{"id":3570,"date":"2023-10-16T22:42:35","date_gmt":"2023-10-17T03:42:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3570"},"modified":"2023-12-12T17:49:28","modified_gmt":"2023-12-12T23:49:28","slug":"remand-because-the-federal-circuit-could-not-determine-whether-boards-error-was-merely-typographical-and-harmless-or-an-error-of-substance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3570","title":{"rendered":"Remand Because the Federal Circuit Could Not Determine whether Board\u2019s Error was Merely Typographical and Harmless or an Error of Substance"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Corephotonics, Ltd., v. Apple Inc.<\/em>, [2022-1340, 2022-1341, 2022-1455, 2022-1456]<\/a> (October 16, 2023) the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB\u2019s determination that two references were analogous prior art, while vacating and remanding the Board\u2019s obviousness determination for the Board to explain why a third reference — Martin — is (or is not) analogous art and how this finding affects its overall conclusion as to obviousness.\u00a0 The Challenged Patents relate to dual-aperture camera systems and disclose techniques for using the images from both lenses when zooming while capturing video.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prior art references are applicable to the obviousness inquiry only when they are analogous to the claims being challenged. See In re Clay<\/em>, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Bigio<\/em>, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Art that is \u201ctoo remote\u201d from the patents being attacked cannot be treated as prior art.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit uses two separate tests to define the scope of analogous art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor\u2019s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple\u2019s\u00a0petitions were ambiguous; they did not make clear whether Apple was stating that Golan and Martin are in the same field of endeavor as the Challenged Patents or, instead, merely that Golan and Martin are in the same field of endeavor as one another. The Board wrote, \u201cMartin is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor: reducing an image jump effect seen in video output images when switching between cameras that have different fields of view. <\/em>Apple and Corephotonics agree that these two sentences are, as written, incorrect: Martin does not disclose switching between cameras with different fields of view; rather, it is addressed to cameras with different points of view.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit was unable We are unable to discern if the Board\u2019s error was, in fact, merely typographical and harmless or, instead, a potentially-impactful error of substance. This prevented the Federal Circuit from concluding either that there is, or is not, substantial evidence to support the Board\u2019s conclusion that Martin is analogous art to the Challenged Patents.\u00a0 Accordingly, the Federal Circuit remanded to the Board for further explanation and, if needed, further fact finding.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Corephotonics, Ltd., v. Apple Inc., [2022-1340, 2022-1341, 2022-1455, 2022-1456] (October 16, 2023) the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB\u2019s determination that two references were analogous prior art, while vacating and remanding the Board\u2019s obviousness determination for the Board to explain … 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],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3570","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-constructino"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3570","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=3570"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3570\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3571,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3570\/revisions\/3571"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}