Source: http://ipr-pgr.com/category/claim-construction/page/2/
Timestamp: 2018-07-21 15:46:47
Document Index: 247852414

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 325', '§ 112', '§ 42', '§ 112', '§ 42']

Claim Construction | Welcome to IPR-PGR.com - Part 2
Author Matt CutlerPosted on December 4, 2015 December 4, 2015 Categories Burden of Proof, Claim Construction, Federal Circuit Decisions, Motion to Amend, Specification As Guide, Standard of Review
The Federal Circuit has picked up the pace of issuing actual written opinions regarding PTAB decisions, instead of its previous, steady diet of Rule 36 Judgments. Today, the Court issued its second opinion reversing a Board decision canceling various claims in an inter partes review based on a claim construction issue in Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O. (Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2015). In general, the decision comprises two key parts: 1) a fact-intensive claim construction analysis that turned on the fact that the claim language-at-issue had a plain meaning and the specification was deemed too limited to change that plain meaning; and 2) a warning that the Court will not hear new arguments on appeal.
Claim Construction Analysis: The crux of the claim construction dispute related to a claim limitation that requires “a query as to whether the second process is connected to computer network.” (emphasis added). Patent Owner argued that the proper claim construction required a present-tense status. Id. at 6. Petitioner argued, and the Board agreed, that the proper claim construction “simply requires being registered with the server.” Id. As characterized by the Court: “what the Board meant was that, to come within the query claim language, all the query from the first unit need do is request whatever the connection server has listed about a second unit’s on-line status, even if the listed information is not accurate at the time of the query, i.e., even if it lists the second unit as online when, at the time, it is in fact not online.” Id.
The Court’s reversal of the Board’s decision had two components. First, the Court found that the plain language of the claims undermined the Board’s determination. That plain language, “is connected to the computer network” was deemed to plainly seek a determination of whether the unit was connected at that time. Id. at 7. As such, it was unreasonable for the Board to conclude that the subject query was satisfied, regardless of its current accuracy. Id.
Second, the Court faulted the Board for failing to address that “facially clear meaning,” and instead turning immediately to the specification; which analysis of the specification was also incorrect. Id. at 8. The Court instructed that, when the claim language has a plain meaning, “the specification plays a more limited role than in the common situation where claim terms are uncertain in meaning in relevant respects.” Id. Thus, the Board’s analysis, that relied on a single passage from the patent to redefine the claim terms, was inaccurate given that there was no express or implicit redefinition of what “is connected” should mean. Id. at 9.
Author Matt CutlerPosted on November 25, 2015 November 25, 2015 Categories Claim Construction, Federal Circuit Decisions, New Argument on Appeal, Plain MeaningTags claim construction, federal circuit, inter partes review, new argument on appeal, plain meaning
Author Matt CutlerPosted on August 17, 2015 Categories Antecedent Basis, Claim ConstructionTags antecedent basis, claim construction, Denial of Petition
Author Matt CutlerPosted on June 3, 2015 Categories Claim Construction, Specification As Guide
Patent Owner won a Pyrrhic victory in Facebook v. TLI Communications, IPR2014-00566, wherein the Board denied the Petition, but for a reason that calls into question the future viability of the patent-in-suit. Namely, the Board found that it could not construe the means-plus-function claim limitation at issue and, as such, the claim is indefinite and not amenable to construction.
More specifically, the Board sought to construe “means for allocating classification information” from the patent-at-issue. Order at 7. Petitioner stated that the specification did not disclose any algorithm for performing the allocating function. Id. at 10. Of course, a lack of sufficient disclosure of structure, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, renders a claim indefinite, and thus not amendable to construction. Id. 13. The Board quoted the Federal Circuit on this point: “If a claim is indefinite, the claim, by definition, cannot be construed.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Because the claims were not amenable to construction, the Board was unable to conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge of claim and dependent claims therefrom, and Institution was denied. Paper 14 at 18. As such, Patent Owner’s patent survives…for now.
Author Matt CutlerPosted on December 4, 2014 Categories Claim Construction, Denial of Grounds, Indefiniteness, Means Plus Function, PTAB OrdersTags Denial of Petition, indefinite, inter partes review, means plus function
Dissents and Concurrences Popping up in IPR Proceedings
The PTAB has been remarkably consistent to date in its decisions regarding the variety of issues in inter partes review practice. Issues both simple and complex have typically been resolved by one panel and future panels, deciding the same type of issue, fall in line. Of late, however, we have begun to see some divergence in views among the various panels, both in terms of one panel disagreeing with an earlier panel, and even some disagreement within a single panel. This latter situation presented itself in two recent Final Written Decisions in Vibrant Media, Incorporated v. General Electric Company, IPR2013-00172 and Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Convatec Technologies, Inc., IPR2013-00097.
Vibrant Media involved US Pat. No. 6,092,074 and, more particularly, claims 1-12 of that patent. All three members of the PTAB panel determined that claims 1-8 and 12 were unpatentable. A disagreement between those panel members arose, however, relative to claims 9-11. Claim 9 is directed to a computer system comprising multiple steps. Claims 10 and 11 depend from Claim 9 and add further steps to the system. The three judges agreed that the claims recited both an apparatus and method steps, an improper combination pursuant to 35 USC § 112, ¶2. But, while the majority acknowledged that mixed system and method claims would not be in compliance with 35 USC § 112, ¶2 for infringement purposes, it did not believe such infirmity in the claims prevented it from reaching the patentability of those infirm claims. The alternative would have been to terminate the IPR as to those claims. Order at 9. The dissent criticized this decision, arguing that an obviousness analysis could not be performed on indefinite claims, as a comparison of the invention as a whole to the prior art would be impossible given the indefinite scope of the claims. Id. at 51-52. The dissenting judge would have terminated the proceeding relative to claims 9-11, not ruling on their patentability.
