Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-18-01070/USCOURTS-ca13-18-01070-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrei Iancu
Appellee
Joseph Matal
Appellee
William Michael Frederick Taylor
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

WILLIAM MICHAEL FREDERICK TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2018-1070

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:15-cv-01684-LMBJFA, United States District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.

______________________

Decided: April 3, 2020

______________________

WILLIAM MICHAEL FREDERICK TAYLOR, Chiddingfold, 

Surrey, United Kingdom, pro se. 

 THOMAS W. KRAUSE, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

defendant-appellee. Also represented by JOSEPH MATAL,

MEREDITH HOPE SCHOENFELD, MAI-TRANG DUC DANG. 

Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 1 Filed: 04/03/2020
2 TAYLOR v. IANCU

 ______________________

Before DYK, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

William Michael Frederick Taylor (“Mr. Taylor”) sued 

the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) under 35 U.S.C. § 145, challenging the Patent 

Office’s rejection of U.S. Application Serial No. 11/391,501 

(“the ’501 application”), of which Mr. Taylor is the inventor.1

 The district court granted summary judgment to the 

Patent Office, concluding that all of the ’501 application’s 

claims are indefinite and lack written description. We affirm on the ground that the ’501 application’s claims lack

written description.

BACKGROUND

The ’501 application claims priority to United Kingdom 

Patent Application No. GB9310175.6, filed on May 18, 

1993. The specification describes a system called “GPS Explorer.” J.A. 277. GPS Explorer “is designed to provide 

information [to a user] on the move,” such as “while driving, flying, sailing, riding or walking.” J.A. 277, 278. The 

specification explains that in a “real time version” of GPS 

Explorer:

1 Mr. Taylor also challenged, in separate cases, the 

Patent Office’s rejection of two of his related applications: 

U.S. Application Serial Nos. 10/425,553 (“the ’553 application”) and 11/807,860 (“the ’860 application”). The district 

court consolidated the three cases, and concluded that each 

of the applications was unpatentable. Mr. Taylor separately appeals the district court’s decision as to the ’553 application (Case No. 18-1048) and as to the ’860 application 

(Case No. 18-1047). Our decisions on those appeals are being issued concurrently with this decision. 

Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 2 Filed: 04/03/2020
TAYLOR v. IANCU 3

The system selects incoming data relevant to the 

chosen mode of use and location based on GPS calculated position. Selected data items are stored in 

memory in the device on receipt and then handled 

in the same way as other database data described 

earlier. 

The real time data system could provide the user 

with access to and automatically search a wide 

range of information sources: local weather, 

weather reports for pilots and yachtsmen, scheduled flight delays, details of special events, hotel 

room availability, road conditions, audio guided diversions, financial market updates for example.

J.A. 286–87 (emphasis added). The specification also describes an “audio visual version” of GPS Explorer that includes a “Simulation Mode.” J.A. 285–86. In this mode:

[h]aving arrived at a physical location or identified 

it in pre-view mode, the user may access [a] database to obtain a computer[-]based simulation of 

some aspect of the location. . . . By walking around 

the physical site, as the GPS data changes so will 

the simulation to illustrate the simulated views 

from the new physical position taking into consideration the user[’]s orientation, height, direction of 

view, view angle of azimuth and time of day.

J.A. 286. The independent claims of the ’501 application—

claims 1 and 35—are directed to storing data based on a 

sensed position, searching that data to select information, 

and presenting a simulation of that information. Claim 1 

recites:

1. A system for mobile searching of information by 

a portable device comprising: 

an input component providing data retrieval criteria from a user to a computing 

component of the portable device; 

Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 3 Filed: 04/03/2020
4 TAYLOR v. IANCU

a position determining component sensing 

a position of the portable device and providing the sensed position to the computing 

component of the portable device; 

a receiving component which receives data 

from data transmissions; 

the computing component which selectively 

stores the received data based on the 

sensed position and the computing component is operable to access and search the 

selectively stored data by selecting, from 

the selectively stored data, information 

based on the sensed position and the provided data retrieval criteria; and 

a presentation component coupled to the 

computing component presenting to the 

user a simulated representation, as an aspect of the sensed position, of the selected 

information.

J.A. 72 (emphasis added). Claim 35 recites:

35. A method of mobile searching of information using a portable device, the method comprising: 

receiving data retrieval criteria from a 

user; 

sensing a position of the portable device; 

receiving data from data transmissions; 

selectively storing the received data based 

on the sensed position; 

accessing and searching the selectively 

stored data by selecting, from the selectively stored data, information on the 

sensed position and the received data retrieval criteria; and 

Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 4 Filed: 04/03/2020
TAYLOR v. IANCU 5

presenting to the user on the portable device a simulated representation, as an aspect of the sensed position, of the selected 

information.

J.A. 74 (emphasis added).

The examiner rejected claims 1 and 35 as obvious in 

light of several prior art references. On appeal, the Patent 

Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) further rejected the 

claims as lacking written description and as indefinite. 

The Board reversed the examiner’s obviousness rejections, 

reasoning that the claims were too indefinite for the Board 

to “make a proper review of the prior art rejections.” J.A. 

