REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex Parte Garibaldi et al 11801121 - (D) McCOLLUM 102 Bryan K. Wheelock ITURRALDE, ENRIQUE W
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2436 Ex Parte Harris et al 11112938 - (D) HUGHES 103 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP RAHIM, MONJUR
2453 Ex Parte Rohani 11280764 - (D) HOELTER 102/103 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP ESKANDARNIA, ARVIN
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2829 Ex Parte Yokomae et al 11896153 - (D) HANLON 102/103 KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH
2883 Ex Parte Stewart et al 12253196 - (D) GARRIS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH
2893 Ex Parte Utsugi et al 11362652 - (D) TIMM 103 ADAMS & WILKS ULLAH, ELIAS
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2174 Ex Parte Joret et al 11421872 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 IBM CORPORATION C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy PHAM, LINH K
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3742 Ex Parte Berger 11374917 - (D) HOSKINS 103 103 MIRICK, O'CONNELL, DEMALLIE & LOUGEE, LLP PATEL, VINOD D
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2456 Ex Parte Enenkiel 11109725 - (D) HOELTER 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP AHMED, MOHAMMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2859 Ex Parte Nolte 11713463 - (D) NAGUMO 103 KAMMER BROWNING PLLC OMAR, AHMED H
2893 Ex Parte Jang et al 11225089 - (D) PRAISS 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP REAMES, MATTHEW L
2895 Ex Parte Juengling 12033799 - (D) TIMM 112(2)/102/103 FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) JUNG, MICHAEL
Appellant argues that a relative term may be definite, citing to Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc. 806 F. 2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We agree with Appellant that relative terms can be definite in some circumstances. However, each case must be evaluated on its own facts. Moreover, we note that the court in Orthokinetics was evaluating the definiteness of a patented claim being litigated in an infringement action. Patented claims are subject to the presumption of validity and definiteness is evaluated under a different standard than claims still subject to prosecution. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 2173.02, 2173.05(b)
Morris, In re, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 904.01, 2111, 2111.01, 2163, 2173.05(a), 2181
Zletz, In re, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 715, 2111, 2111.01, 2111.03, 2138, 2171, 2173.05(a), 2181, 2286, 2686.04
