Leaving One’s Mark

Posted on by

We have frequently commented in this blog about how the U.S. patent collection records historic events in the country. So it should not be surprising that Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream,” left its mark not just on society, but in the patent collection. His speech has been referenced in at least 22 patents:

5461711

5920838

6356867

6810378

6847980

7398199

7608041

7621808

8346620

8463594

8678833

9111537

9280599

9384734

9621655

9685095

10387301

10242378

10489373

10521511

10885110

11093544

11320895

Dr. King indisputably left his mark on the world, but he also left a mark on the patent collection. We salute a great American on what would be his 94th birthday, as we still wait for his dream to come true, sixty years later.

The Inventor’s Lexicography Governs

Posted on by

In Grace Instrument Industries, LLC v. Chandler Instruments Company, LLC, [2021-2370] (January 12, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s finding that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,412,877 were indefinite.

The ‘877 patent relates to a viscometer for measuring the viscosity of drilling fluid. The discometer uses a “enlarged” chamber located between a lower chamber, housing the sample fluid, and a pressurization fluid inlet, located in the top section of the viscometer’s
pressure vessel. This enlarged chamber is large enough such that the level of the sample fluid, which before pressurization initially fills both the lower chamber and the enlarged chamber, never falls below the transition point between the lower chamber and enlarged chamber when the application of the pressurization fluid compresses the sample fluid.

1. A pressurized device comprising:
(a) a pressure vessel within which is vertically disposed at least one top section filled
with a pressurization fluid of a first density and at least one lower section filled with a test sample of a second density,
(b) an enlarged chamber with reduced openings positioned between the at least one top section and the at least one bottom section for communicating pressure with said top section and said lower section within said pressure vessel,
(c) whereby said pressurization fluid would not mix with said test sample because of the nature of their density difference.

The district court determined that the term “enlarged chamber” as used in the claims was indefinite, making the asserted claims of the ‘877 patent invalid. The district court explained that “enlarged” is a “term of degree” that “necessarily calls for some comparison against
some baseline.” Finding that the ’877 patent “does not provide the requisite objective boundaries” for a skilled artisan, the district court held that “enlarged chamber” is indefinite.

The Federal Circuit said that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” The ultimate conclusion that a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 is a legal conclusion, which we review de novo.

Grace argued before the district court that the term “enlarged chamber” should be construed as “the area between reduced openings that is large enough to hold excess test sample (i.e., the type of fluid normally used in these machines) to prevent mixing of pressurization fluid and test sample below the bottom fin during elevated pressurization.” The district court declined to adopt that construction, concluding that the ’877 patent fails to disclose objective
boundaries for a skilled artisan to know what the claimed “enlarged chamber” must be larger than. The Federal Circuit said that this was error.

The Federal Circuit said that the intrinsic record informs a skilled artisan that the ’877 patent and its claims are directed to a viscometer with an “enlarged chamber” that is large enough to prevent pressurization fluid from entering the lower section of the pressure vessel—where the viscosity of the test sample is being measured—during elevated pressurization. In other words, the enlarged chamber has to be able to contain enough sample fluid at the pre-pressurization stage such that, during pressurization, the sample fluid level does not fall below the bottom of the enlarged chamber and into the viscometer’s lower, testing section. Although “enlarged chamber” is not a term of art, the intrinsic record sufficiently guides a skilled artisan to the meaning of that term as used in the ’877 patent. Where the specification instructs as to the meaning of a claim term, “the inventor’s lexicography governs.”

The Federal Circuit concluded that the term “enlarged chamber” in the ’877 patent meant “a chamber that is large enough to contain excess test sample prior to pressurization to prevent mixing of the test sample and pressurization fluid in the lower measurement zone when the test sample is pressurized to maximum rated pressure.” The Court thus vacated the district court’s determination that “enlarged chamber” is indefinite, vacatef the district court’s invalidity determinations based thereon, and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

Board Decision Vacated; Patentability Determination is Confined to the Grounds upon which the Board Actually Relied

Posted on by

In In re Google, [2022-1012] (January 9, 2023) the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s decision affirming the final rejection of Google’s application methods for filtering the
results of an internet search query such that only results appropriate for the user (e.g., age appropriate) are displayed.

