Author Archives: bwheelock

About bwheelock

Education J.D., Washington University in St. Louis B.S.E. in Mechanical Engineering, Duke University

Detailed Analysis of Specification and Prosecution History Revealed Meaning of Claims

Posted on by

In WI-LAN USA, INC., v. Apple Inc., [2015-1256] (August 1, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,311,040 and 8,315,640.  At issue on appeal were two issues of claim construction: “specified connection” in the ‘040 patent, and “UL connection” in the ‘640 patent.

The parties disputed whether the term “specified connection” excludes embodiments where an intermediary device can maintain only one specified connection. The Federal Circuit found the claims inconclusive, and turned to the specification, whose consistent descriptions of multiple specified connections, suggested that the patent’s claims do not encompass an embodiment contrary to these descriptions.   The Federal Circuit said that consistent use of a term in a particular way in the specification can inform the proper construction of that term. Here, the Federal Circuit found that the specification’s consistent references to multiple “specified connections” to weigh in favor of a construction excluding embodiments where the intermediary node is
capable of maintaining only one “specified connection.”  The Federal Circuit also noted that the claims discussed allocating bandwidth, which suggested multiple connections over which the bandwidth is distributed.

The parties disputed the whether the term UL connection meant a connection between a user device and its intermediary node or the connection between an intermediary node and its base station.  The Federal Circuit found that the specification never
used the term “UL connections.”  Turning to the specification as a whole, the Federal Circuit found that the context required it to construe UL connection to refer to the intermediary node’s connections with user devices, not the base station, for three reasons.  IT was the only construction that squared with: (1) the scheme the patent sets out where the base station allocates bandwidth to its intermediary-node connections and the intermediary nodes allocate bandwidth to their user connections, (2) the network architecture the specification describes, and (3) representations Wi-LAN made in prosecution.

Because it affirmed both constructions against Wi-LAN’s challenges, the Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.

Information is Intangible, so Methods of Manipulating it are Abstract

Posted on by

In Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom S.A., [2015-1778] (August 1, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,233,843, 8,060,259, and 8,401,710, on systems and methods for performing real-time performance monitoring of an electric power grid by collecting data from multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and displaying the results.

The Federal Circuit noted that although lengthy and numerous, the claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under §101.

The Federal Circuit began with the familiar two-step analysis, noting that a claim falls outside § 101 where (1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and ‘as an ordered combination,’” do not add
enough to “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”  The Federal Circuit said that the Supreme Court’s formulation makes clear that the first-stage filter is a meaningful one, sometimes ending the § 101 inquiry.  The Federal Circuit explained that the first-stage inquiry looks at the “focus” of the claims, their “‘character as a whole,’” and the second-stage inquiry (where reached) as looking more
precisely at what the claim elements add—specifically, whether, in the Supreme Court’s terms, they identify an “‘inventive concept’” in the application of the ineligible matter to which (by assumption at stage two) the claim is directed.

The Federal Circuit reasoned that information as such is an intangible, and thus collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.  In a
similar vein, the Federal Circuit said that it has treated analyzing information by
steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.  Finally, the Federal Circuit added that it has recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the claims are clearly focus on the combination
of abstract-idea processes.  The Federal Circuit distinguished the Enfish, which involved computer-functionality improvements, with the current case which uses existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas.”

Moving on to Step 2, the Federal Circuit noted that limiting the claims to the particular technological environment was not sufficient.  The Federal Circuit found nothing nothing significant to differentiate the claimed process from ordinary mental processes.  The Federal Circuit said that the claims do not require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it.  As a result, they do not require an arguably inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that would generate new data. They do not invoke any assertedly inventive programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information—to provide a “humanly
comprehensible” amount of information useful for users, does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis.  The Federal Circuit also found that there was nothing in how the steps were accomplishes, because the claims did require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and nongeneric arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.

The Federal Circuit concluded that nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.

Posted in 101

Repeated and Consistent Usage, including in Rule 131 Declaration, Defines Term

Posted on by

in GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., [2015-1825] (August 1, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination of noninfringement of  U.S. Patent Nos. 7,570,954 and  7,792,492, relating to a two-way paging system.

