Source: http://www.717madisonplace.com/?cat=4
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:54:14+00:00

Document:
stimulating the left ventricle and the right ventricle when a depolarization signal from the one ventricle is detected for effecting a coordinate contraction of ventricles contracting in an incoordinate manner to improve the pumping ability of the heart suffering from heart failure.
Moreover, inclusion of the express limitation “to improve the pumping ability of the heart suffering from heart failure,” RE’897 Patent col. 21 ll. 33-35, in claim 171 of the RE’897 Patent, a continuation of the RE’119 Patent, suggests that the other claims that do not recite such a limitation should not be so limited. We therefore conclude that the district court erred by restricting the claimed invention to the treatment of congestive heart failure.
Thus, the Federal Circuit noted that the functional language “to improve the pumping ability of the heart suffering from heart failure” has limiting effect on the scope of the claim.
Under the Examiner’s interpretation, because it is possible to remove anything using a blow torch, every means of attaching or securing two parts is removable. This interpretation is incorrect because it would effectively expunge the word “removably” from the claim language. See Stumbo v.Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions that render phrases in claims superfluous).
The Specification does not provide a definition for the terms “removably secured” or “removably attached.” An ordinary meaning of removable is “that can be removed or taken away,” and an ordinary meaning of “secure” is “to fix or attach (something) so as not to become loose, giveway, fall off, or come apart.”1 Consistent with these ordinary meanings, the Specification describes removable legs as attached by screws.2 Spec. 13, ll. 17-25 (describing legs 100 and 102 as releasably secured to base rim 20 ofinsert 12 by screws 116); figs. 6-8.
An artisan would interpret that removably secured or attached legs are those that they may be removed in the ordinary sense of the word, such as by unscrewing a screw. See K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (interpreting that rivets and laminate permanently affix while, in contrast, screws are removable). Consequently, removal by means such as a blow torch is not within the scope of claims 2, 10, and 16. Id. at 1365 (“claim construction is firmly anchored in reality by the understanding of those of ordinary skill in the art”).
As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 2, 10, and 16, and their respective dependent claims 3-9, 11-13, and 17-29.
Having determined that the Examiner’s proposed combination of references did not satisfy the language “legs adapted to be removably secured to said base,” the Board reversed the rejection.
The Rembrandt Technologies v. Cablevision oral argument took place last week. This appears to be a rather high-stakes patent litigation involving multiple cable companies. The technology at issue concerns a viterbi decoder for a trellis encoded signal. The patent that is the subject of the oral argument is U.S. patent 5,243,627.
This is an opportunity for you to be the judge of the claim construction issue and to see if your prediction matches the forthcoming panel decision.
1) Do you think “signal point” would have had a plain and ordinary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art?
2) If “signal point” did not have a plain and ordinary meaning, did the “present invention” language, Abstract, “Summary of the Invention,” and repeated embodiments using only two-dimensional signal points limit the meaning of “signal point” to a two-dimensional signal point. Or, if “signal point” did have a plain and ordinary meaning, did those portions of the specification serve as a clear and unmistakable disavowal of dimensions other than two?
cause one of ordinary skill in the art to believe that the claims should encompass signal schemes of any dimensionality?
What interested me most about the oral argument was something that does not appear in the court’s opinion. Namely, there was a discussion of the weight that should be given to the language from the specification that referred to “an important feature of the present invention.” Judge Prost had the following exchanges with the counsel for the appellee: [Listen] and [Listen].
On an unrelated note, you often hear the admonishment of no new issues should be argued on appeal. In this case, the appellee argued that construction of the word “within” was a new argument on appeal: [Listen]. Nevertheless, the court addressed the argument in its opinion.
In the book Drafting Patents for Litigation and Licensing (published by BNA Books and the ABA section of Intellectual Property) the authors caution that to avoid an argument that a patent specification has described an invention narrowly, patent drafters should avoid making references to specific features or aspects of “the invention” or “the present invention.” Instead, all features, aspects, and characteristics should be described as being possible or potential or exemplary embodiments of the invention.
