Ramification of Silence in Prosecution History and Reminder on Formulating Effective Obviousness Arguments
Fumika Ogawa | November 17, 2023
ELEKTA LIMITED v. ZAP SURGICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
Decided: September 21, 2023
Before Reyna, Stoll, and Stark. Opinion by Reyna.
Summary
The CAFC held that motivation to combine references is supported by substantial evidence including the patent prosecution history where relevancy of certain prior art, similar to an asserted reference in the IPR, was not contested by the applicant. The CAFC also rejected the patent owner’s arguments on lack of requisite findings on reasonable expectation of success, where such findings can be implied from express findings on motivation to combine as the two issues are interrelated to each other.
Details
Elekta’s U.S. Patent No. 7,295,648 (the “’648 patent”) pertains to ionizing radiation treatment. The technology is designed to deliver therapeutic radiation, such as one created by a linear accelerator or “linac,” to a target area of a patient such as brain tumors for treatment purposes. The ‘648 patent discloses that the linac, because of its great weight, requires a suitable structure to support the device while allowing a wide range of movement to focus the radiation precisely, leading to a challenge in implementing the linac-based system for treating highly sensitive, complex areas as with neurosurgery.
Representative claim 1 of the ‘648 patent recites:
A device for treating a patient with ionising radiation comprising:
a ring-shaped support, on which is provided a mount,
a radiation source attached to the mount;
the support being rotateable about an axis coincident with the centre of the ring;
the source being attached to the mount via a rotateable union having a an axis of rotation axis which is non-parallel to the support axis;
wherein the rotation axis of the mount passes through the support axis of the support and the radiation source is collimated so as to produce a beam which passes through the co-incidence of the rotation and support axes.
In the underlying inter partes review, the final written decision concluded, among other things, that claim 1 of the ’648 patent is obvious over a combination of Grady and Ruchala. In essence, Grady teaches an X-ray imaging device having a sophisticated rotatable support structure similar to that recited in the body of claim 1, whereas Ruchala teaches a linac-based radiation device for treating tumors, which may correspond to “treating a patient with ionising radiation” of claim 1.
On appeal, the CAFC addressed Elekta’s three main arguments regarding obviousness of claim 1: (1) “the Board’s findings on a motivation to combine are unsupported by substantial evidence”; (2) “the Board failed to make any findings, explicit or implicit, on a reasonable expectation of success”; and (3) “even had the Board made such findings, those findings are not supported by substantial evidence.” The CAFC reviewed the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.
- Substantial evidence for the motivation to combine
Elekta argued that substantial evidence was lacking with the Board’s finding of a motivation to combine the references. In particular, Elekta asserted that no motivation would have existed for a skilled artisan to combine Grady and Ruchala, one disclosing “radiation imagery” and the other for “radiation therapy,” where incorporating Ruchala’s linac radiation into Grady’s imaging system would not improve its imagery function in any aspect, whilst the linac’s heavy weight would hamper precision and control, thereby “render[ing] the device essentially inoperable.”
The Board’s obviousness conclusion relies on, among other findings, its review of the prosecution of the ’648 patent, wherein “patents directed to imaging devices were cited, and were not distinguished based on an argument that imaging devices were not relevant art,” along with the pertinent field being framed in the IPR as one that “includes the engineering design of sturdy mechanical apparatus[es] capable of rotationally manipulating heavy devices in three dimensions oriented in a variety of approach angles with high geometrical accuracy, in the context of the radiation imaging and radiation therapy environment.”
The CAFC held that there was substantial evidence for the motivation to combine. Specifically, the CAFC noted that such evidence includes the prosecution history of the ’648 patent, in which Elekta “notably did not argue that prior art references directed to imaging devices were not relevant art.” The CAFC concluded that such failure to distinguish imaging radiation prior art during the patent prosecution, along with the asserted references and an expert testimony pointing to benefits of combining imagery and therapeutic radiation functions, substantially support the motivation to combine.