The focus was on the construction of the term node, which aside from the claims, was only used in the abstract.  The Federal Circuit began by noting that the only meaning that matters in claim construction is the meaning in the context of the patent.  The Federal Circuit noted that when a patent repeatedly and consistently” characterizes a claim term in a particular way, it is proper to construe the claim term in accordance
with that characterization.  The Federal Circuit also relied upon the prosecution history citing the way the “invention” was consistently and exclusively described in the inventor’s Rule 131 declaration.  The patent owner’s arguments about claim differentiation were rejected because of the consistent usages in the specification and the prosecution history.

The Federal Circuit also found it proper to require that the node “operates independently of a telephone network,” even though it was derived from a “single summation sentence” from the specification. However, this sentence read:

Thus, the invention provides a two-way paging system which operates independently from a telephone system for wireless data communication between users.

The Federal Circuit noted that when a patent describes the features of the “present invention” as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.

The Federal Circuit also rejected the patent owner’s complaint that the district court should have construed the term “pager,” stating that where a district court has resolved the questions about claim scope that were raised by the parties, it is under no obligation to address other potential ambiguities that have no bearing on the operative scope of the claim.  A court need not attempt the impossible task of resolving all questions of meaning with absolute, univocal finality.  Only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.  This is because “[s]uch an endeavor could proceed ad infinitum, as every word—whether a claim term itself, or the words a court uses to construe a claim term—is susceptible to further definition, elucidation, and explanation.”

The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury verdict of no infringement.

 

,”

 

Patent Drafters: Leaving Coining to the Mint

Posted on by

In Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., [2015-1732] (July 28, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,031,728 and 7,672,681 for indefiniteness.

At issue was the term “symbol generator” in the claims in a cellular communication system.  The Federal Circuit agreed that “symbol generator” invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, but were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.

The Federal Circuit said that the failure to use the word “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that §112, ¶ 6 does not apply.  Whether §112, ¶ 6, applies depends upon whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. The Federal Circuit said that the term “symbol generator” invokes §112, ¶ 6 because it fails to describe a sufficient structure
and otherwise recites abstract elements “for” causing actions, or elements “that can” perform functions.

The Federal Circuit noted that the patentee’s expert testified that the term “symbol generator” is a term coined for the purposes of the patents-in-suit, and that it was not used in “common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure.”  While the expert testified that “symbol” and “generator” are well known terms, the Federal Circuit found that the combination of the terms as used in the context of the relevant claim language suggests that it is simply an abstraction that describes the
function being performed (i.e., the generation of symbols).  Finally, the Federal Circuit found that the claim term “symbol generator,” by itself,
does not identify a structure by its function.

Having found that §112, ¶ 6, applies, the specification must disclose the corresponding structure or the claim in indefinte.  However, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the the specifications of the patents-in-suit did not disclose an operative algorithm for the claim elements reciting
“symbol generator.” The function of generating symbols must be performed by some component of the patents-in-suit; however, the Federal Circuit said that the patents-in-suit do not describe this component.

 

PTO Cannot Raise and Decide Unpatentability Theories Never Presented by the Petitioner

Posted on by

In In re Magnum Tools International, Ltd., [2015-1300] (July 25, 2016) the Federal Circuit reverse the PTAB’s determination that the challenged claims U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413 were invalid for obviousness.

The Federal Circuit examined burden of proof, which encompasses both a burden of persuasion and a burden of production.  The Federal Circuit said that In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”  Where, as here, the only question presented is whether due consideration of the four Graham factors renders a claim or claims obvious, no burden shifts from the patent challenger to the patentee.  This is especially true where the only issues to be considered are what the prior art discloses, whether there would have been a motivation to combine the prior art, and whether that combination would render the patented claims obvious.  The Federal Circuit said that the PTO’s burden shifting framework is directly at odds with its precedent holding that the decision to institute and the final written decision are “two very different analyses,” and each applies a “qualitatively different standard.”  Furthermore, because of the significant
difference between the standards of proof at institution and trial during an IPR, it is inappropriate to shift the burden to the patentee after institution to prove that the patent is patentable.

The Federal Circuit said the petitioner continues to bear the burden of
proving unpatentability after institution, and must do so by a preponderance of the evidence at trial. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). The Board has an obligation to assess the question anew after trial based on the totality of the record.

