REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3687 Ex Parte Bahar 12660647 - (D) LORIN 103 MARVIN A. GLAZER LUDWIG, PETER L
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3725 Ex Parte Baum 12329336 - (D) HORNER 103 JOHN R LEY, LLC EKIERT, TERESA M
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1714 Ex Parte Kernan et al 12952288 - (D) WILSON 103 DACHENG LAW OFFICES, LLP MAX ERA INC. QI, HUA
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Gyure et al 11642452 - (D) SAADAT 103 STEVEN E. BACH, ATTORNEY AT LAW HUSSAIN, TAUQIR
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2688 Ex Parte Coker et al 12653874 - (D) FRAHM 102/double patenting MARLIN KNIGHT WONG, KIN C
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3641 Ex Parte Lazar 12586378 - (D) HOSKINS 112(2)/101/103 BERELI M. LAZAR KLEIN, GABRIEL J
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. Requester and Cross-Appellant v. Dogleg Right Corporation Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7344450 et al 11/467,136 95000378 - (D) ROBERTSON 103 LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. JUDSON THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP WEHNER, CARY ELLEN original PASSANITI, SEBASTIANO
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2179 Ex parte APPLE, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7844915 et al 11/620,717 90012332 - (D) SAADAT 102 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: BRYAN CAVE LLP YIGDALL, MICHAEL J original BAUTISTA, XIOMARA L
In fact, the term “a two or more finger touch” is mentioned only once in column 6 of Appellant’s Specification whereas in other instances a gesture operation is performed based on “a user input having two or more input points” (emphasis added).
Additionally, we are unpersuaded that the cited supplemental authority, filed April 20, 2015, supports Appellant’s position regarding the conjunctive interpretation of “or” in the disputed claim limitation. We observe that Appellant’s argued position differs from the decision in Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Microstrategy, Inc., No. 2014-1094 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2015) because, unlike Vasudevan, Appellant has not pointed to any part of the prosecution history to show that Appellant was relying on the definition based on a conjunctive interpretation of “or.”
Vasudevan - "The conjunctive interpretation is also consistent with proper grammar, where the phrase "`not A, B, or C' means `not A, not B, and not C.'" A. Scalia &. B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 119 (2012) (citing DeMorgan's theorem)."