- Findings on the reasonable expectation of success
Elekta argued that the Board’s obviousness determination was devoid of any findings on reasonable expectation of success.
The CAFC disagreed, finding that a sufficient, implicit finding was made as to the reasonable expectation of success. The CAFC contrasted findings of reasonable expectation of success, which “can be implicit,” with those of motivation to combine, which must be “explicit.” Although an explicit finding would be usually required to support determinations made by the Board, the CAFC points to its precedent where the Board’s rejection of a patent owner’s motivation to combine argument based on teaching away constituted an implicit finding of a reasonable expectation of success, as the latter could be “reasonably discern[ed]” in the Board’s findings on “other, intertwined arguments.”
The CAFC noted that Elekta’s own arguments on the motivation to combine and the reasonable expectation of success presented before the Board were “blended”: Elekta essentially asserted that the suggested combination, lacking precision and control due to the device’s heavy weight, would fail to serve its intended purposes so as to negate motivation to combine, and consequently, would also negate reasonable expectation of success. As such, the CAFC held that by making express findings on the motivation to combine, the Board adequately made an implicit finding on Elekta’s argument on reasonable expectation of success.
- Substantial evidence for the reasonable expectation of success
Elekta argued that substantial evidence was lacking in the Board’s findings, if any, on reasonable expectation of success.
The CAFC succinctly rejected the argument. The CAFC noted that the evidence establishing a motivation to combine may—but not always—establish a finding of reasonable expectation of success. And that was the case with the present appeal, where “the arguments and evidence of reasonable expectation of success are the same for motivation to combine.”
Takeaways
This case presents an interesting situation pointing to one potential ramification of prosecution history made by silence: A failure to object to the scope of pertinent art during patent prosecution undercuts the patent owner’s argument in attacking the motivation to combine, where the asserted prior art is arguably from a disparate field. It is important to consider potential benefits and downsides of presenting or not presenting certain arguments during prosecution.
Another takeaway is the importance of formulating non-obviousness arguments on an issue-by-issue basis even if interrelated issues are involved; doing so would help keep the analysis of reasonable expectation of success from being comingled with the issues of motivation to combine.
Tags: motivation to combine > prosecution history > Reasonable Expectation of Success
IPR Amendments: Broader is Broader (even narrowly so).
Michael Caridi | September 15, 2023
Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc, Telit Cinterion Deuschland GMBH
Decided: September 1, 2023
Before Prost, Reyna and Stark. Authored by Stark.
Summary: Sisvel appealed a PTAB IPR decision based on claim construction and denial of entry of a claim amendment for broadening the claim. The CAFC affirmed the Board on both counts, noting that broad disclosures in the specification will lead to a broad interpretation of the claims, and that claim amendments which encompass embodiments that would come within the scope of the amended claim but would not have infringed the original claim will be considered broadening.
Background:
In an IPR involving Sisvel’s patent claims 10, 11, 13, 17, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,433,698 (the “’698 patent”) and claims 1, 2, 4, and 13-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,364,196 (the “’196 patent”), the PTAB had found all claims unpatentable as anticipated and/or obvious in view of certain prior art.
The issues centered on the phraseology in the claims regarding the “connection rejection message” being used to direct a mobile communication means to attempt a new connection with certain parameter values such as a certain carrier frequency.
Claim 10, reproduced below, was the primary representative claim used by the CAFC:
10. A channel reselection method in a mobile communication means of a cellular telecommunication system, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving a connection rejection message;
observing at least one parameter of said connection rejection message; and
setting a value of at least one parameter for a new connection setup attempt based at least in part on information in at least one frequency parameter of said connection rejection message.
On appeal, Sisvel challenged the Board’s construction of the single claim term, “connection rejection message.”
Sisvel also challenged the Board’s denial of their motion to amend the claims on the basis that the amendment enlarged their scope.