In the recent oral argument of St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Canon, Inc., the appellant indeed made an “aspect of the invention” argument. Judges Moore and Dyk seemed unconvinced, with Judge Moore commenting that “aspect of the invention” doesn’t necessarily require that every claim have that aspect. [Listen] Nevertheless, patent prosecutors might want to take heed that such arguments are actually being made against their work product during patent litigation and that not all judges think alike.
You can read the court’s split decision here: [Read].
A method for improving the growth and survival of animals comprising: administering an effective amount of a nutritional supplement to an animal, said nutritional supplement comprising water-insoluble yeast cell wall extract comprising purified beta (1,3) glucan having a particle size of about 1.0 micron or less.
The plaintiff-appellant argued that the district court had erred by excluding administration of nutritional supplements that included particle sizes less than about 1.0 micron as well as particle sizes greater than about 1.0 micron.
The panel affirmed the district court decision via a Rule 36 opinion without weighing in on the “having” argument in a written opinion.
You can listen to the oral argument here: [Listen]. The pertinent discussion begins at about the 3:07 minute mark.
The district court’s claim construction opinion is available here: [Read].
The Federal Circuit per curiam opinion is available here: [Read].
For more on “having” see Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelecs. Int’l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) and Regents of University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
means for storing coupled to said interface means and said processing means for storing certain select data from said caller information data entered by said operator and data entered digitally by said individual callers to update records on said individual callers.
2. An interface control system according to claim 1, wherein said call data signals automatically provided from said communication facility for a calling remote terminal indicative of calling number identification signals are used to access a positive file of data with respect to said individual callers stored in said means for storing.
means for transferring certain of said calls from said live operators to said interface means to receive processed data via a voice generator.
83. An interface control system according to claim 68, wherein said qualification means controls access at least in part based upon said call data signals.
The district court held that Statistical Interface claims 1, 2, and 83 of the ’893 patent are indefinite under IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005), because they claim both an apparatus and a method of use. In IPXL, this court addressed a claim that covered a system with “an input means” and required a user to use the input means. This court held that the claim was indefinite because it was unclear “whether infringement . . . occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.” Id.
Claims 1, 2, and 83 of the ’893 patent cover a system with an “interface means for providing automated voice messages . . . to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data.” The district court found “no meaningful distinction” between those claims and the claim at issue in IPXL.
Katz seeks to distinguish IPXL on the ground that the term “wherein” does not signify a method step but instead defines a functional capability. We disagree and uphold the district court’s ruling. Like the language used in the claim at issue in IPXL (“wherein . . . the user uses”), the language used in Katz’s claims (“wherein . . . callers digitally enter data” and “wherein . . . callers provide . . . data”) is directed to user actions, not system capabilities.
In the alternative, Katz contends that this court nar-rowed IPXL in the subsequent decision in Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2008). That case dealt with a method claim that recited structural elements. The claim took the form of a “method of executing instructions in a pipelined processor comprising: [structural limitations of the pipelined processor]; the method further comprising: [method steps implemented in the pipelined processor].” Id. at 1374. The court in Microprocessor distinguished IPXL because the method claim in Microprocessor did not create any confusion as to when the claim was directly infringed; direct infringement occurred upon practicing the claimed method in a processor with the required structural limitations. Simply making or selling a proces-sor having that structure would not have infringed. Katz’s claims, however, create confusion as to when direct infringement occurs because they are directed both to systems and to actions performed by “individual callers.” Katz’s claims therefore fall squarely within the rationale of IPXL and are indefinite.
claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 (2000). A claim is considered indefinite if it does not reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of its scope. Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
A total of four claims have now been invalidated by the Federal Circuit under the hybrid claim principle.
Have you ever wondered if Microsoft’s computer dictionary has been used against it in patent litigation to construe patent claim terms? Apparently, at the district court level in Uniloc v. Microsoft an argument was made by Uniloc that relied on Microsoft’s computer dictionary to construe claim language. That argument was noted in the oral argument of the subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit [Listen]. The dictionary argument did not prevail at the district court level, however. [Link].