The Board adopted the examiner’s findings, and purported to “agree with the Examiner” that modifying Parthasarathy’s threshold “to take into account query length as taught by Rose” would have been obvious at the time of filing.

On appeal, the PTO argued that the Board’s decision should be affirmed because there are only two ways to predictably modify Parthasarathy’s threshold to incorporate query length as taught by Rose, and both would have been obvious to try. Specifically, it asserts a skilled artisan would have recognized that Rose’s adjusted relevance score could be used to modify either Parthasarathy’s search-query-intent score or its threshold and that either modification would predictably result in a threshold based on the number of words in a query.

Meritorious or not, the PTO’s arguments cannot sustain the Board’s decision below because they do not reflect the reasoning or findings the Board actually invoked. It is a foundational
principle of administrative law that a court may uphold agency action only on the grounds that the agency invoked when it took the action. The Federal Circuit said its review
of a patentability determination is confined to the grounds upon which the Board actually relied. Contrary to the PTO’s characterization of the Board’s decision, it did not rest on a finding that there were only two ways to modify Parthasarathy using Rose or suggest that these modifications would have been obvious to try. Indeed, although the Board concluded
that modifying Parthasarathy’s threshold to take into account query length would have been obvious. Entirely absent from its decision is any discussion of how such a modification would be accomplished. Certainly, the Board did not discuss or suggest the specific modifications the PTO advances on appeal. In the absence of any specific findings by the Board on these matters, we may not adopt the PTO’s fact-based arguments in the first instance on appeal.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the Board’s expressed reasoning cannot sustain its rejection of claims 1, 3–10, 12–19, and 21–27 and therefore vacate the Board’s
decision.

Corroboration of Reduction to Practice Supported Under the Rule of Reason, Supported by Substantial Evidence.

Posted on by

In Dionex Softron GmbH v Agilent Technologies, Inc., [2021-2372] (January 6, 2023), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision awarding priority to Agilent in an interference.

In the interference, the Board identified Dionex as the senior party and Agilent as the junior party, thereby requiring that Agilent prove priority by a preponderance of the evidence.

In its analysis, the Board applied the rule of reason and found that the testimony of Wolfgang Kretz, one of Agilent’s two co-inventors, was sufficiently corroborated by
two of his co-workers, Manfred Berndt and Martin Bäuerle, who had worked near Kretz during the relevant time. Berndt and Bäuerle testified that Kretz successfully tested
a prototype encompassing all limitations of the count by June 1, 2007.

Based on the foregoing, the Board entered judgment on priority for Agilent and against Dionex and refused Dionex’s claims. Dionex timely appealed.

The Federal Circuit said that the Board properly treated Agilent’s specification as
the “originating specification” for purposes of construing the disputed claim terms and evaluating the sufficiency of written description support for the claims. When a party
challenges written description support for an interference count or the copied claim in an interference, the originating disclosure provides the meaning of the pertinent claim language.

The Federal Circuit said that the Board did not err in concluding that Agilent’s specification provided adequate written description support. Dionex’s arguments on this point depend entirely on our adopting Dionex’s proposed claim construction. In other words, Dionex contends there is not adequate written description support for its ordered steps construction of the claim, but we have rejected this proposed construction. Since the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s claim construction, Dionex’s written description arguments necessarily failed.

The Board did not err in awarding priority to Agilent. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that Agilent’s actual reduction to practice was sufficiently corroborated
and occurred prior to Dionex’s earliest conception date. The Board’s finding of corroboration, under the rule of reason, is supported by substantial evidence.

Happy New Year 2023

Posted on by

Best wishes for a happy and prosperous 2023, full of great new ideas and no infringements!

U.S. Patent No.1,539.895 issued to George Buzza on June 2, 1995, on a “Game Device.”