Decision:
(a) Claim construction of “connection rejection message”
Sisvel appealed the Board’s construction of giving “connection rejection message” its plain and ordinary meaning of “a message that rejects a connection.” Sisvel’s purported a construction of “a message from a GSM or UMTS telecommunications network rejecting a connection request from a mobile station.” However, the PTAB found that such a construction would improperly limit the claims to embodiments using a Global System for Mobile Communication (“GSM”) or Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (“UMTS”) network.
Sisvel argued that UMTS and GSM “are the only specific networks identified by [the] ’698 and ’196 patents that actually send connection rejection messages” provided for in their specification.
The CAFC, in required fashion, reiterated the Phillips claim-construction standard – whereby “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history,” citing Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)) 669 F.3d at 1365.
After reviewing, the Court found that the intrinsic evidence provided no persuasive basis to limit the claims to any particular cellular networks. They noted that the specification, while only expressly disclosing embodiments in a UMTS or GSM network, in fact still included broad teachings directed to any network. The CAFC affirmed the Board, noting that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not read the broad claim language, accompanied by the broad specification statement to be limited to GSM and UMTS networks.
(b) IPR Amendment
The Court also considered Sisvel’s contention that the Board erred during the IPR by denying its motion to amend the claims of the ’698 patent. The Board had denied Sisvel’s motion, concluding that the amendments to original claim 10 would have impermissibly enlarged claim scope. Original claim 10 and substitute amended claim 36 read as follows:
The Court first noted that broadening claims are not allowable during an IPR in the same fashion as in a Reissue or Reexamination proceeding at the USPTO. They further delved into the law of what constitutes a broadening of a claim noting that a claim “is broader in scope than the original claim if it contains within its scope any conceivable apparatus or process which would not have infringed the original patent” citing Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 74 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The Court further remarked that it is Sisvel’s burden, as the patent owner, to show that the proposed amendment complies with relevant regulatory and statutory requirements, citing to 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(d)(1) (“A patent owner bears the burden of persuasion to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the motion to amend complies with the [applicable] requirements . . . .”).
The PTAB’s denial had focused on the last (“setting a value”) limitation, comparing the original claim’s requirement that the value be set “based at least in part on information in at least one frequency parameter” of the connection rejection message, while in the substitute claims the value may be set merely by “using the frequency parameter” contained within the connection rejection message. The Board had concluded that “[i]n proposed substitute claim 36, the value that is set need not be based, in whole or in part, on information in the connection rejection message and, thus, claim 36 is broader in this respect than claim 10.” J.A. 73.
The Court agreed with the PTAB’s reasoning that, in the context of these claims, “using” is broader than “based on” and that whereas the original claim language required that the value in a new connection setup attempt be at least in some respect impacted by (i.e., “based” on) the frequency parameter, the substitute claim removes this requirement. They concluded that this removal of a claim requirement can broaden the resulting amended claim, because it is conceivable there could be embodiments that would come within the scope of substitute claim 36 but would not have infringed original claim 10, citing Pannu v. Storz Instruments, Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A reissue claim that does not include a limitation present in the original patent claims is broader in that respect.”).
Take aways:
- The Phillips standard is reiterated with the Court finding that even general disclosures within a specification (i.e. not supported by any embodiments) will provide sufficient intrinsic evidence that a skilled artisan will be considered to interpret the claim language to encompass the general disclosures.
- Drafting claim amendments in a post-grant proceeding at the USPTO must be done with extreme care. Any logically conceivable interpretation of the amendment whereby embodiments would come within the scope of substitute claim but would not have infringed the original claim will be considered broadening.
Why not to be conclusory!
Adele Critchley | September 6, 2023
Volvo Penta of the Ams. LLC v. Brunswick Corp.
Decided: August 24, 2023
Before Moore, Chief Judge, Lourie and Cunningham, Circuit Judges. Authored by Chief Judge, Lourie.
