Source: http://www.sughrue.com/ko/resources/PublicationDetail.aspx?publication=63222a9e-e013-45dd-b075-00cac75932a4
Timestamp: 2019-06-27 00:57:41
Document Index: 44923987

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 325', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 325', '§ 325', '§ 102']

Petitioner should discuss the prosecution history of all relevant related patents when arguing that an issue was not previously considered by the Office | Resources | Sughrue Mion, PLLC
School American University, Washington College of Law Boston College Law School Boston University Carnegie Mellon University Case Western Reserve University Case Western Reserve University School of Law Catholic University of America Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China Cleveland-Marshall College of Law College of the Holy Cross Cornell University Dartmouth College DePaul University College of Law Dickinson School of Law East Carolina University School of Medicine East Tennessee State University Franklin and Marshall College George Mason University George Mason University School of Law George Washington University George Washington University Law School Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Georgia State University College of Law Handong International Law School IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bombay, India Iowa State University Johns Hopkins University Keio University Korea National Open University Korea University Lewis & Clark Law School Loyola University Chicago School of Law Marquette University College of Engineering Michigan State University N.J. Institute of Technology National Institutes of Health North Carolina State University Old Dominion University Potomac School of Law Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rutgers University Saint Mary's College of Maryland Seoul National University Seoul National University Seton Hall University School of Law Smith College South Dakota State University St. Petersburg University of Water Communications‎ State University of New York at Albany State University of New York at Buffalo Ta Wha Institution of Technology Temple University Texas Wesleyan School of Law The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law The College of William and Mary The George Washington University Law School The George Washington University, The National Law Center The John Marshall Law School The Johns Hopkins University The University of Akron School of Law The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom Tongji University, Shanghai, China Tufts University United States Military Academy at West Point University of Akron University of Baltimore School of Law University of California, Berkeley University of California, San Francisco University of Connecticut School of Law University of Florida University of Georgia School of Law University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign University of Kansas School of Law University of Maine University of Maryland, College of Engineering University of Maryland, College Park University of Maryland, School of Law University of Memphis School of Law University of Miami University of Michigan University of Missouri - Kansas City University of Missouri-Columbia University of New Hampshire School of Law University of New Hampshire School of Law (Franklin Pierce Law Center) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina School of Law University of Notre Dame University of Oklahoma University of Rochester University of Tennessee University of Texas at Austin University of Tokyo University of Virginia University of Washington University of Wisconsin Law School Vanderbilt University Villanova University Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Wake Forest University West Virginia University College of Law Western New England College School of Law Worcester Polytechnic Institute Yonsei University
Petitioner should discuss the prosecution history of all relevant related patents when arguing that an issue was not previously considered by the Office
The Board has discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. 325(d) when “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In SMR Automotive Systems USA, Inc. (“SMR Auto”) v. Magna Mirrors of America, Inc. (“Magna Mirrors”), IPR2018-00536 (PTAB Dec. July 9, 2018), the Board denied institution of an inter partes review, in part, because Petitioner did not include any discussion about the prosecution history of a related patent that the Board considered relevant to the § 325(d) inquiry.
In January 2018, SMR Auto filed a Petition for inter partes review for review of claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,550,642 (“the ‘642 patent”). The ‘642 patent is directed to an exterior rearview mirror that includes a plano reflective element and an auxiliary reflective element mounted adjacent to each other (Decision, page 3).
In Ground 1, SMR Auto asserted that claims 1-11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e), as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2002/0072026, filed Dec. 20, 2000, published June 13, 2002 (“the ’026 publication”). The ’026 publication lists Niall R. Lynam, John O. Lindahl, and Hahns Y. Fuchs as inventors. The application that issued as the ’642 patent lists Niall R. Lynam as the sole inventor, and was filed August 21, 2012. (Id., pages 10-11).
SMR Auto alleged the ‘026 publication is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the ‘642 patent should not be entitled to the May 20, 2003 priority date of the ‘872 provisional application, but rather is entitled only the priority date of its great grandparent U.S. Patent No. 7,934,843 (“the ‘843 patent”), which was filed on August 5, 2010. (Id., page 11). Further, SMR Auto alleged the ‘026 publication is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e) because the ‘026 publication is “by another” and was published on June 13, 2002, which is prior to the earliest possible effective filing date of May 20, 2003. (Id.).
In response, Magna Mirrors argued that the above issues of (1) whether the ‘642 patent is entitled to the May 20, 2003 priority date, and (2) whether the ‘026 publication qualifies as prior art because it is not the work of another were considered repeatedly during prosecution of the ’642 patent and its family. (Id.). During the prosecution of the ‘642 patent and the great grandparent ‘843 patent, the Examiner alleged that the claims were not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date. (Id., page 13). In response, Applicant submitted a Declaration from Niall R. Lynam declaring that the invention of the independent claims of the ‘843 patent was reduced to practice prior to June 13, 2002. Based on the Declaration, the Examiner allowed the claims. (Id., page 13).
Based on the prosecution history of the ‘843 patent, Magna Mirrors argued the Board should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (Id., page 15). The Board agreed with Magna Mirrors that the issues of (1) whether the ‘642 patent is entitled to the May 20, 2003 priority date, and (2) whether the ‘026 publication qualifies as prior art were previously considered by the office. In explaining its reasoning, the Board stated that it was fatal to SMR Auto’s argument to not discuss the prosecution history of the ‘843 patent because the ‘843 patent is nearly identical to the ‘642 patent. (Id., pages 18-19).
Thus, the Board exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and declined to institute inter partes review of claims 1-11 on the ground that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e) as being anticipated by the ’026 publication. (Id., page 19).