APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – An information disclosure statement constitutes a tacit admission that those references are analogous art

by Steve Driskill | Feb 26, 2016 | [sub] analogous art, [sub] information disclosure, Prior Art

Submitting a reference to the PTO in an information disclosure statement constitutes a tacit admission that the reference is at least analogous art if not material. Here, for example, the patentee’s arguments that a cited reference was not analogous art for the...

HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP. v. ZIMMER, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – A well-understood tradeoff between two variables to achieve the same end-product is generally obvious

by Steve Driskill | Feb 26, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness

Making a well-understood tradeoff between two variables to achieve the same end-product is generally obvious. Here, for example, decreasing an annealing temperate while increasing a corresponding annealing time was found to be obvious in view of the well-known...

PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Broadest dictionary definition does not necessarily satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation standard

by Steve Driskill | Feb 22, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

The broadest dictionary definition of a claim term does not necessarily satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Here, for example, the PTO’s asserted definition of a continuity member positioned to “reside around” a coaxial cable as requiring nothing...

PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Inconsistent examples in the specification facilitate invalidity at the PTO without additional protection

by Steve Driskill | Feb 22, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

Minor but inconsistent examples in the specification may facilitate invalidity by broadening claim interpretation at the PTO so as to bring in additional prior art without necessarily broadening the scope of patent protection. Here, for example, although the...

ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION v. FELLOWES, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – It is generally obvious to try any of a finite number of arrangements of prior art elements

by Steve Driskill | Feb 22, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness

It is generally obvious to try any of a finite number of arrangements of prior art elements even if a subset of those arrangements fall outside of the claim scope at issue. Here, for example, the fact that there were only two feasible arrangements of two sensors...