Source: https://www.ptab.us/2014/05/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:36:46+00:00

Document:
Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. involves a district court’s claim construction which is not based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and is based upon the disclosure in particular to that case. As such, the holding does not have direct bearing on the case currently before us. Thus, we concur with the Examiner’s interpretation of the limitation “generating . . . in response to the display of [the] first segment” to be such that there is a causal relationship between the first and second segments, but not limited to the generation being automatic and without user interaction.
the expert in the outcome of the case, 2) the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion, and 3) the strength of any opposing evidence. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
2879 Ex Parte Visser et al 12341134 - (D) COLAIANNI 102 103 37 C.F.R.
The phrase “for safely flying an unmanned aerial vehicle in civilian airspace” does not appear to warrant significant patentable weight because it merely recites a purpose or an intended use of the system. See, e.g., Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that if “the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete invention, including all of its limitations, and the preamble offers no distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, but rather merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or explain a claim limitation” (citations omitted)).
Id., at 1304 (quoting KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
When the patentability of dependent claims is not argued separately, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Specifically, Appellants assert that Marshall is non-analogous art. App. Br. 12, 15-16. We agree. Generally, the claimed invention is directed to video camera surveillance programs, while Marshall is directed to incentive reward programs. Accordingly, Marshall and the claimed invention are not in the same field of endeavor, and, facially, Marshall and the claimed invention also do not appear to be directed to the same problem. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325-1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Art is analogous when it is: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, if the art is not from the same field of endeavor). Although not set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, Appellants assert that the Examiner at one point indicated that the field of study was “‘capturing, detecting, and analyzing the information.’” App. Br. 15. We agree with Appellants that this purported “‘field’” is unreasonably broad. Id.; c.f. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The Examiner is correct in pointing out that the portion of the Specification at page 4 upon which Appellants rely in part for written descriptive support of the questioned claim language is headed by the title “Background.” However “a patent specification may sufficiently enable a feature under § 112, ¶ 1, even if only the background section provides the enabling disclosure.” Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc., 427 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also KX Indus. v. PUR Water Purification Prods, Inc., 18 Fed.Appx. 871, 877 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The fact that the inventor chose to express the minimum pressure level needed for activation in the Background section makes it no less important in determining what the inventor deemed necessary to the claimed process”.) Similarly, the “Background” section is part of the Specification and the Examiner has not explained why this portion may not be relied upon by Appellants to provide descriptive support for the claimed invention.
The broadest-construction rubric does not give the Examiner an unfettered license to ignore or misinterpret claim terms and replace therefore with a different meaning. In re Suitco Surface Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1644 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
1747 Ex Parte Wang et al 11356522 - (D) DELMENDO 102/103 VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUSS P.A. ROGERS, MARTIN K.
2188 Ex Parte Veazey 11554690 - (D) COURTENAY 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY KROFCHECK, MICHAEL C.

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