Decisions reviewing functional claim language under 35 U.S.C. § 112
- Ex Parte Miyazaki (November 19, 2008) [PDF]
- Ex Parte Catlin (February 3, 2009) [PDF]
- Ex Parte Gutta (August 10, 2009) [PDF]
- Ex Parte Rodriquez (October 1, 2009) [PDF]
For a listing of all the Board's Precedential Opinions, click here
Decisions interpreting 'processor for' and/or means-plus-function claim language under 35 U.S.C. § 112
- Ex Parte Lakkala (March 13, 2013)
- Ex Parte Erol (March 13, 2013)
- Ex Parte Smith (March 14, 2013)
- Ex Parte Cadarso (April 26, 2013)
For a listing of all the Board's Informative Opinions, click here
Representative AIA Trial Decisions**
Decisions interpreting functional claim language in trial matters
- InterPartes Reviews
- Covered Business Method Reviews
The Board has a software issues committee to identify and discuss cases of interest related to software appeals and trials, particularly concerning functional claiming and issues under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.
*Every Board opinion is, by default, a routine opinion until it is designated as precedential or informative. PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 2, Rev. 8 § V.A. (August 12, 2013). Opinions designated as precedential are binding on the PTAB. The purpose of a precedential opinion is to create a consistent line of authority as to a holding that is to be followed in future Board decisions. Informative and Representative opinions are not binding, but illustrate norms of Board decision-making.
**For more information about Trial Practice at the PTAB, click here.
Some content linked to on this page may require a plug-in for Adobe Acrobat Reader.