{"id":2215,"date":"2018-09-04T12:56:30","date_gmt":"2018-09-04T16:56:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2215"},"modified":"2018-09-17T08:37:46","modified_gmt":"2018-09-17T12:37:46","slug":"clearly-defining-a-term-without-providing-any-way-to-determine-when-it-has-been-optimized-as-claimed-dooms-claims-under-112","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2215","title":{"rendered":"Clearly Defining A Term Without Providing Any Way to Determine When it has Been “Optimized” as Claimed Dooms Claims Under 112"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.<\/a>, [2017-2434, 2017-2435](September 4, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,640,248 were indefinite, and vacated and remanded summary judgment of non-infringement because of erroneous claim construction.<\/p>\n

At issue was the term\u00a0\u201cApplication-Aware Resource Allocator.\u201d\u00a0 The district court\u00a0 adopted T-Mobile\u2019s construction of\u00a0\u201capplication-aware resource allocator\u201d as requiring that\u00a0when allocating bandwidth,\u00a0the application-aware resource allocator must take\u00a0into account information obtained from the application\u00a0layer 7. However the Federal Circuit determined that\u00a0\u00a0application\u00a0awareness requires only that the resource allocator allocate\u00a0resources based on application type, which can be\u00a0discerned using information obtained from any of network\u00a0layer 3, transport layer 4, or application layer 7.\u00a0\u00a0The plain language of the claims, the\u00a0specification, and the prosecution history all support this
\nconstruction. The Federal Circuit rejected T-Mobile’s arguments about disavowal, noting\u00a0disavowal is an \u201cexacting\u201d\u00a0standard under which it must be established that the
\npatentee demonstrated an intent to deviate from the\u00a0ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term\u00a0through expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,\u00a0representing a clear disavowal of claim scope, and the statements in the prosecution history did not meet this exacting standard.<\/p>\n

On the definiteness issue, the Federal Circuit found that the district court did not erroneously fail to consider the structure after determining that the function was indefinite.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit concluded that the claim requirement of optimizing QoS requirements was entirely\u00a0subjective and user-defined. The Federal Circuit pointed out that the \u2019248 patent analogizes\u00a0QoS to \u201ca continuum, defined by what network performance\u00a0characteristic is most important to a particular\u00a0user\u201d and characterizes it as \u201ca relative term, finding\u00a0different meanings for different users.\u201d The patent concluded that ultimately,\u201cthe end-user experience is the final arbiter of QoS.\u201d\u00a0 Thus while specification clearly defines that the QoS relates to the\u00a0end-user experience, it fails to provide one of ordinary skill\u00a0in the art with any way to determine whether QoS has
\nbeen optimized.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., [2017-2434, 2017-2435](September 4, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,640,248 were indefinite, and vacated and remanded summary judgment of non-infringement because … 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":[7,14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2215","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-constructino","category-indefiniteness"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2215","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=2215"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2215\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2218,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2215\/revisions\/2218"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2215"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2215"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2215"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}