THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT TO A CLAIM FOR A GENUS CAN BE SATISFIED IF A SINGLE SPECIES OF THAT GENUS IS DISCLOSED AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THAT GENUS ARE WELL KNOWN IN THE ART
| April 20, 2018
Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. and Covidien LP
March 14, 2018
Before Newman, Wallach, and Stoll. Opinion by Stoll.
Summary:
Hologic, Inc. initiated an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,359 (’359 patent. The ’359 patent claims priority to an earlier-filed PCT application with a nearly identical specification. The PTAB found that S&N’s PCT application has sufficient written description so that it is a proper priority document and is not an invalidating obviousness reference. The CAFC held that since substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s finding that the PCT application provides sufficient written description disclosure of the claimed feature, the ’359 patent is entitled to claim priority to the PCT application.
要旨:
米国特許第8,061,359号の当事者系リイグザミネーションに関するものである。当該特許は先行PCT出願とほぼ同一の明細書を含んでおり、この先行PCT出願に対して優先権を主張していた。米国特許庁審判部は、当該PCT出願は優先権主張に対する十分なサポートを含んでおり、よって、優先権主張は有効であるので、当該PCT出願の国際公開が先行技術になることはないと判断した。連邦巡回控訴裁判所(CAFC)は、米国特許庁審判部の判断を支持した。
Tags: drawings > expert declaration > Inter Partes Reexamination > PCT application > priority > written description
To Combine or not to Combine
| April 16, 2018
Ex parte Tesseir et al.
October 2, 2014
Before PTAB APJ Panel: Kerins, Staicovici & Woods.
Summary: The Board affirmed many of the rejections in this appeal of a Final Rejection. But the Board found that there was no motivation to support the obviousness rejection of claim 13 and therefore reversed the rejection of that claim.
要旨:
米国特許庁審判部は、最後の拒絶に対する本件アピール(拒絶査定不服審判に相当)に関し、審査官の拒絶理由の大部分を認めた。その一方、クレーム13に関する自明性の拒絶については、拒絶理由をサポートするだけの十分なモチベーション(動機付け又は理由付け)が存在しないと判断し、クレーム13に関する拒絶を覆した。具体的には、いわゆる後知恵を利用しなければ、審査官が主張するような引例の組み合わせを行なうだけの合理的な理由が存在しないと判断された。より具体的には、主引例は、既にリモート制御という構成要件を利用しており、特段の理由もなく、第2引例のリモート制御技術を組合わせるのは不合理であると判断された。
The CAFC Finds the Board’s Claim Construction to Be Unreasonably Broad
| April 13, 2018
In re Power Integrations, Inc.
March 19, 2018
Before Moore, Mayer, and Stoll. Opinion by Mayer.
Summary
Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power Integrations”) appeals a remand decision of the Patent Trail and Appeal Board (“Board”) rejecting claims 1, 17, 18 and 19 of US Patent No. 6,249,876 (the ‘876 patent) as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). On appeal, the CAFC found the board’s claim construction to be unreasonably broad. Because the Board’s anticipation rejection was based on an unreasonably broad claim construction, the CAFC reversed.
要旨:
連邦巡回控訴裁判所(CAFC)の判決である。先に米国特許庁審判部へ差し戻され、米国特許庁審判部が再度判断を下したその判断の適否が争われた。米国特許庁審判部が広いクレーム解釈に基づいて「新規性なし」と判断した審決をCAFCは覆した。CAFCは、米国特許庁審判部のクレーム解釈はいわゆるBRI(Broadest Reasonable Interpretation)ではなく、Unreasonably(不当)に広いと判断した。そのような不当に広いクレーム解釈に基づいて引例の開示が当てはめられた新規性の判断が覆された。
Tags: 35 U.S.C. §102 > anticipation > broadest reasonable interpretation > claim construction
A Non-Overlapping Prior Art Range May Still Render a Claimed Range Obvious
| April 12, 2018
In re Brandt
March 27, 2018
Before Lourie, Reyna and Taranto. Opinion by Reyna.
Summary:
Brandt’s patent application (U.S. Application No. 13/652,858) is to high density polyurethane or polyisocyanurate construction boards. The claims recite a coverboard having a density greater than 2.5 and less than 6 lbs/ft3. In rejecting the claims, the Examiner cited Griffin (US 2006/0096205), which discloses a coverboard having a density of “between 6 lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3 and preferably a density of at least 8 lbs/ft3” and stated that the claimed range would have been an obvious design choice. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) agreed with the Examiner stating that even though the prior art range does not overlap the claimed range, the difference in the ranges was “virtually negligible.” The CAFC agreed that the ranges are “so mathematically close that the examiner properly rejected the claims as prima facie obvious and affirmed the PTAB’s rejection of the claims.
Words of limitation that can connote with equal force a structural characteristic of a product or a process of manufacture are interpreted as structural limitations by default.
| April 10, 2018
In Re Nordt Development Co., LLC
February 8, 2018
Before Moore, Taranto, and Stoll. Opinion by Stoll.
Summary:
The Federal Circuit vacates and remands a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/241,865 (the ‘865 application). Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the Board erred in construing “injection molded” limitations in claims 1 and 14 of the ‘865 application as process limitations with no patentable weight.
