Can an open-ended claim range be enabled?
| August 22, 2012
Magsil Corp. and MIT v. Hitachi Global
August 14, 2012
Panel: Rader, O’Malley, Reyna. Opinion by Rader.
Summary
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary judgment finding claims 1-5, 23, 26 and 28 of appellants’ U.S. Patent No. 5,629,922 (the ‘922 patent) invalid as a matter of law for lack of enablement and therefore non-infringed. At issue was whether the specification enabled the broad scope of the claimed “open-ended” range of values having a lower threshold, but no upper limit, defined by “a change in the resistance by at least 10% at room temperature”.
Magsil appealed the district court’s decision. On appeal, the CAFC affirmed the district court’s finding that claims 1-5, 23, 26 and 28 of the ‘922 patent are invalid for lack of enablement.
Tags: criticality of ranges > enablement > open-ended claim range > ranges
Another per se rule bites the dust. A reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
| April 12, 2012
Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.
August 23, 2011
Panel: Lourie, Plager and Dyk. Opinion by Lourie. Concurrence-in-part and dissent-in part by Dyk.
Summary:
This article concludes a three-part series regarding this important case from last year. For part 1, click here. For part 2, click here. This final article discusses the following questions:
Question 1: Does a broad range necessarily render obvious a narrower range falling within that broader range?
Answer 1: No.
Question 2: Do all minor chemical differences always lead to a conclusion of obviousness?
Answer 2: No.
