{"id":1632,"date":"2017-07-07T22:12:41","date_gmt":"2017-07-08T02:12:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1632"},"modified":"2017-07-14T07:24:52","modified_gmt":"2017-07-14T11:24:52","slug":"pto-erred-by-not-identifying-algorithm-corresponding-to-%c2%a7112-%c2%b6-6-element-before-invalidating-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1632","title":{"rendered":"PTO Erred by Not Identifying Algorithm Corresponding to \u00a7112, \u00b6 6 Element Before Invalidating Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In<a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/opinions-orders\/16-1474.Opinion.7-6-2017.1.PDF\"> IPCOM GmbH &amp; Co. v. HRC Corp.<\/a>, [2016-1474] (July 7, 2017) the Federal Circuit found that the Board failed to\u00a0conduct a proper claim construction of the \u201carrangement\u00a0for reactivating the link\u201d claim limitation, and we vacate\u00a0and remand the obviousness rejections based on that\u00a0limitation.<\/p>\n<p>The IPR challenged U.S. Patent\u00a0No. 6,879,830 (\u2019830 patent), which describes and\u00a0claims a method and system for handing over a mobile\u00a0phone call from one base station to another base station. \u00a0The Federal Circuit noted that while the Board correctly identified\u00a0 \u201carrangement\u00a0for reactivating the link\u201d was a means plus function element,\u00a0it failed\u00a0to properly construe that limitation. The Board rejected\u00a0IPCom\u2019s proposed three-step algorithm allegedly disclosed\u00a0in the \u2019830 specification for performing the \u201carrangement\u00a0for reactivating the link\u201d function, but the Board failed to\u00a0identify what it believed to be the correct algorithm from\u00a0the specification; that omission led to an incomplete\u00a0construction of the claim limitation and is incompatible\u00a0<em>In re Donaldson<\/em>. \u00a0\u00a7112, \u00b6 6 [now 112(f)] applies\u00a0regardless of the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-function language arises, i.e., whether as part\u00a0of a patentability determination in the PTO or as part of a\u00a0validity or infringement determination in a court. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said that\u00a0the PTO\u00a0may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification\u00a0corresponding to such language when rendering a\u00a0patentability determination.<\/p>\n<p>The Federal Circuit vacated the Board\u2019s claim construction of the \u201carrangement\u00a0for reactivating the link\u201d limitation, and\u00a0remanded for the Board to identify the corresponding algorithm (if any) in the specification in the first instance. \u00a0The Federal Circuit further vacated the determination of obviousness because the Board never identified any algorithm for the \u201carrangement\u00a0for reactivating the link\u201d limitation, the Board\u00a0further erred by failing to evaluate whether the prior art\u00a0disclosed that algorithm (or its equivalents).<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In IPCOM GmbH &amp; Co. v. HRC Corp., [2016-1474] (July 7, 2017) the Federal Circuit found that the Board failed to\u00a0conduct a proper claim construction of the \u201carrangement\u00a0for reactivating the link\u201d claim limitation, and we vacate\u00a0and remand the obviousness rejections &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1632\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[57,30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-112f","category-reexamination"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1632","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1632"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1632\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1647,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1632\/revisions\/1647"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}