Feelin’ Groovy — Spine Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA,Inc. et al.
Spine Solutions, Inc., et al. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. et al., 2009-1538 (Fed. Cir. September 9, 2010) is an interesting case in that it deals with “adapted to” language and “operative engagement” language.
each said anchor being adapted to enter a groove in the adjacent vertebrae as the implant moves along said path into the intervertebral space, to anchor its respective part to the vertebrae which its surface engages.
Medtronic asserts that the district court erred in granting summary judgment that the ’071 patent contains adequate written description to support the limitation “single anchor . . . adapted to enter a groove.” We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, reapplying the standard applicable at the district court. Young v. Lu-menis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Sum-mary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “Compliance with the written description requirement is a question of fact but is ame-nable to summary judgment in cases where no reasonable fact finder could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claim 1 recites that the “single anchor” is “adapted to enter a groove in the adjacent vertebrae.” ’071 patent col.7 ll.3-10 (emphasis added). Medtronic argued that the written description does not disclose the “adapted to enter a groove” limitation. SSI argues that the ’071 patent necessarily discloses anchors that are “adapted to enter a groove” because it discloses that the adjacent vertebrae rest on the support faces of the intervertebral implant after insertion. The district court granted summary judgment holding that the claim was adequately sup-ported by the written description. We see no error in this judgment.
Medtronic is correct that the ’477 patent disclosure was not incorporated by reference and therefore cannot provide the disclosure of the “adapted to enter a groove” limitation. In the two pages Medtronic devotes to this issue, it argues that the patent makes no mention of grooves. See, e.g., Medtronic’s Br. at 37 (“patent’s failure to disclose any information concerning the grooves located in the vertebrae and their interaction with the anchor is a prime example of SSI’s attempt to expand its claims beyond its disclosures”); Medtronic’s Reply Br. at 8 (argu-ing that the patent diagrams do not show any grooves). Because the claims at issue relate to the implant and do not cover the groove itself, applicants were not required to disclose grooves or how grooves should be formed or cut. The limitation at issue does not recite cutting a groove into vertebrae, or even inserting an anchor into a groove; rather, it recites “a single anchor . . . adapted to enter a groove.” The issue for written description purposes is whether a person of skill in the art would understand the ’071 patent to describe a single anchor that is adapted to enter a groove. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“the test for sufficiency [of the written description requirement] is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date”).
We see no error in the district court’s determination that there is no genuine dispute of material fact; the specification describes the claimed “single anchor” as necessarily being “adapted to enter a groove.” The disclosure of the shape of the anchor in combination with its placement adequately describes an anchor adapted to enter a groove. The specification discloses that each of the top and bottom parts of the implant has a support face that includes a single anchor. ’071 patent col.3 ll.56-58, col.4 ll.9-12, figs. 1-7. These anchors affix the upper and lower parts into the adjacent vertebrae such that the end face of each vertebrae “rests . . . on the support face” of the corresponding part of the implant. Id. col.3 ll.58-60, col.5 ll.59-64. Thus, the specification discloses that the single anchor enters the adjacent vertebrae in such a way that the vertebrae “rest” on the support faces of the top and bottom parts of the implant. For such direct contact between the implant and vertebrae to occur, the single anchor must be entirely inserted into the adjacent vertebrae: that is, the anchors must be fully inserted into a “groove” of some type, whether that groove is pre-cut or formed by the anchor itself (e.g., by a “self-cutting” an-chor). The specification, therefore, discloses that the single anchor is inserted into a vertebral groove. The record lacks adequate evidence to create a genuine dis-pute over whether the specification discloses that the anchors are “adapted to enter a groove.” The fact that the specification never mentions the word groove is not suffi-cient to create a genuine dispute of material fact.
We agree with the district court that the specification of the ’071 patent provides adequate written description to support the “single anchor . . . adapted to enter a groove” limitation. Therefore, we affirm the court’s grant of SSI’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing Medtronic’s 35 U.S.C. § 112 defenses.
