296304 et al ATICO INTERNATIONAL USA, INC. Requester and Appellant v. TOFASCO OF AMERICA, INC. Patent Owner 95/000,031 COCKS 314/103(a) 103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: WASSERMAN, COMDEN & CASSELMAN, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: FLOYD B. CHAPMAN WILEY REIN & FIELDING, LLP EXAMINER GRAHAM, MATTHEW C original EXAMINER NELSON JR, MILTON
EXAMINER REVERSED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3738 Ex Parte 5830237 et al Ex parte THE OHIO WILLOW WOOD COMPANY Appellant 90/009,268 DELMENDO 103(a) PATENT OWNER: ERIC M. GAYAN STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DR. ALDO A. LAGHI c/o RONALD A. CHRISTALDI SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLPEXAMINER JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original EXAMINER WILLSE, DAVID H
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 Ex Parte 7137158 et al Ex parte REGALO INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant 90/009,499 SONG 103(a) 103(a) Patent Owner: Robert J. Jacobsen PA Third Party Requester: Finnegam. Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, JIMMY T original EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 Ex Parte 6952846 et al Ex parte REGALO INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant 90/009,500 SONG 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) PATENT OWNER: ROBERT J. JACOBSON, PA THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW GARRET & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER NGUYEN, JIMMY T original EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3673 Ex Parte 7178184 et al Ex parte REGALO INTERNATIONAL, INC. Appellant 90/009,498 SONG 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Patent Owner: Robert J. Jacobson, PA FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW GARRET & DUNNER LLPEXAMINER NGUYEN, JIMMY T original EXAMINER SANTOS, ROBERT G
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1646 Ex Parte Matheus et al 10/588,458 SCHEINER 103(a)/112(2) MILLEN, WHITE, ZELANO & BRANIGAN, P.C. EXAMINER KAUFMAN, CLAIRE M
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/091,212 LUCAS 102(b)/103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER STITT, ERIK V
2187 Ex Parte Meng 10/750,423 BLANKENSHIP 112(1) MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER RUTZ, JARED IAN
The full scope of the claimed invention must be enabled. The rationale for this statutory requirement is straightforward. Enabling the full scope of each claim is “part of the quid pro quo of the patent bargain.” A patentee who chooses broad claim language must make sure the broad claims are fully enabled. “The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement” to “ensure[ ] that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims.” Strick v. Dreamworks, 516 F.3d 993, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (citations omitted).
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Kraft et al 09/832,434 WINSOR 103(a) BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE / YAHOO! OVERTURE EXAMINER BARQADLE, YASIN M
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2818 Ex Parte Minamihara et al 10/771,060 SAADAT 103(a) Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. EXAMINER GOODWIN, DAVID J
