Patents Post Grant Blog

 

Rejection in Ex Parte Patent Reexamination Flawed as to Means-Plus-Function Claim Analysis

On May 26, 2010 the BPAI affirmed-in-part the final rejection of certain claims in the ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent 6,102,802 owned by Anascape LTD. The ‘802 Patent relates to gaming controllers, and was previously asserted in the E.D. of Texas against Microsoft and Nintendo. Since the commencement of the litigation, both defendants appear to have settled.

The BPAI affirmed the rejection of method claims 12-15 of the ‘802 Patent based on an obviousness rejection. More interestingly the rejection of means-plus-function claims (MPF) 3-11 and 16-19 was reversed…kinda Read the rest of this entry »

In a March Federal Register Notice, the USPTO outlined a new procedure for eliminating redundant appeal processing in patent applications. The redundancy was the result of both the examiner and BPAI performing the same review as to whether or not an Appeal Brief was compliant with the rules. Often times this led to the examiner accepting a non-compliant brief only to have the Board kick it back to applicant months or even years later for a previously overlooked informality. Likewise, some complained of examiners abusing the non-compliance notice as a way to avoid answering appeal briefs. The notice of March outlined a new mechanism by which the Chief Judge would be solely responsible for determining brief compliance prior to Examiner review. At the end of this notice, the USPTO pointed out that ex parte and inter partes patent reexamination appeals were not subject to the new mechanism, but the Office was considering such treatment in the future.

Yesterday, the same mechanism was noticed in the Federal Register for ex parte patent reexamination appeals. A notice relative to inter partes is expected in the near future. These improvements should help avoid some of the more aggravating delays experienced on appeal to the BPAI. Of course, with a significant, and growing appeal backlog, any impact of this change may be offset by sheer numbers.

Parallel Networks Case Moves Forward in Marshall Texas Despite Pending Appeal of Patent Reexaminations

As if the i4i issue wasn’t enough of a Texas debacle for Microsoft on May 10, 2010, Judge David Folsom of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, denied Microsoft’s Motion to Continue the Stay of their litigation with Parallel Networks pending reexamination of the Patents-in-Suit (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,894,554 (the “‘554 patent”) and 6,415,335 (the”‘335 patent). The Parallel Network patents are directed to  systems and methods for managing dynamic websites.

Parallel’s patent infringement suit was temporarily stayed while a venue dispute was settled relative to copending actions in the Delaware District Court.

The USPTO has rejected all of the claims in Reexamination Control Nos. 90/008,574 (the “‘554 patent reexamination”) and 90/008,568 (the “‘335 patent reexamination”).  Both cases are now on appeal to the BPAI.  The case is rather unremarkable Read the rest of this entry »

Different standards lead to different results in patent reexamination and district court litigation

During district court patent infringement litigation between Baxter and Fresenius, Fresenius requested reexamination of Baxter’s patents relating to hemodialysis machines with touch screen  interfaces. At trial, the jury returned a verdict finding the patents invalid. However, the trial judge overturned the jury’s verdict. Fresenius then appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit  overruled the trial judge on one of the patents-in-suit, finding that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of obviousness. On another patent-in-suit, the Federal Circuit sided with Baxter that Fresenius had not proven patent claim invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.

In the reexamination proceeding on a third patent-in-suit, the USPTO finally rejected the patent claims forcing  Baxter to file an appeal Read the rest of this entry »

On March 15, 2010, an expanded BPAI panel that included Chief APJ, Michael Fleming and Vice Chief APJ, Allen MacDonald rendered a decision on rehearing of an expired patent of the infamous Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing L.P portfolio. The rehearing addressed the standard for claim construction in expired U.S. Patent No. 5,561,707. A copy of the decision is found (here).

The original BPAI decision contained a statement that, in construing the claims of an expired patent during a reexamination proceeding, “the claims will not be narrowed by interpretation not required by the claim language.”  The expanded BPAI panel clarified the statement made in the original panel decision by stating that “[i]t does not say that the claim terms cannot be interpreted using different words or limit the sources of claim meaning.”

The expanded panel agreed that Read the rest of this entry »

As first reported by PatentsPostGrant.com in November 2009, the patent reexaminations of NTP vs. RIM infamy were soundly shot down by the BPAI.[1]  In November of 2009, the BPAI began issuing a series of decisions affirming the rejections of the five NTP patents. 

5,436,960 BPAI reexamination opinion (link)
5,819,172 BPAI reexamination opinion (link)
6,317,592 BPAI reexamination opinion (link) 
6,067,451 BPAI reexamination opinion (link)
5,625,670 BPAI reexamination opinion (90/007,723)

As expected, in December of 2009, NTP requested the BPAI rehear arguments in these cases.  Earlier this month, the BPAI, in tersely worded responses, denied rehearing in the ’592 ‘172, and ‘960 patents.  As the issues in the ‘670 and ‘451 patent are common, namely, consideration of certain declaration and the public availability of certain prior art, it is expected that the remaining two denials will follow shortly. Next stop for NTP is the Federal Circuit. 

The Federal Circuit will be quite busy with NTP in the coming months.  In addition to the five patents noted above, NTP has two additional appeals from the BPAI headed to the court. 

5,438,611 BPAI reexamination opinion (link) 
-(CAFC appeal noticed 1/26/10)
5,479,472 BPAI reexamination opinion (link) 
-(Rehearing denied 2/5/10)

NTP patent, 5,438,611 appears to be out in front of the pack of (7) appeals, with the first formal CAFC appeal notice filed this past January. The ‘611 Patent, and NTP patent 5,479,472 were asserted against Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T and Palm, in 2006.  As with the five patents above, the BPAI mostly affirmed the rejections applied in reexamination. 

