REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1735 Ex Parte YAMAUTI et al 13086693 - (D) OWENS 103 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. HA, STEVEN S
1764 Ex Parte Zhao et al 14132547 - (D) INGLESE 103 CYTEC INDUSTRIES INC. BROOKS, KREGGT
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2477 Ex Parte Naito et al 12907351 - (D) McNEILL 103 Paratus Law Group, PLLC ESMAEILIAN, MAJID
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3744 Ex Parte Stovall et al 13460001 - (D) KERINS 103 Hoffman Warniok T T .P MA, KUN KAI
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3782 Ex Parte Ayers 12283629 - (D) PESLAK 103 103 CAROTHERS AND CAROTHERS MCNURLEN, SCOTT THOMAS
See also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“the broadest reasonable interpretation that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six.”). Equivalence under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph requires “[f]unctional identity and either structural identity or equivalence.” Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp., 185 F. 3d 1259, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01 , 2114 , 2161.01 , 2163.03
Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 51 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 2183 , 2184
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1757 Ex Parte WEEKLEY 13216144 - (D) HANLON 102/103 112(1)/112(2) THE NOBLITT GROUP, PLLC BARTON, JEFFREY THOMAS
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2197 Ex Parte Ding et al 12815375 - (D) McNEILL 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG PAULINO, LENIN
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3632 Ex Parte FONSEKA 13902036 - (D) REPKO 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC GARFT, CHRISTOPHER
Additionally, courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch”).
