REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1717 Ex Parte Garg et al 11/284,193 SMITH 103(a) AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P
1729 Ex Parte Takeguchi et al 11/225,586 OWENS 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER DAVIS, PATRICIA A
1761 Ex Parte Wenderoth et al 10/333,611 NAGUMO 103(a) NOVAK DRUCE DELUCA + QUIGG LLP EXAMINER OGDENJR, NECHOLUS
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2186 Ex Parte Blandy et al 10/854,990 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. EXAMINER PATEL, HETUL B
2193 Ex Parte Satoh et al 10/762,174 WINSOR 102(b)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER MAI, TAN V
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2875 Ex Parte Iwasaki 10/588,935 HOFF 103(a) SUGHRUE MION, PLLC EXAMINER ALLEN, DANIELLE NICOLE
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3728 Ex Parte Norcom 11/068,092 SAINDON 102(b)/103(a) THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY EXAMINER BRADEN, SHAWN M
3761 Ex Parte Parks et al 10/453,316 SAINDON 103(a) HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. EXAMINER SU, SUSAN SHAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1773 Ex Parte Chandler 11/401,198 SMITH 102(b)/103(a) 103(a) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP EXAMINER HANDY, DWAYNE K
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2185 Ex Parte DeCenzo 11/478,905 NAPPI 103(a) 103(a) Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens EXAMINER THAI, TUAN V
“‘The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation. The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.’” In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Fed. Cir. 2011, internal cites omitted).
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2464 Ex Parte D. et al 10/620,044 Per Curiam 101/102(e)/103(a) Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP EXAMINER SINKANTARAKORN, PAWARIS
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2854 Ex Parte Richards 11/375,319 FRAHM 103(a) 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 103(a) Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC EXAMINER EVANISKO, LESLIE J
REEXAMINATION
REHEARING DENIED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
3724 Ex Parte 6,672,187 et al Ex parte BIMEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 90/010,445 LEBOVITZ 112(1) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP EXAMINER HUANG, EVELYN MEI original EXAMINER ASHLEY, BOYER DOLINGER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
1614 Ex Parte 6506400 et al ZUND SYSTEMTECHNIK AG & ZUND AMERICA, INC. Requester v. Patent of MIKKELSEN GRAPHIC ENGINEERING, INC. 95/001,354 LEBOVITZ 102(b)/103(a) 102(b)/103(a) Patent Owner JANSSON, SHUPE & MUNGER, LTD EXAMINER DAWSON, GLENN K original EXAMINER REAMER, JAMES H
“The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define the particular function of the claim limitation.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “The court must construe the function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.” Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2002). . . .
“The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” Golight, 355 F.3d at 1334. “Under this second step, structure disclosed in the specification is corresponding structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 69 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2182
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 63 USPQ2d 1725 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . 2181, 2182
Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 68 USPQ2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003). . . . . . . .2181, 2182
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Yudoovsky et al 12/246,086 GUEST 103(a) PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP EXAMINER BLAN, NICOLE R
In the “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer, the Examiner, for the first time, expresses an alternative rationale for unpatentability, which is that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transform the RT2 and RT3 devices of Ohshimo into a single device, citing In re Larson, 340 F.3d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (Ans. 10). This abstract rationale is completely unrelated to the claim interpretation rationale of the Examiner’s stated rejections. We decline to consider this new rationale because it implicitly constitutes an unauthorized new ground of rejection. The “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer is not an appropriate place to raise a new rationale for unpatentability.
Larson, In re, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.04
1731 Ex Parte Chen et al 11/374,238 SMITH 103(a) STEVEN WESEMAN CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION EXAMINER PARVINI, PEGAH
1745 Ex Parte Gammons et al 11/459,625 HASTINGS 102(b)/103(a) KNOX PATENTS EXAMINER KOCH, GEORGE R
1764 Ex Parte Scherzer et al 11/813,833 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER LEE, DORIS L
1766 Ex Parte Eipper et al 11/996,489 GUEST 103(a) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ, LLP EXAMINER GULAKOWSKI, RANDY P
1782 Ex Parte Kendig et al 11/180,263 TIMM 102(e)/103(a) E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY EXAMINER WOOD, ELLEN S
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Graves et al 10/893,617 JEFFERY 102(e) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HUQ, FARZANA B
2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Brandt 11/603,264 SIU 103(a) AT&T Legal Department - CC EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Alverson et al 10/634,504 FISCHETTI 101/112(2)/103(a) ERNEST D. BUFF ERNEST D. BUFF AND ASSOCIATES, LLC. EXAMINER CHOI, PETER H
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is indefinite because at best, the human involvement required in the claim fails to describe non-human structure and/or material, which perform the functions recited by the "means". See Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291 (fed. Cir. 2005), citing to In re Prater, 56 C.C.P.A. 1381, 415 F.2d 1393, 1398 (CCPA 1969) (“…a human being cannot constitute a “means”). The test is whether the Specification actually describes the structure that performs the claimed function. “If there is no structure in the specification corresponding to the means-plus-function limitation in the claims, the claim will be found invalid as indefinite.” Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 75 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . 2181
Prater, In re, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) . . .2106, 2111, 2172, 2173.05(a), 2173.05(q), 2411.01
Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . .2181, 2185
Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994). . . . .2106, 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182
As to the latter activity, we find that
[s]imply adding a “computer aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible. See [SiRF Tech, Inc. v. ITC, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)] (“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.”).
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 2012 WL 164439 at *17 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
3633 Ex Parte Snyder et al 11/561,468 SAINDON 103(a) DUANE MORRIS LLP EXAMINER GLESSNER, BRIAN E
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Matsumura et al 11/172,058 KAUFFMAN 103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC EXAMINER CAMPBELL, VICTORIA P
