REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2435 Ex Parte Gargaro et al 12245971 - (D) MacDONALD 102/103 DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DG) SCHWARTZ, DARREN B
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 Ex Parte Chan et al 11614179 - (D) WIEDER 102 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG MISIASZEK, MICHAEL
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Warkentin et al 11343175 - (D) ADAMS 112(2)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BEHRINGER, LUTHER G
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2114 Ex Parte Horn et al 12692332 - (D) MacDONALD 102 102 VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy IBM CORPORATION SCHELL, JOSEPH O
2184 Ex Parte TRIECE et al 11928132 - (D) NAPPI 103 103 King & Spalding LLP SUN, MICHAEL
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Ohno et al 11447138 - (D) MCKONE 103 103 STAAS & HALSEY LLP NGUYEN, THAI
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2847 Ex Parte Ma et al 12653722 - (D) PAK 103 obviousness-type double patenting Winkle, PLLC CHEN, XIAOLIANG
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Sharma et al 12304007 - (D) FREDMAN 103 Wellstat Management Company. LLC WEST, THEODORE R
1674 Ex Parte Kay et al 10259226 - (D) KAMHOLZ 103 Bozicevic, Field & Francis LLP Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing ANGELL, JON E
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Butts et al 11704809 - (D) DELMENDO 103 CORNING INCORPORATED LAZORCIK, JASON L
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2142 Ex Parte Cheng et al 12017016 - (D) SCHOPFER 102/103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG BHATIA, AJAY M
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2425 Ex Parte Arsenault et al 11731977 - (D) FISHMAN 103 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. EKPO, NNENNA NGOZI
2452 Ex Parte Chevanne et al 10673458 - (D) SMITH 103 Wolff & Samson (ALU) HUSSAIN, TAUQIR
2456 Ex Parte Hoggan 12205706 - (D) MacDONALD 103 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP/SFO SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI
2485 Ex Parte Apostolopoulos 11494929 - (D) STRAUSS 101/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TORRENTE, RICHARD T
2495 Ex Parte Jaquette et al 11470804 - (D) DILLON 103 TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP IBM Tucson LEWIS, LISA C
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Bosch et al 11938957 - (D) EVANS 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent MAPA, MICHAEL Y
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Smith et al 13176436 - (D) STAICOVICI 103 Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle LLP DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. LE, MARK T
3653 Ex Parte Brewer et al 12468973 - (D) HOELTER 103 Prass LLP MORRISON, THOMAS A
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Knight 10/722,473 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 103 101 37 CFR 41.50(b) 112(2)/101 Andrew Knight COBURN, CORBETT B
In our view, Applicant's Specification expands upon how the "indicating" steps of the claim may be performed to such an extent where there is "no objective definition identifying a standard for determing when" a method of relaying a story actually "indicat[es]" a certain fact (e.g., "a character's desire ... to remain asleep ... until a particular event occurs" as recited in claim 1). See Datamize, LC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated by, Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014)4; Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 2014 WL 4435871, at *5 Fed. Cir. Sept. 10. 2014) ("Although absolute or mathematical precision is not required, it is not enough ... to identify some standard for measuring the scope of the phrase .... [Rather, t]he claims, when read in light of the specification and prosecution history, must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.") (citations and quotations omitted). We find the discussion in Datamize analogous to the circumstances here.5
4 While the Supreme Court in Nautilus disagreed with the standard for determining indefiniteness as applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Datamize the Court did not suggest any disagreement with the holding in Datamize that a completely subjective construction of a term renders the term indefinite. See generally Nautilus, 134 S.Ct. 2120. Although in the context of litigation based on an isued patent, the standard enunciated in Nautilus for determining definiteness - whether a patent's claims "viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty" (id. at 2029) - is arguably less of a hurdle to establishing indefiniteness than the "insoluably ambiguous" standard applied in Datamize. Thus, we have no reason to suspect that, had the analysis in Datamize been performed under the "reasonable certainty" standard, the Federal Circuit would have reached a different conclusion.
5 In addition to our discussion herein, we recognize that, in Datamize, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court construction that the ordinary meaning of "aesthetically pleasing" "includes 'having beauty that gives pleasure or enjoyment' or, in other words, 'beautiful[,]'" but concluded the phrase was indefinite. 417 F.3d at 1348
3762 Ex Parte Cazares et al 12686122 - (D) ADAMS 103 BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH, PLLC FLORY, CHRISTOPHER A
3777 Ex Parte Bruce et al 11816424 - (D) PER CURIAM 112(2)/103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS LUONG, PETER
