Source: https://www.ptab.us/2014/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:46:07+00:00

Document:
Claim construction is a necessary predicate to an obviousness determination. Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int'l, 316 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Obviousness is determined by considering what combined teachings of the references would have suggested to a routineer. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1324, 1332‒33 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review the claims for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the recently issued preliminary examination instructions on patent eligible subject matter. See “Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.,” Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014.
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires the specification “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. This portion of the statute requires the claims “be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The standard is not one of exact precision. What one must determine is whether the language is as precise as the subject matter permits given the circumstances. Id.
Precision in claiming is not only dependent on the claim language itself; it is dependent on the description of the invention in the Specification. Although claims are not to be limited to specific embodiments set forth in the specification when it is does not appear that an applicant desired the claims to be so limited, the specification is the single best guide to determining the meaning of the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Claims that lack precise referents in the specification and require elaborate explanations extraneous to both the specification and the claims do not meet the standard of precision required by the statute. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1381–82 (CCPA 1970). In fact, inconsistent use or unclear use of the terms in the specification can even cause a claim that appears clear on its face to become unclear and indefinite when read in light of the specification. See In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 1001 (CCPA 1971) (holding claims indefinite because the claims were, in calling for sealing an oxide surface with an alkali silicate to obtain an “opaque appearance,” inconsistent with the specification which defined an “opaque finish” as a flat-appearing finish which is not obtained when an alkali metal silicate is used as a sealant.).
2689 Ex Parte Hjulberg 12102424 - (D) FRAHM 103 MERCHANT & GOULD PC BEE, ANDREW W.
Cf. In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1070 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Maloney's express teachings render the claimed controlled release oxymorphone formulation obvious, and the claimed ‘food effect’ adds nothing of patentable consequence.”); see also Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985).
It has also been held that “proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.” Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharms. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Rather, the proper issue is whether the . . . patent is enabling in the sense that it describes the claimed invention sufficiently to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the invention.” Id. at 1383.
See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts . . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”). Claim 1 does not contain limitations requiring the reduction of wiring between the display and display controller on a smart card. In fact, claim 1 does not recite any wiring at all.

References: v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 112
 § 112
 v. 
 v.