REVERSED
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Carow 11/233,242 McCARTHY 102(b)/obviousness-type double patenting WHIRLPOOL PATENTS COMPANY - MD 0750 EXAMINER GRAVINI, STEPHEN MICHAEL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Klein et al 10/290,605 DESHPANDE 103(a) 103(a) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP (CHI) EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3636 Ex Parte Brooks 11/252,289 SPAHN 103(a) 103(a) Brooks & Cameron, PLLC EXAMINER JACKSON, DANIELLE
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2621 Ex Parte 7,054,547 B1 et al 95/000,312 NISSIM CORP., Patent Owner and Appellant v. TIME WARNER, INC, Requester and Respondent MacDONALD 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND & NEUSTADT, LLP FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP EXAMINER GAGLIARDI, ALBERT J original EXAMINER TRAN, THAI Q
Appellant’s effort to avoid the newly applied prior art by belatedly (See FF 17) introducing an overly narrow claim construction and arguing that the claims should be given this narrower interpretation is not an adequate substitute for actually amending the claims to so limit them; when, unlike here, the actual amendment is supported by Appellant’s written description in the underlying patent application . We note that because of Appellant’s arguments to the PTO, it would be reasonable to conclude that “the claims have been amended by disavowal or estoppel.” Marine Polymer Tech., Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 4435986 at *5 (Fed. Cir. September 26, 2011). Although the decision in Marine Polymer is directed to intervening rights under 35 U.S.C. §§ 252 and 307 after an amendment under § 305, we deem the underlying principle to be equally applicable to an amendment under § 314 and to rejecting amended claims under § 112 based on 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.552(a) and 1.906(a).
AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1622 Ex Parte Pinkos et al 10/513,040 ADAMS 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER COVINGTON, RAYMOND K
1623 Ex Parte Jenkins et al 11/481,257 WALSH 103(a) Elan Drug Delivery, Inc. c/o Foley & Lardner EXAMINER PESELEV, ELLI
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1742 Ex Parte Fawley 10/695,252 GAUDETTE 112(1)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER BUTLER, PATRICK NEAL
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2162 Ex Parte Cofino et al 11/113,457 BLANKENSHIP 102(b)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER KERZHNER, ALEKSANDR
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2432 Ex Parte Heninger et al 10/711,940 HOMERE 103(a) CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG EXAMINER LANIER, BENJAMIN E
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Bilskie et al 10/811,160 HORNER 103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER PETERSON, KENNETH E
3725 Ex Parte Kenney et al 11/285,483 McCARTHY 103(a) LEONARD TACHNER, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION EXAMINER BATTULA, PRADEEP CHOUDARY