George Buzza’s invention, featured above, was a game device that provided blocks, “preferably two in number, which have imprinted on the faces thereof words which are so devised that when the blocks are thrown , the words carried by the faces which come uppermost on the different blocks, when read in proper sequence, may combine to spell expressions indicative of various greetings.” George applied for a patent on his idea in 1923, and less than two years later his U.S. Patent No. 1,539,895 issued.

What idea do you have “rolling” around in your head, that you should finally do something with in 2023?

Discovery Order not Reviewable Under Collateral Order Doctrine

Posted on by

In Modern Font Applications LLC v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., [2021-1838] (December 29, 2022) the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under the collateral order doctrine.

To avoid unnecessary delay from parties arguing or litigating the form of a protective order, the District of Utah adopted a Standard Protective Order. Pursuant to that protective order, Alaska Airlines designated certain source code files as “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION –
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” which precluded MFA’s inhouse counsel from accessing those materials under the Standard Protective Order. When MFA challenged Alaska’s designations, Alaska filed two motions to maintain its protective order designations. The magistrate judge granted Alaska’s motions to maintain its protective order designations and denied MFA’s motion to amend the protective order. The district court affirmed.

Modern Font Applications LLC sought an interlocutory appeal to challenge an order of the district court which affirmed a magistrate judge’s decision deeming MFA’s in-house counsel a “competitive decisionmaker” and maintaining Alaska Airlines, Inc.’s Attorneys’ Eyes Only designations as to its source code. MFA argued that the Federal Circuit should hear its interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine.

The Federal Circuit noted that Congress limited its jurisdiction to appeals from a
“final” decision of a district court arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents. Under the “final judgment rule, a party may not appeal until there has been a decision by the district court that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. The Federal Circuit explained that the collateral order doctrine is a practical construction of the final judgment rule that permits review of not only judgments that “terminate an action, but also the “small class” of collateral rulings that are appropriately deemed “final.” Courts of appeals may allow interlocutory appeals of decisions that (1) are “conclusive;” (2) “resolve important questions separate from the merits;” and (3) are “effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the underlying action.”

The Federal Circuit further said that the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the limited scope of the collateral order doctrine, explaining that it should “never be allowed to swallow the general rule that a party is entitled to a single appeal, to be deferred until final judgment has been entered.”

The Federal Circuit said that MFA’s appeal did not satisfy the third requirement of the collateral order doctrine because it is reviewable after a final judgment. The Federal Circuit said that numerous cases have ruled that such discovery orders are outside appellate
jurisdiction because they can be reviewed after final judgment.

Good Timing

Posted on by

U.S. Patent No. 6,333,083, on Foldable Artificial Christmas Tree is one of the few Christmas related patents that actually issued on Christmas. Since 1848, patents only issue on Tuesdays, and thus a Christmas Day Christmas patent only occurs when Christmas falls on a Tuesday. From 1850-1880, the Patent Office missed a few Tuesdays — those that fell on Christmas. Since then the Patent Office has not missed a Christmas, but they did miss a few Tuesdays during WWII in 1945, and a Tuesday in 1970 during a change in patent printing systems.

Patents have issued on Christmas in 1888, 1894, 1900, 1906, 1917, 1923, 1934, 1945, 1951, 1956, 1962, 1973, 1979, 1984, 1990, 2001, 2007, 2012, 2018, and the next batch of Christmas patents will issue in 2029.

The Twelve Days of Christmas

Posted on by

There are more than 20000 patents that relate to or at least mention Christmas, but only one that mentions all of the gifts in the 1780 song The Twelve Days of Christmas: U.S. Patent No. 3,867,237, issued in 1972 on a Pear Tree Decoration . The pear tree has detachable branches and twelve numbered packages containing artificial miniature items corresponding to the items referred to in the Christmas carol.

