{"id":261,"date":"2015-11-13T16:04:56","date_gmt":"2015-11-13T21:04:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=261"},"modified":"2015-11-14T16:05:06","modified_gmt":"2015-11-14T21:05:06","slug":"no-need-to-accentuate-the-positive-eliminate-the-negative","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=261","title":{"rendered":"No Need to Accentuate the Positive — Eliminate the Negative"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Inphi Corporation v, Netlist, Inc.<\/em>, [2015-1179] (November 13, 3015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the BPAI\u00a0decision affirming\u00a0the examiner\u2019s final decision declining to reject claims amended during inter partes<\/em> reexamination to add a negative limitation. At issue in this appeal is a negative claim\u00a0limitation Netlist introduced by amendment, limiting the
\nclaimed chip selects to exclude three particular types of\u00a0signals (CAS, RAS, and bank-address signals):<\/p>\n

wherein the system\u00a0memory domain is compatible with a\u00a0first number of chip selects, and the physical\u00a0memory domain is compatible with a second\u00a0number of chip selects equal to twice the\u00a0first number of chip selects, wherein the\u00a0plurality of memory devices comprises double-data rate (DDR) dynamic random-access\u00a0memory (DRAM) devices and the chip selects\u00a0of the first and second number of chip selects\u00a0are DDR chip selects that are not CAS,\u00a0RAS, or bank address signals.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Federal Circuit said that\u00a0\u201c[n]egative claim limitations are adequately
\nsupported when the specification describes a\u00a0reason to exclude the relevant limitation.\u201d Santarus<\/em>, 694\u00a0F.3d at 1351. \u00a0The Federal Circuit characterized the issue as\u00a0\u00a0whether the specification\u00a0of the \u2019537 patent provides a \u201creason to exclude\u201d CAS,\u00a0RAS, or bank address signals that is sufficient to satisfy\u00a0the written description requirement. \u00a0The Federal Circuit quoted from Santarus<\/em> that:<\/p>\n

Negative claim limitations are adequately supported\u00a0when the specification describes a reason to\u00a0exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description\u00a0support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.\u00a0In fact, it is possible for the patentee to\u00a0support both the inclusion and exclusion of the\u00a0same material.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Federal Circuit said that the \u201creason\u201d required by Santarus is provided, for instance,
\nby properly describing alternative features of the\u00a0patented invention.<\/p>\n

The parties agreed that the disclosure\u00a0in the \u2019537 patent distinguishes among the relevant
\nsignal types, but disagreed about whether that\u00a0distinction creates a \u201creason to exclude\u201d that satisfies the\u00a0requirements of \u00a7 112, paragraph 1, and\u00a0the Federal Circuit held that the disclosure as an alternative was a sufficient reason to exclude.<\/p>\n

As long as the disclosure makes a distinction, you don’t have to accentuate the positive, or eliminate the negative, the disclosure will support a negative limitation.<\/p>\n

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

In Inphi Corporation v, Netlist, Inc., [2015-1179] (November 13, 3015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the BPAI\u00a0decision affirming\u00a0the examiner\u2019s final decision declining to reject claims amended during inter partes reexamination to add a negative limitation. At issue in this appeal is … 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":[6,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-261","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-patent-law","category-patent-prosecution"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261","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=261"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":262,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261\/revisions\/262"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=261"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=261"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=261"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}