{"id":1873,"date":"2017-12-22T19:23:59","date_gmt":"2017-12-23T00:23:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1873"},"modified":"2017-12-22T19:23:59","modified_gmt":"2017-12-23T00:23:59","slug":"aqua-holds-water-boards-denial-of-motion-to-amend-vacated-because-board-improperly-put-burden-on-patent-owner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1873","title":{"rendered":"Aqua Holds Water; Board’s Denial of Motion to Amend Vacated Because Board Improperly Put Burden on Patent Owner"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal<\/a>, [2015-1928] (December 22, 2017), the Federal Circuit\u00a0affirmed the Board\u2019s finding of unpatentability\u00a0of claims 1, 4\u201315, and 20\u201322, of U.S. Patent No. 6,904,796, on a remote tire monitoring system, but vacated\u00a0and remanded the denial of Bosch\u2019s motion to amend as to\u00a0proposed substitute claims 23\u201338.<\/p>\n

On appeal Bosch primary argued lack of motivation to combine, but the Federal Circuit was bit persuaded, noting that the prior art\u00a0must be considered for everything it\u00a0teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing\u00a0and attempting to\u00a0protect.\u201d\u00a0 Bosch also argued commercial success, but the Federal Circuit found that Bosch failed to prove commercial success with a nexus to the claims.\u00a0 In particular the Federal Circuit agreed that a declarant’s “understanding” that the products are covered by the patent was an insufficient foundation.<\/p>\n

As to Bosch’s Motion to Amend, the Board rejected Boesch’s proposed amended\u00a0claims 23\u201335 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 112, \u00b6 2, and Bosch’s\u00a0proposed amended claims 36\u201338 as unpatentable over the
\nprior art.\u00a0 \u00a0Among other arguments, Bosch challenged the\u00a0Board\u2019s rejection of both sets of proposed amended claims\u00a0on the grounds that the Board impermissibly placed the\u00a0burden on Bosch to establish patentability.<\/p>\n

As to claims 23-35, the Federal Circuit found that the Board impermissibly assigned the burden of proof to Bosch, and vacated the Board\u2019s\u00a0denial of Bosch\u2019s motion to amend with respect\u00a0to proposed claims 23\u201335 and remand for the Board to\u00a0evaluate the patentability of the proposed amended\u00a0claims consistent with Aqua Products.\u00a0 Similarly with respect to claims 36-38, the Federal Circuit found the Board improperly placed the burden of proving patentability over the prior art on Bosch, and vacated and remanded the motion to amend these claims as well.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal, [2015-1928] (December 22, 2017), the Federal Circuit\u00a0affirmed the Board\u2019s finding of unpatentability\u00a0of claims 1, 4\u201315, and 20\u201322, of U.S. Patent No. 6,904,796, on a remote tire monitoring system, but vacated\u00a0and remanded the … Continue reading →<\/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":[26,72],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1873","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-inter-partes-review","category-motion-to-amend"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1873","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=1873"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1873\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1874,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1873\/revisions\/1874"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1873"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1873"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1873"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}