{"id":3200,"date":"2021-12-29T04:28:00","date_gmt":"2021-12-29T10:28:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3200"},"modified":"2022-01-30T22:33:11","modified_gmt":"2022-01-31T04:33:11","slug":"the-proper-claim-construction-of-a-term-is-not-necessarily-the-sum-of-its-parts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3200","title":{"rendered":"The Proper Claim Construction of a Term is Not Necessarily the Sum of its Parts"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>In <a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/opinions-orders\/20-1664.OPINION.12-28-2021_1885985.pdf\">Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.<\/a>, [2020-1664] (December 28, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the final written decision of the originally challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,229,043, but vacated and remanded as to the substitute claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Federal Circuit addressed first considered the phrase \u201cradio frequency input signal\u201d in \u2019043 patent claims 17, 19, and 21.  Intel argued that the term should be given its ordinary meaning, while Qualcomm argued for a more specific construction.  The Federal Circuit noted that &#8216;[e]ven without considering the surrounding claim language or the rest of the patent document, . . .it is not always appropriate to break down a phrase and give it an interpretation that is merely the sum of its parts.&#8221;  The Federal Circuit said that the surrounding language points in favor of Qualcomm&#8217;s construction, adopted by the Board.  The Federal Circuit said the linguistic clues suggested that \u201cradio frequency input signal,\u201d to the relevant audience, refers to the signal entering the device as a whole, not (as Intel proposes) to any radio frequency signal entering any component.  The Federal Circuit said that the specification provides further support for the Board\u2019s reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Federal Circuit concluded that in sum, while Intel\u2019s interpretation may have superficial appeal, Qualcomm\u2019s better reflects the usage of \u201cradio frequency input signal\u201d in the intrinsic record, and affirmed it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On the question of obviousness, the Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence does not<br>support the Board\u2019s determination that a skilled artisan would have lacked reason to combine the prior art to achieve substitute claims 27, 28, and 31.  The Federal Circuit rejected the Board&#8217;s rationale for determining that it would not have been obvious to combine the references.  The Federal Circuit noted that a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it\u2019s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., [2020-1664] (December 28, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the final written decision of the originally challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,229,043, but vacated and remanded as to the substitute claims. The Federal Circuit &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3200\">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":[7,26,12,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-constructino","category-inter-partes-review","category-obviousness","category-uncategorized"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3200","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=3200"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3200\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3203,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3200\/revisions\/3203"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}