The patent explains that:

The twelve days of Christmas start tomorrow, and run until the Epiphany on January 6. However, the ‘237 Patent suggests a different timing: “It is intended that the package No. 1 containing the pears and partridge will be opened on December l3. The package No. 2 will be opened on December 14th. The package No. 3 will be opened on December 15th, and so on with another package opened each day in numbered succession so that the package No. 12 will be opened on the 12th day after starting on December 13th. The kit invention 20 designed principally for the entertainment of children, with young children particularly enjoying the excitement of each day placing a new set of decorations or items in the package 30 onto the pear tree 21, starting on December l3th and ending on December 24th, Christmas Eve.

More Christmas Tech

Posted on by

Continuing last Saturday’s post about Christmas Tree Candle holders, here are some candle holders through 1900:

U.S. Patent No. 217908 (1879) on Christmas-Tree Lamp
U.S. Patent No. 395514 (1889) Candle Holder for Christmas Trees
U.S. Patent No. 414897 (1889) Christmas Tree Ornament and Candle Holder
U.S. Patent No. 420607 (1890) Candle Holder for Christmas Trees
U.S. Patent No. 464228 (1891) Candlestick for Christmas Trees

U.S.Patent No. 474768 (1892) Candle Holder

U.S. Patent No. 495641 (1893) Christmas Tree Candle Holder
U.S. Patent No. 499568 (1893) Candle Holder
U.S. Patent No. 501473 (1893) Candlestick
U.S. Patent No. 530626 (1894) Lantern
U.S. Patent No. 562155 (1896) Candle Holder for Christmas Trees.
U.S. Patent No. 574356 (1896) Candle Holder.
U.S. Patent No. 582375 (1897) Christmas Tree Candle Holder
U.S. Patent No. 589821 (1897) Swinging Candle Holder
U.S. Patent No. 601397 (1898) Candle Holder for Christmas Trees
U.S. Patent No. 601754 (1898) Candle Holder and Extinguisher
U.S. Patent No. 603871 (1898) Candle Holder
U.S. Patent No. 629791 (1899) Candle Holder
U.S. Patent No 633900 (1899) Candle-Holder
U.S. Patent No. 630423 (1899) Candle-holder for christmas trees
U.S. Patent No. 660899 (1900) Candle Holder

Christmas Tech

Posted on by

Patents are about solutions to problems, and the patent collection contains an interesting history of solving the problems with Christmas Tree Illumination. From 1867 unitl the advent of electric Christmas lights, a surprising amount of effort was devoted to making candles safe for Christmas trees:

U.S. Pnatent 69254 (1867) on Candlestick.
U.S. Patent No. 89,270 (1869) on Candle Holder.
U.S. Patent No. 133479 (1872) on Lantern
U.S. Patent No. 150572 (1874) on Decorative Lanterns
U.S. Patent No. 151055 (1874) Candlesticks for Christmas-Trees
U.S. Patent No. 152817 (1874) on Candle-Holders

U.S. Patent No. 155450 (1874) on Candle-Holders.
U.S. Patent No. 178603 (1876) on Christmas-Tree Bracket.
U.S. Patent No. 183573 (1876) Candle-Holders for Christmas Trees
U.S. Patent No. RE7652 (1877) on Candle-Holder
U.S. Patent No. 194421 (1877) on Illuminating-Devices for Christmas Trees
U.S. Patent No. 202342 (1878) on Candle-Holder
U.S. Patent No. 216628 (1879) on Candy Toy..
U.S. Patent No. 227088 (1880) on Candle-Holder for Christmas-Trees
U.S. Patent No. 227693 (1880) Candle-Holder for Christmas-Trees.
U.S. Patent No. 244045 (1881) Christmas Tree Candle Holder
U.S. Patent No. 266463 (1882) Candle Holder
U.S. Patent No. 270771 (1883) Candle Holder for Christmas Trees

U.S. Patent No. 286572 (1883) Candle Holder for Christmas Trees.

U.S. Patent No. 295182 (1884) Christmas Tree Candle Holder
U.S. Patent No. 298478 (1884) Reflector Support for Candles
U.S. Patent No. 347873 (1886) Candle Holder for Christmas Trees

U.S. Patent No. 373958 (1887) Lamp for Decorating and Illuminating Purposes