5162. The Board denied Mr. Taylor’s request for rehearing. 

Mr. Taylor then filed a complaint under 35 U.S.C. § 145 

in district court, seeking judgment that the ’501 application’s claims were patentable. J.A. 2. The district court 

granted summary judgment to the Patent Office, concluding that “the ’501 [a]pplication is both indefinite and lacks 

written description,” J.A. 54, and denied Mr. Taylor’s motion for reconsideration. 

Mr. Taylor appeals. We have jurisdiction to review the 

district court’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(C). 

We reach only the written description issue.

DISCUSSION

We review the district court’s grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. MicroStrategy Inc. v. Bus. Objects, 

S.A., 429 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under the written description requirement for patentability, the specification “must ‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the 

art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is 

claimed.’” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 

1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting Vas-Cath 

Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)) (alteration in original). Written description is a question of 

Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 5 Filed: 04/03/2020
6 TAYLOR v. IANCU

fact. Id. (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 

F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). 

We agree with the district court that the specification 

does not provide written description for the pending claims. 

For instance, the claims recite “selectively stor[ing] . . . received data based on the sensed position” and “access[ing]

and search[ing] the selectively stored data by selecting, 

from the selectively stored data, information on the sensed 

position.” The specification provides examples of data that 

could be retrieved: “local weather, weather reports for pilots and yachtsmen, scheduled flight delays, details of special events, hotel room availability, road conditions, audio 

guided diversions, [and] financial market updates.” J.A. 

287. But the specification does not explain how the claimed

“selective[] storing,” “accessing,” and “searching” of this 

data is achieved. The Patent Office’s expert, Dr. Peter 

Dana, testified that, without this explanation, the claims 

lack written description:

While sorting and searching techniques had been 

well studied and published (For example, Knuth, 

Donald E. 1973. The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 3: Sorting and Searching. Menlo 

Park: Addison Wesley.), the specification does not 

discuss or describe any approach to large-scale 

sorting and searching required in a complex database with information that covers the wide variety 

of user needs alluded to.

Expert Report of Peter Dana, Ph.D., Taylor v. Matal, No. 

1:16-cv-12, ECF No. 81-1, at 14–15. None of Mr. Taylor’s 

experts has testified to the contrary. 

The specification also does not describe the claimed

combination of two versions of GPS Explorer. Both independent claims (claims 1 and 35) recite two distinct features. The first feature—captured by the claim limitations 

of “selectively stor[ing]” data “based on the sensed 

Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 6 Filed: 04/03/2020
TAYLOR v. IANCU 7

position,” and “search[ing] the selectively stored data by selecting, from the selectively stored data, information based 

on the sensed position”—has to do with retrieving locationbased information as disclosed for the “real time version” 

of GPS Explorer. J.A. 286–87. The second feature—captured by the claim limitation of “presenting to the user on 

the portable device a simulated representation, as an aspect of the sensed position, of the selected information”—

has to do with the “[s]imulation [m]ode” of GPS Explorer’s 

“audio visual version.” J.A. 285–86. 

For instance, the specification does not describe how 

GPS Explorer would “tak[e] into consideration the user[’]s 

orientation, height, direction of view, view angle of azimuth 

and time of day” to convert the real-time version’s locationbased “information sources” (e.g., “scheduled flight delays,” 

“details of special events,” or “hotel room availability”) into 

the simulation mode’s “simulated views.” See J.A. 286–87. 

Moreover, some “information sources” described in the 

specification—for example, “audio guided diversions”—

seem inherently non-visual. And although Mr. Taylor provides the testimony of several experts, none of these experts testified that a person of ordinary skill would

recognize the specification to be demonstrating the invention of the claimed combination. Accordingly, a person of 

ordinary skill in the art would not understand that the inventor possessed the subject matter claimed. 

Mr. Taylor’s own experience in attempting to implement the invention further supports finding a lack of written description here. Mr. Taylor admitted that in 1993, 

when he filed his initial application, “there was no internet,” and that once the internet was developed he “attempt[ed] to play catch-up and move from [his] previous 

conception [of the invention] to [one] having more of an involvement in the internet.” Deposition of William Michael 

Frederick Taylor (day 2), Taylor v. Matal, No. 16-cv-12, 

ECF No. 51-3, at 11–12. Mr. Taylor also admitted that 

Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 7 Filed: 04/03/2020
8 TAYLOR v. IANCU

even after filing his application he was “waiting and waiting and waiting” for “a suitable platform to become available” to allow him to implement his idea. Id. at 12. Indeed, 

as the district court found, Mr. Taylor’s “first prototype was 

not operational until 1998 and neither that prototype nor 

the 2001 version contained all the features described in the 

specification, much less the claims.” J.A. 65. Mr. Taylor’s 

experience thus shows that the specification did not 

demonstrate possession of the claimed invention but was 

instead “a ‘mere wish or plan’ for obtaining the claimed invention.” See Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting 

Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 

1559, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). 

Because no reasonable factfinder could conclude that 

the ’501 application’s claims meet the written description 

requirement, the district court did not err in holding the 

claims unpatentable. We need not reach the district court’s 

decision with respect to indefiniteness. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 8 Filed: 04/03/2020