REVERSED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2442 Ex Parte Gvirtsman et al 13192382 - (D) LENTIVECH 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY BLAIR, DOUGLAS B
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Abshire 12513833 - (D) BROWNE 102/103 HolzerIPLaw, PC MOHANDESI, JILA M
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1729 Ex Parte Ho et al 12823976 - (D) McSHANE 103 Arent Fox LLP PARSONS, THOMAS H
1784 Ex Parte Hongoh 12850877 - (D) GAUDETTE 112(1)/102/103 Bachman & LaPointe, P.C. LANGMAN, JONATHAN C
Under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, negative claim limitations are “adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Appellant argues “[i]t is clear from page 4, lines 12 - 25 of the originally filed application that Appellant, at the time of filing the instant application, understood that the reactive layer composition does not need to contain yttria.” Reply Br. 3. The referenced portion of the Specification describes a single embodiment of the reactive layer composition. We do not find, and Appellant has not identified, any disclosure in the Specification indicating that the inventors intended to limit the reactive layer composition to this specific embodiment or to a composition that is free of components other than those explicitly listed. In other words, the disclosure of a particular composition which excludes a broad genus of components does not amount to a disclosure of a composition that excludes one particular compound. See In re Bimeda Research & Dev. Ltd., 724 F.3d 1320, 1323–24 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that “claim 32 failed the written description requirement because the disclosure did not describe[ ] a formulation excluding a specific species of the antiinfective genus, while permitting others to be present” (internal citations and quotations omitted)); cf. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he fact that the specification describes only a single embodiment, standing alone, is insufficient to limit otherwise broad claim language.”).
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Consuegra et al 12566919 - (D) ENGELS 103 Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC HARPER, ELIYAH STONE
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2444 Ex Parte Pafumi et al 12849655 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 J.B. KRAFT ATTORNEY CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2672 Ex Parte Noel et al 11164351 - (D) HUME 102 Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC BECKLEY, JONATHAN R
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Binmore 12580154 - (D) WARREN 102/103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. TAYLOR, APRIL ALICIA
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Steinberg et al 10977194 - (D) OSINSKI 103 101 FAY SHARPE LLP CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES
3748 Ex Parte MYERS et al 12389854 - (D) BROWNE 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC ESHETE, ZELALEM
