IN RE IMES (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Broadest reasonable interpretation rubric cannot focus solely on a literal interpretation of claim terms

by | Jan 29, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

The broadest reasonable interpretation rubric employed by the PTO cannot ignore characteristic features of claim terms in favor of a purely literal interpretation of those terms. Here, for example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “wireless” communication...

PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES v. SULZER MIXPAC AG (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – A reference’s specific contribution to the art may be used to characterize its “principle of operation”

by | Jan 27, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness

A reference’s specific contribution to the art beyond its more conventional features may be used to characterize its “principle of operation” in considering whether such functionality would be preserved by an otherwise obvious modification. Here, for example, a...

IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Machine translation of a foreign reference is adequate for simple technologies with straightforward figures

by | Jan 20, 2015 | [sub] foreign references, Prior Art

A machine translation of a foreign language reference may be deemed adequate evidence of the reference’s content for simple technologies with straightforward figures. Here, for example, a machine translation of a Japanese reference directed to lighting for marine...

IN RE STOLLER (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Claim terms should be given a broadest reasonable interpretation that captures their characteristic feature

by | Jan 15, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

Claim terms should be given a broadest reasonable interpretation by the PTO that effectively captures their characteristic feature over other common features. Here, for example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “laminated” was found to require a structure...

DELANO FARMS COMPANY v. CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE COMM. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Efforts to maintain control over the use of the invention may negate an otherwise public use

by | Jan 9, 2015 | [sub] public use, Prior Art

The inventor or a third party’s efforts to maintain control over the use of the invention may negate an otherwise public use under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Here, for example, a third-party misappropriator who illicitly obtained the claimed invention but for that reason...