{"id":2198,"date":"2018-09-13T13:05:27","date_gmt":"2018-09-13T17:05:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2198"},"modified":"2018-09-15T13:39:39","modified_gmt":"2018-09-15T17:39:39","slug":"capable-of-construction-rather-than-configured-to-construction-dooms-apparatus-but-not-method-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2198","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;Capable of&#8221; Construction (Rather than &#8220;Configured to&#8221; Construction) Dooms Apparatus, but Not Method Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/opinions-orders\/17-2012.Opinion.9-13-2018.pdf\">Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated<\/a>, [2017-2012, 2017-2013, 2017-2014, 2017-2074] (September 13, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB&#8217;s determination in related inter partes review\u00a0proceedings, The certain apparatus claims of\u00a0U.S. Patent No. 6,091,940,\u00a0generally related to telecommunications\u00a0devices,\u00a0 were unpatentable\u00a0as obvious under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 103(a), and that certain method claims were not unpatentable.<\/p>\n<p>The Federal Circuit rejected the argument that the Board erred by basing its<br \/>\npatentability decisions on theories and evidence regarding\u00a0the phrase \u201cplurality of harmonics\u201d that Qualcomm did\u00a0not present in its petitions.\u00a0 The case came down to whether the claim language required the production of the\u00a0\u201cplurality of harmonics,\u201d or simply the <em>capability<\/em> of producing\u00a0the\u00a0\u201cplurality of harmonics\u201d &#8212;\u00a0 The Federal Circuit found the claim language merely required the capability of\u00a0producing\u00a0the plurality of harmonics, which was met by the prior art that was similarly capable.<\/p>\n<p>The method claims presented a different story &#8212;\u00a0 while Qualcomm was only required to identify a prior art\u00a0reference that discloses an apparatus \u201ccapable of\u201d performing<br \/>\nthe recited functions to prove that the apparatus\u00a0claims would have been obvious, more was required with\u00a0respect to the method claims. Specifically, Qualcomm\u00a0needed to present evidence and argument that a person of\u00a0ordinary skill would have been motivated to operate the prior art in a manner that satisfied the \u201cplurality of harmonics\u201d<br \/>\nlimitation, which Qualcomm failed to do.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, [2017-2012, 2017-2013, 2017-2014, 2017-2074] (September 13, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB&#8217;s determination in related inter partes review\u00a0proceedings, The certain apparatus claims of\u00a0U.S. Patent No. 6,091,940,\u00a0generally related to telecommunications\u00a0devices,\u00a0 were unpatentable\u00a0as obvious under &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2198\">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":[7,26,12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2198","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-constructino","category-inter-partes-review","category-obviousness"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2198","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=2198"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2198\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2200,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2198\/revisions\/2200"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2198"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2198"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2198"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}