Summary:
The CAFC vacated a Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) holding all claims of U.S. Patent 9,630,692 (the “’962 patent”), owned by Volvo Penta, unpatentable as obvious. The court remanded the decision for further evaluation of objective indicia of non-obviousness that the Board had not adequately considered.
- A steerable tractor-type drive for a boat, comprising:
a drive support mountable to a stern of the boat;
a drive housing pivotally attached to the support about a steering axis, the drive housing having a vertical drive shaft connected to drive a propeller shaft, the propeller shaft extending from a forward end of the drive housing;
at least one pulling propeller mounted to the propeller shaft,
wherein the steering axis is offset forward of the vertical drive shaft.
The ’962 patent is directed to a boat drive, designed to provide a “pulling-type” or “forward facing drive” positioned under the stern of the boat. Claim 1 of the ’692 patent, reproduced below, is representative.
In 2015, Volvo Penta launched its commercial embodiment of the ’692 patent, the ‘Forward Drive.’ This product became extremely successful once available, particularly for wakesurfing and other water sports.
In August 2020, Brunswick Corp. (“Brunswick”) launched its own drive that also embodied the ’692 patent, the ‘Bravo Four S.’ The same day that Brunswick launched the Bravo Four S, it petitioned for inter partes review of all claims of the ’692 patent. Relevant to this appeal, Brunswick asserted that the challenged claims would have been obvious based on the references, Kiekhaefer and Brandt. Kiekhaefer is a 1952 patent assigned to Brunswick and directed to an outboard motor that could have either rear-facing or forward-facing propellers. Brandt is a 1989 patent assigned to Volvo Penta and directed to a stern drive with rear-facing propellers.
Volvo Penta position was not that the references combined failed to disclose all the claim elements, but rather that there was a lack of motivation to combine said references. Volvo Penta further proffered evidence of six objective indicia of non-obviousness: copying, industry praise, commercial success, skepticism, failure of others, and long-felt but unsolved need.
Ultimately, the Board had found Volvo Penta’s position unpersuasive asserting that sufficient motivation was found and that Volvo Penta’s objective evidence of secondary considerations was insufficient to outweigh Brunswick’s “strong evidence of obviousness.”
Accordingly, Volvo Penta raises three main arguments on appeal: (1) that the Board’s finding of motivation to combine was not supported by substantial evidence, (2) that the Board erred in its determination that there was no nexus, and (3) that the Board erred in its consideration of Volvo Penta’s objective evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.
The court discussed each one in turn:
- Motivation:
The court began:
The ultimate conclusion of obviousness is a legal determination based on underlying factual findings, including whether or not a relevant artisan would have had a motivation to combine references in the way required to achieve the claimed invention. Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238–39 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
Volvo Penta first argued that the Board ignored a number of assertions in its favor, including: (1) that Brunswick, despite having knowledge of Kiekhaefer for decades, never attempted the proposed modification itself; (2) that Brunswick’s proposed modification would have entailed a nearly total and exceedingly complex redesign of the drive system; (3) the complexity of and difficulty in shifting the vertical drive shaft of Kiekhaefer; and (4) that Brunswick itself attempted to make its proposed modification yet failed to create a functional drive. The court disagreed on all points.
The Board acknowledged the testimony of Volvo Penta’s expert that a “complete redesign of Brandt” would be necessary, including “over two dozen modifications,” but ultimately found that not all of the identified changes would have been required to arrive at the claimed invention.
Volvo Penta also argued that the Board’s reliance on Kiekhaefer for motivation to combine was misplaced. The Board had relied on Kiekhaefer teaching that a “tractor-type propeller” is “more efficient and capable of higher speeds.” Volvo Penta argued this is not the metric by which recreational boats are measured.
However, again, the court disagreed stating that while ‘it is likewise not conclusive that speed may not be the primary or only metric by which recreational boats are measured. Substantial evidence supports a finding that speed is at least a consideration.’
