Source: https://www.ptab.us/2012/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:02:06+00:00

Document:
allen eng'g, boehringer, IMS, Jung, Kinetic, storage tech.
That is, such “being configured to” language merely represents a statement of intended use of the light projector. An intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Although claim 73 claims a “3D imaging camera” in the preamble, “[w]hether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is ‘determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.’” Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held generally that “the preamble does not limit the claims.” Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
We do not find that the body of the claim depends on the preamble for completeness; since the preamble does not provide more than just “a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Therefore, we find that the preamble has no separate limiting effect.
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, so as to meet the notice required of 35 USC § 132, requires (1) “set[ting] forth the statutory basis of the rejection”; (2) “the reference or references relied upon”; and (3) explaining the references “in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, there must be (4) “a reason to combine prior art references[, which] is a question of fact.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted).
Labels: allen eng'g , boehringer , IMS , Jung , Kinetic , storage tech.
Under the doctrine of inherency, if a claimed element is not expressly disclosed in a prior art reference, the reference nevertheless anticipates the claim if the missing element is necessarily present in the reference, and it would be so recognized by skilled artisans. Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., 304 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). To anticipate the claim, the missing element must be necessarily present in the prior art—not merely probably or possibly present. Id.
The term “nexus” designates a factually and legally sufficient connection between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention so that the evidence is of probative value in the determination of nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 (1988).
tec air, amhil, asahi/america, bell and howell, roton barrier, york prod.
Where a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious. See Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
In addition, we note that the word “substantially” is often used to mean largely but not wholly what is specified. See, e.g., York Products, Inc., v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also, Amhil Enterprises Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d, 1554, 1562, (Fed. Cir. 1996).
See Bell & Howell Document Management v. AltekSys., 132 F.3d 701, 706 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The testimony of an inventor and his attorney concerning claim construction is thus entitled to little or no consideration. The testimony of an inventor is often a self-serving, after-the-fact attempt to state what should have been part of his or her patent application ....”); Roton Barrier, Inc. v. Stanley Works, 79 F.3d 1112, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“We have previously stated than an inventor's ‘after-the-fact testimony is of little weight compared to the clear import of the patent disclosure itself.’” (citation omitted)).
Labels: amhil , asahi/america , bell and howell , roton barrier , tec air , york prod.
[I]n reexamination proceedings in which the PTO is considering the patentability of claims of an expired patent which are not subject to amendment, a policy of liberal claim construction may properly and should be applied. Such a policy favors a construction of a patent claim that will render it valid, i.e., a narrow construction, over a broad construction that would render it invalid. Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d at 1656; Ex parte Bowles, 23 USPQ2d 1015, 1017 (BPAI 1991) (both nonprecedential 4). The Board also held in both Papst-Motoren and Bowles that it would be error to read “inferential limitations” into the claims. Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d at 1657; Bowles, 23 USPQ2d at 1017.
Papst-Motoren’s holding that “claims should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity” is another way of saying that the USPTO does not apply the “broadest reasonable interpretation” in construing the claims of an expired patent in a reexamination proceeding.
4 Although Papst-Motoren is not designated as precedential, it was decided by an expanded panel of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, including the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, the Chairman of the Board, and an Examiner-in-Chief.
Initially, we agree with Examiner that a presumption of obviousness may exist when a claimed and a prior art device differ only in size. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459 (CCPA 1955). This, however, is not the case before us on this record.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 132
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.