Smith & Nephew, involving US Pat. No. 6,669,981, was notable for a disagreement regarding a claim construction, resulting in a concurring opinion from one of the PTAB panel members. The ‘981 patent pertains to methods of enhancing the photostability of silver in antimicrobial materials for use in wound dressings and other medical devices. Of particular interest in the proceeding was a concurrence-in-part, which disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of the claim term “photostable”. The ‘981 specification defined the term “photostable” as a “controlled colour change to a desired color with a minimal change thereafter.” Decision at 62. At issue for in the concurrence was the definition of “desired color.”
The majority interpreted “desired color” to encompass any color which is desirable for any purpose, including aesthetic purposes. The concurrence thought this definition was too broad based on what was known in the art, and that “desired color” should reflect the technical viewpoint that color is a measure of photostability. Id. at 62. Specifically, the concurrence pointed to prior art which taught that purple was not a “desired colour” because the color purple was chemically indicative of the degradation of the antimicrobial properties of the wound dressing. Accordingly, the concurrence believed that “desired colour” should not include purple, but rather be restricted to the art-recognized color of grayish-white. Id. at 63. Further, the concurrence disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “minimal” change (in color), believing (unlike the majority) that a change in color of the wound dressing from a desired color to and undesired color would not be a “minimal” change. Id. at 64. But, despite the disagreement in claim construction, the concurrence ultimately agreed with the outcome of the analysis the majority reached on the merits.
Author Matt CutlerPosted on October 24, 2014 October 24, 2014 Categories Claim Construction, Final Written Decision, IndefinitenessTags concurrence, dissent, Final Written Decision
Board Disagrees with Claim Construction of Prior Proceeding Before the PTO
One of the more disheartening trends to Patent Owners in inter partes review proceedings is the strong willingness of the PTAB to give little or no deference to prior Patent Office proceedings relative to the patent-at-issue. This creates considerable uncertainty relative to these important assets. This issue arose again in Toshiba Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures, IPR2014-00317, US Patent No. 5,687,132, wherein the PTAB disagreed with a claim construction adopted in an earlier reexamination proceeding. The ‘132 patent relates to multiple-bank computer memories.
In the prior reexamination proceeding, the Examiner found that the claims at issue each included a requirement for a single memory, as opposed to two separate memories. Importantly, this feature was not found in the prior art and, thus, Patent Owner argued that the IPR Petition should be denied.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), in deciding whether to institute inter partes review, the “Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Under this provision, the Board was within its authority to deny the Petition based on the Examiner’s reasoning in the reexam. However, the Board opted not to take this route, as it disagreed with the Examiner’s claim construction.
At issue was the claim term “a memory.” As mentioned, the Examiner found that “a memory” required there be a single memory, not two separate memories. The Board, however, disagreed, noting that established precedent holds that articles “a” and “an” are construed to mean “one or more” absent clear intent to limit to “one.” In the ‘132 patent, Patent Owner showed no clear intent to limit the scope of the claims to only one memory, and further explicitly stated that the invention is not limited to such an embodiment. Therefore, the Board disagreed with the Examiner in the reexamination and construed “a memory” to mean “one or more memories.”
Because on this construction by the Board, Patent Owner’s arguments against anticipation failed and the Board granted the petition for inter partes review.
Author Matt CutlerPosted on October 13, 2014 Categories Claim Construction, Concurrent ProceedingsTags claim construction, inter partes review, reconsideration
Failure to Identify Structure of Means-Plus-Function Limitation Results in Denial of Ground
Parties have tried different strategies in addressing claim construction in inter partes review petitions. Some have relied strictly on a generic “broadest reasonable interpretation” argument; others have followed a more traditional Phillips analysis – both strategies having achieved varying levels of success. What is clear, however, is that when a challenged claim is in means-plus-function format, the IPR rules require that a Petitioner set forth the structure that corresponds to the recited function of the challenged claims. Panel Claw, Inc. v. SunPower Corp., IPR2014-00388.
Among the limitations at issue in Panel Claw were “means for interengaging adjacent photovoltaic assemblies into an array of photovoltaic assemblies.” and “means for interlocking one said photovoltaic assembly to another said photovoltaic assembly.” Of course, recitation of the term “means” in a claim limitation creates a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C § 112, ¶ 6 governs construction of the claim. Further, when the presumption is that a limitation is a means-plus-function limitation, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), Petitioner is required to identify the structure in the specification that corresponds to the recited function.
In Panel Claw, however, Petitioner argued first that the limitations which recited the term “means” were purely functional and therefore cover any suitable means for accomplishing the stated function. This argument contradicted a determination in a related lawsuit (SunPower Corp. v. Sunlink Corp., Case No. 08-Case IPR2014-00388 cv-2807 (N.D. Cal.)) which deemed the limitations at issue to be means-plus-function limitations. Further, Petitioner then failed to assert a back-up argument identifying any corresponding structure to the limitations-at-issue.
The Board found that limitations at issue were means-plus-function limitations, the constructions of which were governed by 35 U.S.C § 112, ¶ 6. By failing to identify corresponding structures, Petitioner violated 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) and, as such, the challenged claims containing the means language were deemed patentable.
Author Matt CutlerPosted on August 19, 2014 Categories Claim Construction, Means Plus FunctionTags claim construction, Denial of Petition, inter partes review, means plus function