The CAFC thus upheld the Board’s finding that motivation to combine was supported by substantial evidence.
II. Nexus
The Court began:
For objective evidence of secondary considerations to be relevant, there must be a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the objective evidence. See In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). A showing of nexus can be made in two ways: (1) via a presumption of nexus, or (2) via a showing that the evidence is a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.
A patent owner is entitled to a presumption of nexus when it shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product that “embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000).When a nexus is presumed, “the burden shifts to the party asserting obviousness to present evidence to rebut the presumed nexus.” Id.; see also Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The inclusion of noncritical features does not defeat a finding of a presumption of nexus. See, e.g., PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734, 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that a nexus may exist “even when the product has additional, unclaimed features”)
Initially, for a presumption of nexus, there is a requirement that the product embodies the invention and is coextensive with it. Brown & Williamson, 229 F.3d at 1130. The CAFC noted that neither party disputed that both the Forward Drive and the Bravo Four S embodied the claimed invention. See, e.g., J.A. 1211, 117:10–25, but emphasized that coextensiveness is a separate requirement. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1374.
Volvo Penta, as Brunswick and the Board note, did not provide sufficient argument on coextensiveness. Rather, it submitted a mere sentence that the Forward Drive is a “commercial embodiment” of the ‘692 Patent and “coextensive with the claims”. The Board found this argument “conclusory” and the CAFC agreed. As above, “[t]he patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373 (quoting WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
However, the court found that the Boards finding of a lack of nexus, independent of a presumption, not supported by evidence. Specifically, the Board found that Brunswick’s development of the Bravo Four S was “akin to ‘copying,’” and that its “own internal documents indicate that the Forward Drive product guided [Brunswick] to design the Bravo Four S in the first place.” Indeed, the undisputed evidence, as the Board found, shows that boat manufacturers strongly desired Volvo Penta’s Forward Drive and were urging Brunswick to bring a forward drive to market.
The court found that there is therefore a nexus between the unique features of the claimed invention, a tractor-type stern drive, and the evidence of secondary considerations.
III. Objective Indicia
The court began:
Objective evidence of nonobviousness includes: (1) commercial success, (2) copying, (3) industry praise, (4) skepticism, (5) long-felt but unsolved need, and (6) failure of others. See, e.g., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling U.S., Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349–56 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The weight to be given to evidence of secondary considerations involves factual determinations, which we review only for substantial evidence. In re Couvaras, 70 F.4th 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
The court found that “the Board’s analysis of [this] objective indicia of non-obviousness, including its assignments of weight to different considerations, was overly vague and ambiguous.”
For example, despite recognizing the importance of Brunswick internal documents demonstrating deliberate copying of the Forward Drive, and “finding copying, the Board only afforded this factor ‘some weight.’” The Federal Circuit held that this “assignment of only ‘some weight’” was insufficient in view of its precedent, which generally explains that “copying [is] strong evidence of non-obviousness,” and the “failure by others to solve the problem and copying may often be the most probative and cogent evidence of non-obviousness.” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 475 U.S. 809 (1986) (“That Dennison, a large corporation with many engineers on its staff, did not copy any prior art device, but found it necessary to copy the cable tie of the claims in suit, is equally strong evidence of nonobviousness.”).
Regarding commercial success, the Board recognized that the record supported, and Brunswick did not contest, that boat manufacturers “strongly desired Volvo Penta’s Forward Drive and were urging Brunswick to bring a forward drive to market.” Nevertheless, the Board only afforded this factor “some weight.” The court stated that this finding was not supported by substantial evidence.
Regarding industry praise, the Board found that although the exhibits submitted “provide praise for the Forward Drive more generally, including mentioning its forward facing propellers, as claimed in the ’692 patent,” it also found that “many of the statements of alleged praise specifically discuss unclaimed features, such as adjustable trim and exhaust-related features.”