The parties spent a good portion of oral argument discussing the “adapted to enter a groove” issue. You can listen to Appellant’s argument [Here], Appellee’s argument [Here], and Appellant’s rebuttal argument [Here].
Another issue concerned the claim construction of the language “operative engagement.” The Appellant argued as follows: [Listen]. The Appellee did not have a chance to discuss this issue during oral argument.
Medtronic asserts that the district court erred in con-struing the claim term “operative engagement.” Claim construction is a matter of law, and we review the court’s claim construction without deference. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). In doing so, we are mindful of the principle that “the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We read the claims “in view of the specification,” which is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. at 1315.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “a lower part having a lower surface for engaging a vertebrae and an upper surface portion in operative engagement with the rounded portion of the upper part.” ’071 patent col.6 ll.60-62 (emphasis added). At claim construction, Medtronic proposed construing “operative engagement” to mean “the interaction between the pivot insert and the rounded portion of the upper part.” Claim Construction Order, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116648, at *18. The court ob-served that although the preferred embodiment of the ’071 patent has a pivot, claim 1 does not recite such a limitation: rather, claim 1 recites only an upper and a lower part that are “in operative engagement” with each other. The court also found that claim differentiation weighed against reading a pivot limitation into claim 1, because various dependent claims add limitations relating to a two-piece lower part with a pivot insert. Therefore, the court adopted SSI’s proposed construction, construing “operative engagement” as “permitting movement (for example pivotability).” Id. at *23.
Medtronic asserts that the court erred in construing “operative engagement” as not incorporating a pivot insert. According to Medtronic, the only “engagement” disclosed by the specification occurs between the upper part and the pivot insert, not between the upper and lower parts. SSI asserts that the court’s construction is correct because the plain language of the claim does not limit the invention to the preferred three-piece embodi-ment.
Medtronic asserts, in the alternative, that under the court’s construction claim 1 is invalid for failure to comply with the written description requirement. Therefore, Medtronic argues, the court erred in granting summary judgment that the ’071 patent contains adequate written description to support the limitation “lower part having . . . an upper surface portion in operative engagement with the rounded portion of the upper part.” Medtronic argues that the ’071 patent only describes a three-piece device with a separate pivot insert, not a two-piece device that permits movement between the top and bottom parts. However, Figures 3 and 6 of the ’071 patent illustrate the implant outside the intervertebral space (i.e., prior to insertion) and show the pivot insert as embedded in the lower part. Additionally, the evidence at summary judg-ment included deposition testimony from Medtronic’s expert that a person of skill in the art would have known that an implant having a lower plate with an embeddable pivot insert—such as that disclosed by the ’071 patent—could have been assembled prior to insertion and inserted into the patient as a two-piece device. Medtronic does not point to any evidence rebutting this testimony. Therefore, we agree with the district court that a person of skill in the art would have understood the ’071 patent to describe an implant that could be pre-assembled prior to insertion, such that the upper surface of the lower part is “opera-tively engaged” with the lower surface of the upper part.
Medtronic contends that the ’071 patent does not de-scribe a two-piece implant because the ’071 patent ac-tively disparages the two-piece design of the ’477 patent. In discussing the two-piece design of the ’477 patent, the ’071 patent notes that it is “particularly difficult” to achieve a minimum structural height for an implant if the pivot is embedded prior to insertion. Id. col.1 ll.11-19. However, this does not rise to the level of an express disclaimer sufficient to limit the scope of the claims; “[d]isavowal requires expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Epistar Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Further, claim 1 is not directed to the height-minimizing embodiment. The originally-filed claims recited limitations directed to “protrusions and recesses . . . which are offset laterally from one another in such a way that . . . [the upper and lower parts] mesh with one an-other,” see J.A. 17167; claim 1 as issued recites no such limitation.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Claim construction category.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 112
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 112
 v. 
 v. 
 v.