REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1771 Ex Parte Raman et al 12415042 - (D) OWENS dissenting DELMENDO 103 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP BOYER, RANDY
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 Ex Parte Guo 11881341 - (D) NAPPI 102(e) KRAGULJAC LAW GROUP, LLC / ORACLE HERSHLEY, MARK E
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2468 Ex Parte Pearce 11342124 - (D) JEFFERY 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. HARLEY, JASON A
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3628 Ex Parte Albanese et al 10856704 - (D) BAYAT 103 KANG LIM JOSEPH, TONYA S
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11586349 - (D) GRIMES 103 103 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 112(2) Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A
The rules that “structure corresponding to the claimed function must be disclosed in the specification with clear linkage between the structure and the claimed function serve worthy goals. Such rules are intended to produce certainty in result.” Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “A computer-implemented means-plus-function term is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm.” Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 68 USPQ2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 2181 , 2182
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2427 Ex Parte Vinokurov et al 12146716 - (D) STEPHENS 102 102/103 MARKS & CLERK LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Jung et al 11362545 - (D) GRIMES obviousness-type double patenting 103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC CLOW, LORI A
“[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing § 112, ¶ 6.” B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419, 43 USPQ2d 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2163 , 2181 , 2182
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1763 Ex Parte Sriram et al 13059781 - (D) KRATZ 112(2) 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. USELDING, JOHN E
REHEARING
DENIED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Miller et al 11693281 - (D) BROWNE 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL CHIBOGU, CHIEDU A
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2821 CRESTRON ELECTRONICS, INC. Requester v. LUTRON ELECTRONICS, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 8009042 et al 12/203,518 95001821 - (D) JEFFERY 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: CRESTRON ELECTRONICS, INC. NGUYEN, LINH M original TRAN, THUY V
DENIED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. Requester v. BORGWARNER, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6,663,347 et al 09/875,760 95000431 - (D) GUEST 102/103 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: Alston & Bird, LLP TILL, TERRENCE R original VERDIER, CHRISTOPHER M
