REVERSED
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Sandhu 11/257,946 GARRIS 102(b)/103(a) Wells St. John P.S. EXAMINER MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2113 Ex Parte Butcher 10/392,698 LUCAS 103(a) MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP
(Oracle formerly d/b/a Sun Microsystems) EXAMINER MANOSKEY, JOSEPH D
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned against unreasonably broad claim construction:
Although the PTO emphasizes that it was required to give all “claims their broadest reasonable construction” particularly with respect to [the] use of the open-ended term “comprising,” see Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“the open-ended term comprising ... means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added”), this court has instructed that any such construction be “consistent with the specification, ... and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The PTO’s construction here, though certainly broad, is unreasonably broad. The broadest construction rubric coupled with the term “comprising” does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. See Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217 (1940).
In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 2111.03, 2138.05, 2163
Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . 2131, 2183, 2184
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned against unreasonably broad claim construction:
Although the PTO emphasizes that it was required to give all “claims their broadest reasonable construction” particularly with respect to [the] use of the open-ended term “comprising,” see Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“the open-ended term comprising ... means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added”), this court has instructed that any such construction be “consistent with the specification, ... and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The PTO’s construction here, though certainly broad, is unreasonably broad. The broadest construction rubric coupled with the term “comprising” does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. See Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217 (1940).
In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . 2111.03, 2138.05, 2163
Bond, In re, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . 2131, 2183, 2184
2154 Ex Parte Fox et al 11/026,358 HUGHES 102(e) DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. EXAMINER CHEN, TE Y
2191 Ex Parte Speare et al 10/806,779 BARRY 102(b) SENNIGER POWERS LLP (MSFT) EXAMINER VO, TED T
"The PTO Rules of Practice require the examiner to cite only what he considers the 'best references.'" E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Berkley & Co., 620 F.2d 1247, 1266-67 (8th Cir. 1980).
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Berkley and Co., 620 F.2d 1247, 205 USPQ 1 (8th Cir. 1980) . . . . . .2107.01
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Watrous 10/094,874 MOHANTY 101/112(2)/103(a) KELLY LOWRY & KELLEY, LLP EXAMINER SEREBOFF, NEAL
3667 Ex Parte Fahrny et al 11/006,864 FISCHETTI 112(2)/103(a) BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. EXAMINER BADII, BEHRANG
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3761 Ex Parte Connor 11/285,883 O’NEILL 112(2)/103(a) FENNEMORE CRAIG EXAMINER ZALUKAEVA, TATYANA
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3627 Ex Parte Schmeling et al 10/011,524 KIM 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY EXAMINER HAIDER, FAWAAD
3664 Ex Parte Seki 11/017,293 CHEN 112(2)/103(a) FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C. EXAMINER PECHE, JORGE O
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3716 Ex Parte Link 10/690,818 ZECHER 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. EXAMINER DUFFY, DAVID W
3738 Ex Parte Stacchino et al 11/066,346 BAHR 102(b)/103(a) FAEGRE & BENSON LLP EXAMINER PRONE, CHRISTOPHER D
3764 Ex Parte Habing et al 11/372,645 ASTORINO 102(b)/103(a) BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER GANESAN, SUNDHARA M
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2761 Ex parte ePlus, Inc., Appellant and Assignee 90/008,104 6,023,683 TURNER 102(a)/102(b) PATENT OWNER: GOODWIN PROCTER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: LEE PATCH, ESQ. DAY CASEBEER MADRID & BATCHELDER EXAMINER POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R originally Cha & Reiter, LLC EXAMINER COSIMANO, EDWARD R
“The statutory phrase ‘printed publication’ has been interpreted to give effect to ongoing advances in the technologies of data storage, retrieval, and dissemination.” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). “Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Id. at 898-99 (citation omitted).
Our reviewing court has explained that a reference is “‘publicly accessible”’ upon a satisfactory showing that:
(1) the “document has been disseminated”; or
(2) “otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further research or experimentation.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)).
Hall, In re, 781 F.2d 897, 228 USPQ 453 (Fed. Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . .2128, 2128.01, 2128.02
Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F. 3d 1374, 78 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . 2127
Wyer, In re, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901.05, 2127, 2128
AFFIRMED
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3774 Ex Parte Smith 10/630,562 GREENHUT 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A. EXAMINER GANESAN, SUBA
NEW
REVERSED
2186 Ex Parte Brownhill et al 11/025,413 HUGHES 102(e)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD EXAMINER VERDERAMO III, RALPH
1625 Ex Parte Catinat et al 10/534,502 GRIMES 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. EXAMINER MABRY, JOHN
2188 Ex Parte NOYLE 11/364,691 THOMAS 102(e)/103(a) WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) EXAMINER TRAN, DENISE
AFFIRMED
3627 Ex Parte Cachey et al 10/321,783 RUGGIERO 103(a) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP EXAMINER OBEID, FAHD A
2452 Ex Parte Ratcliff et al 10/413,618 FISCHETTI 103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.41 101 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION EXAMINER CHANKONG, DOHM