The court noted that the Board assigned industry praise, commercial success, and copying all “some weight” without explaining why it gave these three factors the same weight. The court concluded this was ambiguous, and so the Board had “failed to sufficiently explain and support its conclusions. See, e.g., Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (remanding in view of the Board’s failure to “sufficiently explain and support [its] conclusions”); In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same).”
Next, the Court also determined that the Board failed to properly evaluate long-felt but unresolved need. In evaluating the evidence presented by Volvo Penta, the Board dismissed it as merely describing the benefits of the product without indicating a long-felt problem that others had failed to solve. Volvo Penta had cited articles in support of its position, but the Board, without explanation, gave the arguments very little weight. Upon review, the CAFC stated that the articles identified more than mere benefits and “indisputably identifies a long-felt need: safe wakesurfing on stern-drive boats.”
The CAFC touches upon the relevance of the time since the issuance of cited references. The CAFC agreed with the Board that “the mere passage of time from dates of the prior art to the challenged patents” does not indicate nonobviousness “their age can be relevant to long-felt unresolved need.” See Leo Pharm. Prods., 726 F.3d 1346, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The length of the intervening time between the publication dates of the prior art and the claimed invention can also qualify as an objective indicator of nonobviousness.”); cf. Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016), overruled on other grounds by Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The CAFC stated that other factors such as “lack of market demand” can explain why a product was not developed for years, even decades after the prior art. However, when, as here, “evidence demonstrates that there was a market demand for at least” a period of that time (here, the market demand only existed for ten of the fifty years from the prior art reference), the fact that Brunswick itself owned one of the asserted should not be overlooked. That, it is certainly relevant that the asserted patents were long in existence and not obscure, but rather owned by the parties in this case.
Finally, the CAFC held that the Board’s ultimate conclusion that “Brunswick’s “strong evidence of obviousness outweighs Patent Owner’s objective evidence of nonobviousness” lacked a proper explanation for said conclusion.
Thus, ultimately the Court found that the Board failed to properly consider the evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness and so vacated and remanded for further consideration consistent with the opinion.
Comments:
Motivation to combine a reference does not require a recognition of the primary or only metric by which an invention is measured, so long as it is at least a consideration.
Regarding a presumption of nexus, be reminded that (i) coextensiveness is a separate element and should be addressed as such; and that (ii) “[t]he patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists” and this requires more than conclusory statements. Similarly, the PTO must support a finding of a lack of nexus with evidence not mere conclusory statements.
It also serves as a reminder to be thoughtful and thorough in presenting objective indicia of nonobviousness, not only during IPRs and other forms of litigation, but in prosecution too. Avoid citing arguments in conclusory fashion.
Tags: Motivation > nexus > objective indicia of nonobviousness > obviousness > secondary considerations
Do not omit an “essential element” of the original invention in the reissue claims
Sung-Hoon Kim | August 29, 2023
In Re: FloatʻN’Grill LLC
Decided: July 12, 2023
Before Linn (author), Prost, and Cunningham
Summary:
When FloatʻN’Grill LLC filed a reissue application, they deleted an essential part of the original disclosure from reissue claims. The PTAB rejected those claims for failure to satisfy the original patent requirement of § 251. The CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s decision.
Details:
FloatʻN’Grill LLC (“FNG”) appeals from the decision of the PTAB affirming the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§112(b) and 251 of claims 4, 8, 10-14, and 17-22 of FNG’s application for reissue of its U.S. Patent No. 9,771,132 (“’132 patent”).
The ’132 patent
The ’132 patent is directed to a float designed to support a grill (76) so that a user can grill food in a body of water.
A floating apparatus (10) includes a float (20), a pair of grill supports (46 and 48), and an upper support (52). Each of the grill supports includes a plurality of magnets (60) disposed within a middle segment (58) of the upper support (52) of each grill support (46 and 48).