The patent owner argued that petitioner failed to establish a motivation to combine, pointing out that the Petition was based on a different reference than relied upon in the institution decision.  The Federal Circuit rejected the PTO’s position that this should have been challenged with a request for rehearing of the institution decision, holding that the patent owner can challenge a final Board opinion relying on the same rationale given in the institution decision.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the patent owner that the Board improperly shifted the burden to the patent owner to prove nonobviousness.  To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.

Finding that the petitioner failed to separately meet its burden of establishing obviousness, the Federal Circuit reversed.

The Federal Circuit went on to reject the USPTO’s position that the Board is free to adopt arguments on behalf of petitioners that could have been, but were not, raised by the petitioner during an IPR. Instead, the Board must base its decision on arguments that were advanced by a party, and to which the opposing party was given a chance to respond.  The Federal Circuit said that while the PTO has broad authority to establish procedures for revisiting earlier-granted patents in IPRs, that authority is not so broad that it allows the PTO to raise, address, and decide unpatentability theories never presented by the petitioner and not supported by record evidence.

 

 

 

 
 
Bryan K. Wheelock
Attorney at Law		 Office:
Mobile:
Fax:		 314.726.7505
314.691.0886
314.726.7501
 
7700 Bonhomme, Suite 400
St. Louis, MO 63105
IP Causes Worldwide  Bio  w  vCard
Metropolitan | Dallas w Detroit w St. Louis w Washington, DC
 

 

 

I win? No Fair!

Posted on by

In SkyHawke Technologies, LLC v, Deca International Corp., [2016-1325, 2016,1326] (July 15, 2015), the Federal Circuit granted Deca’s motion to dismiss SkyHawke’s appeal of a PTAB Decision in a reexamination on the grounds that SkwHawke was the prevailing party.

Even though SkyHawke “won” the reexamination, SkyHawke did not like the PTAB’s construction of its claim, and wanted the Federal Circuit to correct the PTABs’ claim construction.  The Federal Circuit observed that Courts of appeals employ a prudential rule that the prevailing party in a lower tribunal cannot ordinarily seek relief in the appellate court.  Even if the prevailing party alleges some adverse impact from the lower tribunal’s opinions or rulings leading to an ultimately favorable judgment, the matter is generally not proper for review.

The Federal Circuit found that SkyHawke’s appeal fits cleanly into this prudential prohibition. The Federal Circuit noted that the PTAB’s decision is not issue-preclusive precisely because SkyHawke cannot appeal it.

The Federal Circuit said that SkyHawke will have the opportunity to argue its preferred claim construction to the district court, and SkyHawke can appeal an unfavorable claim construction should that situation arise. With the present appeal, SkyHawke is merely trying to preempt an unfavorable outcome that may or may not arise in the future and, if it does arise, is readily appealable at that time. Therefore,  the Federal Circuit found no reason to deviate from the standard rule counseling against our review of prevailing party appeals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sale of Manufacturing Services Does Not Trigger On Sale Bar Under Pre-AIA §102

Posted on by

In The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., [2014-1469, 2014,1504] (July 11, 2016), the en banc Federal Circuit reversed a panel decision finding that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 and 7,598,343 were invalid under the on-sale bar of §102(b), because of the sales activities of the patent owner’s contract manufacturer,

The Federal Circuit reviewed this history of the §102(b) bar, and the Supreme Court’s two-part Pfaff test, under which the challenger must show (1) the invention was subject to a commercial sale, and (2) the invention was ready for patenting.  Unlike most cases which focus on the second prong of the test, this case focused on the first prong.  The Federal Circuit clarified that the mere sale of manufacturing services by a contract manufacturer to an inventor to create embodiments of a patented product for an inventor does not constitute a “commercial sale” of the invention.  The Federal Circuit identified three reasons for its decision:

  1. only manufacturing services were sold to the inventor — the invention was not;
  2. the inventor maintained control of the invention –retaining title, and the manufacturer was not authorized to sell to third parties.
  3. “stockpiling” inventory without more does not trigger the on-sale bar.

Even though this case applies to the pre-AIA version of §102, it will have relevance for many years until the last of the pre-AIA patents expire.