REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Grevers et al 11587778 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP LACLAIR, DARCY D
1781 Ex Parte Desai et al 11041399 - (D) GARRIS 112(2)/112(1)/103 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP GWARTNEY, ELIZABETH A
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Mihaila et al 10950800 - (D) ELLURU 112(2)/102/103 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP MOBIN, HASANUL
2181 Ex Parte Davenport et al 10876111 - (D) STEPHENS 103 Howard Cohen UNELUS, ERNEST
2185 Ex Parte So et al 10750523 - (D) HOFF 102/103 TKHR (Broadcom) CAMPOS, YAIMA
2600 Communications
2627 Ex Parte Lydegraf et al 11146790 - (D) ZECHER 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC NGUYEN, HOA T
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Arndt et al 11792166 - (D) HOFF 102/103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP AMRANY, ADI
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3612 Ex Parte Gulker et al 11939132 - (D) LEE 112(1)/112(2) PRICE HENEVELD LLP FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC PATEL, KIRAN B
All of the components of the assembly in a specific implementation need not be recited in any claim unless the specification indicates that applicant did not invent subject matter that is without such specifics. See ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Thill 10419412 - (D) GREEN 102 EV3, INC. MENDOZA, MICHAEL G
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Aaron et al 11242203 - (D) GAUDETTE 112(1)/102/103 112(2)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY GOLIGHTLY, ERIC WAYNE
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2171 Ex Parte Kim 10822847 - (D) SIU 103 103 Stanzione & Kim, LLP SALOMON, PHENUEL S
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2811 Ex Parte Dokumaci et al 11151506 - (D) HOFF 102/103 103 F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC ARENA, ANDREW OWENS
AFFIRMED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte KODAMA 11851088 - (D) COLAIANNI 102/103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC ANGEBRANNDT, MARTIN J
1722 Ex Parte Minsek et al 11031118 - (D) COLAIANNI 103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC EOFF, ANCA
1773 Ex Parte Kihlberg et al 11571631 - (D) GARRIS 112(2)/103 GE HEALTHCARE, INC. SASAKI, SHOGO
1784 Ex Parte Canady et al 11041274 - (D) KRATZ 103/obviousness-type double patenting rejection WILSONART INTERNATIONAL, INC. CIO WELSH & FLAXMAN, LLC SA MPLE, DA VID R
1798 Ex Parte Aseere 11438732 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 JOHNS MANVILLE JUSKA, CHERYL ANN
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Zinaty et al 11096941 - (D) BISK 102/103 MISSION/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP CLEARY, THOMAS J
2156 Ex Parte Beringer et al 11185222 - (D) BARRY 103 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP VO, TRUONG V
2174 Ex Parte Proehl et al 10767473 - (D) SIU 103 MILLER PATENT SERVICES NGUYEN, LE V
2177 Ex Parte Kraemer 10256632 - (D) McNAMARA 112(1) 112(1)/103 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. HUYNH, THU V
Appellant cites North American Vaccine, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Appellant points out that North American Vaccine mentions that the use of “a” in a claim can mean “one or more.” However, North American Vaccine also states that “[w]hen the meaning of a claim term is in doubt, we look to the specification for guidance.” Id. at 1576.
Appellant’s citation to the mere use of “a” in the specification to support the argument that “a” means “one or more” in the claims is inconsistent with North American Vaccine. (App. Br. 22). In North American Vaccine the court found no indication in the patent specification that the inventors intended “a” to have other than its normal singular meaning. Id.
2191 Ex Parte Gerken et al 10904106 - (D) DANG 103 Greg Goshorn, P.C. RAMPURIA, SATISH
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
2422 Ex Parte Hamilton et al 10296690 - (D) SMITH 103 Thomson Multimedia Licensing Inc DESIR, JEAN WICEL
2433 Ex Parte Poletto et al 10701353 - (D) DIXON 103 Riverbed Technology Inc. - PVF c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP TRAN, ELLEN C
2600 Communications
2626 Ex Parte Beyerlein 10479554 - (D) DROESCH 102/103 US Philips Corporation GODBOLD, DOUGLAS
The use of extrinsic evidence is permissible to show that the missing descriptive material is necessarily present in the prior art reference description and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Continental Can Co, U.S.A. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 20 USPQ2d 1746 (Fed. Cir. 1991).. . .2131.01
Oelrich, In re, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2112
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3688 Ex Parte Eaton et al 10698648 - (D) TURNER 103 VAN OPHEM & VANOPHEM, PC REMY J VANOPHEM, PC VIG, NARESH
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3731 NuVASIVE, INC., Requester and Appellant v. ZIMMER SPINE, INC., Patent Owner and Respondent 95000449 6936051 LEBOVITZ 102/103 MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP CLARK, JEANNE MARIE original REIP, DAVID OWEN
3763 Ex Parte Akiyama et al 11522496 - (D) PRATS 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC SHUMATE, VICTORIA PEARL
3767 Ex Parte Parsee et al 11264420 - (D) OSINSKI 102 HODGSON RUSS LLP GILBERT, ANDREW M