In particular, the specification states: “A flattened bottom side 74 of a portable outdoor grill 76 is removably securable to the plurality of magnets 60 and removably disposed immediately atop the upper support 52 of each” of the grill supports.” The specification does not disclose, suggest, or imply any other structures besides the plurality of magnets for removably securing the grill to the supports.
Independent claim 1 is a representative claim:
1. A floating apparatus for supporting a grill comprising. . .
. . .
a plurality of magnets disposed within the middle segment of the upper support of each of the right grill support and the left grill support . . .
. . .
wherein a flattened bottom side of a portable outdoor grill is removably securable to the plurality of magnets and removably disposed immediately atop the upper support of each of the right grill support and the left grill support.
Reissue Application
After the ’132 patent was issued, FNG filed a reissue application. However, none of the claims in the reissue application recites “the plurality of magnets” limitations. Rather, the claims recite the feature regarding the removable securing of a grill to the floating apparatus.
Independent claim 4 is a representative claim in the reissue application:
4. A floating grill support apparatus adapted to support a grill on water, the apparatus comprising:
a float having an outer rim wherein the float is buoyant and adapted to float in water and support a grill above the water; and
at least one base rod disposed within the outer rim wherein the base rod comprises a grill support member;
wherein the grill support member has an upper support portion;
wherein a bottom side of the grill is removably securable and removably disposed immediately atop the upper support portion of the grill support member.
The Examiner rejected the claims for failure to satisfy the reissue standard of 35 U.S.C. §251.
The Examiner indicated that the ’132 patent disclosed “a single embodiment of a floating apparatus for supporting a grill” using a “plurality of magnets” and did not disclose the plurality of magnets as being “an optional feature of the invention.” In addition, the Examiner indicated that the magnets are a critical element of the invention because the magnets alone are responsible for a safe and stable attachment between the floating apparatus and the grill.
The Examiner noted that since some claims in the reissue application do not require any magnets, require only a single magnet, and do not positively recite any magnets, they do not satisfy the original patent requirement of §251.
The PTAB
The PTAB maintained all the Examiner’s rejection.
The CAFC
The CAFC reviewed de novo.
The CAFC emphasized that for a reissue application, there is an additional statutory limitation in 35 U.S.C. §251 for a patentee seeking to change the scope of the claims through reissue – the “original patent” requirement of §251 (the reissue claims must be directed to “the invention disclosed in the original patent”).
The CAFC noted that the focus of the §251 analysis is on the invention disclosed in the original patent and whether that disclosure, on its face, explicitly and unequivocally described the invention as recited in the reissue claims.
The CAFC agreed with the PTAB that the reissue claims in this case are not directed to the invention disclosed in the original patent and, therefore, do not meet the original patent requirement of § 251.
The CAFC noted that the original specification describes a single embodiment of the invention characterized as a floating apparatus having a grill support including a plurality of magnets for safely and removably securing the grill to the float.
The CAFC held that the plurality of magnets component of the grill support structure are removed from the reissue claims, and that the original patent disclosure does not disclose these structures as optional. Also, the CAFC noted that the original patent disclosure does not provide any examples of alternative components or arrangements that might perform the functions of the plurality of magnets.
Therefore, the CAFC found that the plurality of magnets are essential parts of the invention because they are only disclosed structures for performing the task of removably and safely securing the grill to the float apparatus.
Accordingly, the CAFC held that the PTAB did not err in affirming the rejection of reissue claims for failure to satisfy the original patent requirement of § 251.
Takeaway:
- If Applicant would like to broaden the scope of the original invention, file a continuation or divisional application during the pendency of a parent application.
- Make sure that do not omit an “essential element” of the original invention in the reissue claims.
- Add more boilerplate statements and additional embodiments in the original application so that the broader reissue claims could be saved.
Tags: 35 U.S.C. § 251 > continuation application > divisional application > original patent requirement > Reissue application