Stay tuned.

---

[1] Rejection of all claims were affirmed in 6,317,592, 5,819,172, and 6,067,451; Rejections  were affirmed-in-part in 5,436,960 and 5,625,670, (the surviving ‘670 claims appear to have been added in reexamination, claim 15 of the ‘960 appears to be the only surviving claim successfully asserted against RIM)

Ex parte reexamination appeals:

For FY 09 ending September 30, 2009 the BPAI docketed 119 ex parte reexamination appeals; disposed of 96 and ended the fiscal year with 78 ex parte reexamination appeals in inventory.

BPAI pendency was 5.9 months down 1.1 months in FY 08. The pendency from Notice of Appeal to decision was 27.7 months down .3 months from FY 08. The pendency of BPAI decided appeals from ex parte reexamination filing date was 58.2 months down 2.2 months from FY 08.

Inter partes reexamination appeals:

For FY 09 ending September 30, 2009 the BPAI docketed 15 inter partes reexamination appeals; disposed of 11 and ended the fiscal year with 10 inter partes reexamination appeals in inventory.

BPAI pendency was 7 months down 1.1 months in FY 08. The pendency from Notice of Appeal to decision was 32.1 months up 4.5 months from FY 08. The pendency of BPAI decided appeals from inter partes reexamination filing date was 67.3 months up 16.4 months from FY 08.

In an earlier post, we commented on the case of Sigram Schindler Beteilungsgesellschaft mbH v. Kappos, No. 1:09-cv-935-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va.), which raised the issue of whether the USPTO’s interpretation of Public Law 107-273, section 13202(d), codified at 35 U.S.C. § 306, was proper.  The USPTO interprets 35 U.S.C. § 306 as prohibiting a patent owner in an ex parte reexamination from obtaining judicial review of a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) by filing a civil suit against the USPTO in federal district court.  Under the USPTO interpretation, codified at 37 C.F.R. § 1.303 and discussed in MPEP § 2279, the patent owner may only seek judicial review in an ex parte reexamination filed on or after November 29, 1999, by appealing the decision of the BPAI to the Federal Circuit.  This is significant to patent owners because civil suit against the USPTO in district court results in de novo review of the BPAI decision and affords the patent owner an opportunity to take third party discovery.

On Friday, December 18, 2009, Judge T.S. Ellis, III, issued an opinion that Read the rest of this entry »

On October 30, 2009, in Ex parte Senju Metal Industry Co. the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (”BPAI”) affirmed a rejection of non-original patent claims in a reexamination proceeding directed to soldering flux for soldering elements.
As a predicate to its decision, the BPAI explained the rationale behind application of the broadest reasonable interpretation rule in administrative proceedings within the USPTO. “This longstanding principle is based on the notion that ‘during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.’ That is, a patent applicant has the opportunity and responsibility to remove any ambiguity in claim term meaning by amending the application. ‘Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.’ ‘[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.’”.
During the reexamination proceeding the patent examiner determined that the claim term “volatile organic solvent conventionally used in a soldering flux” failed to meet the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112, 2nd paragraph because the description of the invention did not recite this language, “let alone any disclosure that would enlighten one skilled in the relevant art as to what solvents are covered by the [term].” The appellants in an effort to overcome the rejection filed a declaration averring that a person skilled in the relevant art would understand “volatile” to mean “evaporating or passing off readily in the form of a vapor and that solvents in the [patent at issue] fall under this definition.” Appellants argued that “[o]ne skilled in the art of preparing soldering fluxes would understand what solvents are conventionally used in soldering flux.”
Agreeing with the patent examiner, the BPAI observed that the limitation “volatile organic solvent” cannot be found in the patent specification. Also the appellants used the term in a “manner contrary to the ordinary meaning of the term” urging that ethylene glycol, which has a boiling point of 197°C, is covered by the claim. The BPAI then held that the “use of terms contrary to their ordinary meanings, in and of itself, does not render a claim indefinite, for [p]atentees are free to act as their own lexicographers … one skilled in the relevant art would not be able to ascertain whether an organic solvent with a boiling point of, e.g., 200°C would be covered by the disputed claim terms.” The BPAI determined that the specification “does not reasonably apprise the full scope of what Patentees mean by ‘volatile organic solvent conventionally used in a soldering flux.’”
Compare this decision with the our November 18, 2009 posting Attacking a Patent in Reexamination for Lack of Written Description and Enablement?

Despite the $612.5 million patent infringement settlement between NTP and RIM in 2006, there have remained ongoing reexaminations making their way through the reexamination and appeal process at the USPTO.  On November 10, The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) affirmed final rejections relating to two reexaminations of NTP (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,819,172 and 6,317,592). 

As brief background, the reexamination of the NTP patents began during the litigation between NTP v. RIM.  The reexaminations continued at the USPTO in parallel with the then ongoing, and now infamous, litigation.  However, the co-pending litigation continued on to the settlement, narrowly avoiding a disruption of RIM’s business in the U.S via court imposed injunction. 

The BPAI decisions are uncharacteristically voluminous, spanning some 300 pages.  The BPAI soundly rejected several NTP positions, and was able to affirm the rejection of the claims in both NTP patents on appeal.  The remaining patents of the RIM case are also on appeal, with decisions very likely forthcoming in the near term (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,067,451; 5,625,670; and 5,436,960).