Opinion ID: 3173494
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: cross-applicability of the prior art

Text: Section 41.207(c) of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides: When a motion for judgment of unpatentability against an opponent’s claim on the basis of prior art is granted, each of the movant’s claims corre- sponding to the same count as the opponent’s claim will be presumed to be unpatentable in view INDUS. TECH. RESEARCH INST. v. PAC. BIOSCIENCES 21 of the same prior art unless the movant in its mo- tion rebuts this presumption. 37 C.F.R. § 41.207(c) (cross-applicability of prior art). Before the Board, PacBio asserted the ’375 patent, which it owns, as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and it sought to establish common ownership of the ’375 patent and its ’673 and ’178 applications under § 103(c), in order to disqualify the ’375 patent as prior art against itself. When the Board granted PacBio’s obviousness motion, invalidating all of ITRI’s claims, it did not opine on the patentability of PacBio’s claims or otherwise indicate whether PacBio has overcome the presumption of cross-applicability of the cited prior art. ITRI argues that the Board erred by failing to hold PacBio’s claims unpatentable pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.207(c). ITRI also argues that PacBio failed to rebut the presumption of cross-applicability, and that the Board incorrectly analyzed common ownership under 35 U.S.C. § 103(c). PacBio responds that it has rebutted any presumption of cross-applicability by explaining to the Board that the ’375 patent does not preclude patentability of its claims under § 103(c) and by submitting a declaration with its reply. PacBio also argues that the Board properly exercised its discretion not to apply the presumption. On this record, it is unclear whether the Board implicitly determined that PacBio has overcome the presumption of cross-applicability or whether the Board decided not to apply the prior art to PacBio’s claims for some other reason. Because we affirm the obviousness determination as to claims 1–22 and 24–26 of ITRI’s ’630 patent and remand the case for further determinations as to claims 23, 27, and 28 of that patent, the Board will have another opportunity to address the cross-applicability issue. The record does show, however, that the Board might have misunderstood what was required to disqualify prior 22 INDUSTRIAL TECH. RESEARCH INST. v. PAC. BIOSCIENCES art under 35 U.S.C. § 103(c). In an August 2014 decision denying ITRI’s motion to strike PacBio’s reply brief and accompanying declaration, the Board reasoned: It is therefore evident that, regardless of who the inventors of the ’375 patent and ’673 and ’178 ap- plications were, the Moore Declaration provides evidence in support of PacBio’s contention that the patent and applications had been assigned to, and were owned by, PacBio. That PacBio is the assignee of the ’375 patent and ’673 and ’178 ap- plications, no matter who the inventors were, is not disputed by the parties. To that extent, viz., the issue of common ownership, the Board will con- sider the evidentiary weight of the Moore Declaration in support of PacBio’s arguments. With respect to inventorship, the Board will defer that issue to the priority phase of the interference . . . . Indus. Tech. Research Inst. v. Pac. Biosciences of Cal., Inc., Interference No. 105,970, Paper 166, at  (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2014) (first emphasis in original) (second and third emphases added) (J.A. 480). It appears that the Board might have misapplied § 103(c) by reasoning that the assessment of common ownership may be based on evidence of common ownership by assignment, even if the assignment occurred after the application filing date. 35 U.S.C. § 103(c) provides that § 102(e) prior art does not preclude patentability if “the subject matter [of the prior art] and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person” (emphasis added). Accordingly, evidence of common ownership by assignment after the application filing date does not establish common ownership or an obligation to assign ownership at the time of the invention. INDUS. TECH. RESEARCH INST. v. PAC. BIOSCIENCES 23 We therefore remand for a determination of the crossapplicability of the cited prior art to PacBio’s claims and, if necessary, a proper analysis of common ownership of the ’375 patent and the ’673 and ’178 applications.