Source: http://www.717madisonplace.com/?m=201009
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:48:12+00:00

Document:
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a vote on Judge Kathleen O’Malley last Thursday during its business meeting. By voice vote of the committee members, Judge O’Malley’s nomination was approved unanimously by the quorum of senators. Her nomination will now move to the full Senate for a vote at a later date.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet held a hearing on nominee Edward C. DuMont for a second vacancy on the Federal Circuit.
A third vacancy still has no nominee from the White House.
During the committee meeting, Chairman Leahy noted that the Federal Circuit currently has three vacancies and that the committee has to “get moving” on the pending nominations. The D.C. Circuit apparently has four vacancies.
You can watch the webcast of the committee meeting here: [Watch Committee Meeting]. Judge O’Malley’s nomination is discussed at about the 20:49 minute and 46:10 minute marks.
In Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd v. Ambu A/S, 2010-1028 (Fed. Cir. September 21, 2010), the Federal Circuit dealt with some complicated claim construction issues. One issue concerned the meaning of the word “backplate” used in a laryngeal mask patent. The oral argument for this case was featured in an earlier post as the Oral Argument of the Month [Link].
Although there was no dictionary or treatise defini-tion introduced for backplate, there are two prior art patents also related to laryngeal mask devices which use the term. U.S. Patent No. 5,355,879 (’879 patent); U.S. Patent No. 5,305,743 (’743 patent). Both prior art patents list the same inventor as the patent at issue, Dr. Brain. Both of these patents disclose a backplate, but neither includes a tube joint. This prior art use of the term would further inform one of skill in the art as to the common meaning of the term backplate.
The term backplate has a somewhat self-descriptive nature. As the prior art patents indicate it is the plate on the back. In light of the claims, specification, prosecution history, and prior art patents, we conclude that one of skill in the art would understand the claimed backplate to be “the relatively rigid mask structure surrounded by the cuff.” We conclude that one of skill in the art would not conclude that the backplate must have a tube joint. We also conclude that the inventor did not act as his own lexicographer here and clearly require the backplate to have a tube joint. Because the district court’s judgment of noninfringement was based on an erroneous claim con-struction, we vacate that judgment and remand for fur-ther proceedings.
The court’s statement “in view of the claims, specification, prosecution history, and prior art patents” is a little redundant because the prior art patents were cited during the prosecution history — therefore under Phillips v. AWH, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) those cited prior art patents actually form part of the prosecution history. See Phillips at 1317 (“The prosecution history, which we have designated as part of the “intrinsic evidence,” consists of the complete record of the proceedings before the PTO and includes the prior art cited during the examination of the patent. Autogiro, 384 F.2d at 399.”).
Even when prior art is not cited in the written description or the prosecution history, it may assist in ascertaining the meaning of a term to a person skilled in the art. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1996). When prior art that sheds light on the meaning of a term is cited by the patentee, it can have particular value as a guide to the proper construction of the term, because it may indicate not only the meaning of the term to persons skilled in the art, but also that the patentee intended to adopt that meaning.
You can read the entire Laryngeal Mask opinion here: [Read].
The Merit Systems Protection Board is slated to hold its first oral argument in 27 years. The announcement of the oral argument was made last week in the Federal Register. The argument before the Merit Systems Protection Board will take place at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
On Tuesday, September 21, 2010, the MSPB will hear oral argument in the matters of Rhonda K. Conyers v. Department of Defense, MSPB Docket No. CH–0752–09–0925–I–1, and Devon H. Northover v. Department of Defense, MSPB Docket No. AT–0752–10–0184–I–1. The proceedings will take place at 10:00 a.m. at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Room 201, 717 Madison Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. See 75 FR 56146, Sept. 15, 2010.
Conyers and Northover raise the question of whether, pursuant to 5 CFR part 732, the rule in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530–31 (1988), limiting the scope of MSPB review of an adverse action based on the revocation of a security clearance, also applies to an adverse action involving an employee in a ‘‘non-critical sensitive’’ position due to the employee having been denied continued eligibility for employment in a sensitive position. The Board requested and received an advisory opinion from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in this matter. See 5 U.S.C. § 1204(e)(1)(A). The Board also invited and received amicus curiae briefs. See 75 FR 6728, Feb. 10, 2010.
The parties and the amici curiae will be allotted time at the hearing to present oral argument in this matter. The briefs submitted by the parties and the amici curiae, as well as OPM’s advisory opinion, are available for viewing on the MSPB’s website at http://www.mspb.gov/oralarguments. The MSPB also will make a recording of the oral argument available on its website. The public is welcome to attend this hearing for the sole purpose of observation. Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features, such as sign language interpretation, must inform MSPB of those needs in advance.
The U.S. Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent, quasi-judicial agency that protects Federal merit systems and the rights of individuals within those systems. The MSPB also conducts studies of the civil service and other merit systems in the Executive Branch.
The Federal Register announcement is available here: [Read].
The Federal Circuit has posted an announcement on its web site that Chief Judge Rader and other judges will be holding a joint judicial conference with the Tokyo Intellectual Property High Court in Tokyo, Japan on May 12th and 13th, 2011.
The historic conference will offer judges the opportunity to explore common issues and learn from each other about intellectual property litigation.
Prior to taking one of the top positions at the USPTO as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO, Sharon Barner was in private practice in Chicago. She has argued at least once before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
You can listen to her argument before the Federal Circuit in Automed Technologies v. Microfil, LLC, 2006-1620 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 16, 2007) here: [Listen].
You can read the court’s opinion in that case here: [Read].
You are currently browsing the 717 Madison Place blog archives for September, 2010.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1204
 v.